[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 148 (Monday, September 16, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5486-S5488]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, EDUCATION, DEFENSE, STATE, FOREIGN 
OPERATIONS, AND ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2020--
                           Motion to Proceed

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 140, 
H.R. 2740.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 140, H.R. 2740, making 
     appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
     Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  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 motion to 
     proceed to H.R. 2740, a bill making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2020, and for other purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, Roger F. Wicker, John Cornyn, Richard C. 
           Shelby, John Barrasso, Johnny Isakson, Richard Burr, 
           Thom Tillis, Mike Rounds, Jerry Moran, Mike Crapo, 
           James E. Risch, John Boozman, Roy Blunt, John Thune, 
           David Perdue, John Hoeven.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S5487]]

  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                             Appropriations

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, before I begin, I just want to comment on 
the Republican leader's remarks.
  I listened to Leader McConnell's remarks about the appropriations 
process. He accused Democrats of wanting to provoke a partisan fight 
with the President rather than fund our military.
  It was a bold accusation considering that it was the President and 
the Republican majority on the Appropriations Committee who proposed 
taking funding from the military to spend on the President's wall. That 
is what Democrats oppose. That is what Leader McConnell called staging 
a political fight.
  Across the country we see communities, military bases, and people in 
the military saying: Taking away this money hurts us. All Democrats are 
asking for is to protect the troops from having their resources robbed 
for a border wall--resources that Congress said should go to the 
military. By the way, the President promised Mexico would pay for the 
wall. Let's not forget that.
  In March, 12 Republicans voted with us to reject the President's 
proposal. That is a lot in a place where people fear the President and 
don't like to buck him. The real question is, Will the rest join us 
now? That is the issue.


                           Background Checks

  Mr. President, on guns and the tragedies that have occurred in the 
last 6 weeks, it has been over 6 weeks since President Trump, in the 
aftermath of two tragic mass shootings, signaled that he would be 
supportive of expanding background checks. It has been over 200 days--
201, I believe--since the House of Representatives passed a bipartisan 
bill that would strengthen background checks in the most comprehensive 
way. Yet, despite those two facts, we still have no idea what policy 
President Trump might support.
  Yesterday, at the request of Speaker Pelosi and me, we held a phone 
call with the President to urge him to support the bipartisan, House-
passed universal background checks bill and to make that position 
public. We are certainly willing to discuss the finer points of 
legislation with our Republican colleagues, but we have made one thing 
clear to the President: The effectiveness of gun safety measures will 
be severely compromised if we allow the loopholes in our background 
check system to remain intact.
  For example, it has been widely reported that the President is 
considering legislation dealing with Extreme Risk Protection Orders, 
ERPOs, as part of the response to last month's horrific shootings. I 
support ERPOs and believe they can be an important piece of a broader 
effort to prevent gun violence. But even if we pass a strong bill on 
ERPOs, someone prohibited from possessing a gun under an Extreme Risk 
Protection Order could still obtain a firearm by exploiting the gun 
show loophole and the online loophole.
  Let's say a family member of John X. Smith says that he doesn't 
deserve to have a gun. They go through the proper procedure, and they 
say he can't have a gun or they take a gun that he has away from him. 
In the next minute, the same John X. Smith can go online and get a gun. 
There will be no check on him, so he will get it, or he can go to a gun 
show and do that.
  Without background checks, these other things virtually become get-
aroundable: A bad guy who shouldn't have a gun finds a way to get 
around them, taking advantage of the loopholes that now exist in the 
law.
  We have to do background checks. That is at the base of all of this--
background checks that close all of the loopholes. Allowing law-abiding 
Americans to have guns, that is the Second Amendment. But saying that 
felons, those adjudicated mentally ill, and spousal abusers can't, 
everyone--90 percent of America--agrees with that.
  In the wake of the torrent of mass shootings, in the wake of alarming 
rates of gun violence on a daily basis, our goal should not be to pass 
something just to pass something. We have a responsibility, bestowed 
upon us by the American people, to do something meaningful to address 
the epidemic of gun violence in our country, to save American lives, 
and to save as many lives as possible, the Senate must consider the 
bipartisan universal background checks bill.
  This is a critical moment for President Trump and for the Nation. The 
President can provide the kind of leadership on this issue that his 
party has lacked for decades. He can break the vice grip the NRA has 
held by congressional Republicans by supporting a policy that well over 
90 percent of all Americans already support. Such a commitment would 
undeniably be popular; it would be historic; and, most important, it 
would save countless lives.
  Speaker Pelosi and I told the President that if he endorsed this 
legislation and got Leader McConnell to act on it, we would be happy to 
join him in the Rose Garden for the signing ceremony.
  On the other hand, the President could cave to the NRA yet again this 
week and announce he is supporting only the kinds of policies that will 
not offend them--policies that will not make a real dent in the 
problem.
  The American people have waited long enough for Congress to do 
something about the decades-long nightmare of gun violence that seems 
to get worse and worse. The President can choose, this week, to help 
break the deadlock--the courageous and correct move--or he can slink 
away and perpetuate the status quo.


                             China Telecom

  Mr. President, on another issue, China telecom, I have spent a lot of 
time on the Senate floor talking about the Chinese telecom giant Huawei 
and the threat it poses to our national and economic security. This 
afternoon, I want to inform my colleagues about similar concerns I have 
about two other major Chinese companies: China Telecom and China 
Unicom. Alongside China Mobile, these three companies are the big three 
of China's government-owned and government-controlled 
telecommunications network.
  Earlier this year, the FCC rejected an application by China Mobile to 
operate in the United States on national security grounds. The 
Commission issued a 200-page opinion outlining the various security 
risks of a state-owned Chinese company operating on U.S. networks. That 
made sense. But at the same time, it turns out that both China Telecom 
and China Unicom, the other two major Chinese telecom giants, were 
granted authorization to operate in the United States in the early 
2000s. So today, Senator Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, and I, a 
Democrat from New York, are sending a letter to the FCC, urging them to 
review and, if warranted, revoke those authorizations on national 
security grounds. If China Mobile shouldn't operate here, it seems that 
neither should China Telecom and China Unicom.
  These approvals were issued well over 15 years ago, before the 
Department of Homeland Security even existed. In that same time, the 
national security environment has changed dramatically. The Chinese 
Government has conducted a vicious and predatory campaign of cyber 
hostilities all over the world, including intrusions and hacks of 
prominent American companies and American institutions. The facts that 
these two telecom companies are controlled by the Chinese Communist 
Party and have access to our networks seem to be very serious problems. 
At the very least, the FCC should open a proceeding to review these 
companies and, if necessary, revoke their access.
  Senator Cotton and I, as everyone in this Chamber knows, don't see 
eye to eye on many issues, but on this one we are in complete 
agreement. We must be really careful about the national security risks 
posed by China's key telecom companies.
  I think Senator Cotton would also agree with the larger point I have 
been making for months about U.S. access to China's markets. If China 
doesn't let American businesses compete fairly in its markets, why 
should we let Chinese companies compete in ours?
  Reciprocity is the real answer to the dilemma of China not being fair 
to us.

[[Page S5488]]

They don't let our top-notch companies in or let them in under such 
restraints that many of them don't want to come in or can't operate 
effectively or have to surrender their family jewels, their 
intellectual property, to Chinese companies.
  If that is the case, and it is, why do we just let any Chinese 
company come in here, particularly when they might be a real national 
security risk? China's telecom companies have 10 ``points of presence'' 
in North American networks. Do you know how many American companies 
have the same in China? Zero. China Telecom gets access to our 
networks, but T-Mobile or any other American telecom company can't 
operate in China. Enough of that. Enough of that. Enough of China 
trying to take advantage of us. We sort of sit there and do not do 
anything to protect our workers, our wealth, and the great kinds of 
ideas Americans come up with in terms of intellectual property.
  This isn't just a question of fairness. It is a question of which 
nation will lead the world in these industries in the coming decades, 
creating jobs and wealth. I want America to lead. Our businesses need 
to be able to compete equally and fairly. I am confident, if there were 
a level playing field, America would prevail, and we would stay the 
leading economy in the world. If we continue to let China take 
advantage of us while we sit there with our hands folded, woe is us--
and particularly for our children and our grandchildren.
  I conclude by reminding the Trump administration that in the ongoing 
trade negotiations with Beijing, where the President has been tougher 
on China than either of the previous two administrations--and that is a 
good thing--the topic of reciprocity and fair market access should be 
front and center, and we shouldn't give in until we are treated fairly.
  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. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Brett Kavanaugh

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last year, we on the Judiciary Committee 
conducted an incredibly thorough review of a nominee to the Supreme 
Court of the United States. We dug into Justice Kavanaugh's personal 
and professional life and discussed concerns openly in front of the 
public.
  Allegations were raised against the Justice, but none could be 
corroborated or verified. I know about this because I had a team of 
dozens of lawyers and investigators chasing down each allegation we 
received. My team spoke to 45 individuals and took 25 written 
statements.
  Anyone can review the 415-page investigation summary report that I 
released last November. We laid out the information we received, 
including some of the ugliest of claims. In the end, there was no 
credible evidence to support any of the allegations. Brett Kavanaugh 
then was duly confirmed to the Supreme Court by this body, as 
prescribed in the Constitution.
  Now, fast forward to this past weekend, and the issues that I and a 
lot of other Members of the Senate are being asked about this very day, 
just as if there is nothing else going on in this town, but you dig up 
something that happened a year ago.
  The New York Times published a book excerpt about Justice Kavanaugh's 
younger days that has fueled a very fresh rumor from someone whose 
friends claim contacted Senators on the committee. That person, Mr. 
Stier, didn't reach out or provide information to the committee's 
majority. Apparently, he also didn't provide any information to these 
writers. It is only on the word of two anonymous sources that his name 
and accusation come up in this story in the New York Times.
  Again, my office never received anything from Mr. Stier or his 
unnamed friends, and we never received an allegation against Kavanaugh 
like the one referenced in the report over this weekend. After 
interviewing eight people related to the Ramirez allegations, not once 
was Mr. Stier's name mentioned. Had my staff received substantive 
allegations or had he approached me or my staff, we would have 
attempted to take a statement and interview him. But the alleged 
victim, who also didn't speak to these writers, apparently, does not 
recall the incident. That is a point that the New York Times failed to 
include in its initial coverage.
  Now, it happens that accountability is a cornerstone of democracy. I 
welcome scrutiny of my work. I frequently refer to reporters and 
journalists as the police of our democratic system, but today I am 
reminded of a very old adage: Who will watch the watchmen? This 
weekend's report included some embarrassing and irresponsible missteps. 
They are mistakes that warrant serious self-reflection.
  A year ago, after the interviews with dozens of people, the New York 
Times couldn't even corroborate the allegations laid out by Ms. Ramirez 
and declined to report on them. With nothing but a year of time and 
another interview with Ramirez herself, the paper thought those 
unverified claims were suddenly worth printing--no more corroboration 
and no more verification. Coming only days before the release of the 
author's book, I can't help but wonder if the timing had something to 
do with the decision to run the story. Maybe it was to sell more books.
  They also laid out what commentators are now calling a new 
allegation. Let me be clear. This is not an allegation. It is barely a 
third-hand rumor. These writers--can you believe this?--didn't even 
speak to the man who they claim originally recounted this rumor. What 
is left are only layers and layers of decades-old hearsay--no more 
corroboration, no more verification, and not even anything from the 
accuser himself, and, most importantly, nothing from the person who was 
allegedly involved.
  Now, the most shameful piece of this episode is that it took more 
than a full day, after publication, for the editors to intervene and to 
provide critical context. An editor's note added to the story last 
night reads: ``The book reports that the female student declined to be 
interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident.''
  Let me quote again: `` . . . she does not recall the incident.'' That 
is the alleged victim. That is the opposite of corroboration and 
verification. In the legal world, this sort of thing is called 
exculpatory information. When it is not laid bare to provide greater 
context, it creates a serious credibility problem.
  In this case, the New York Times withheld crucial facts that undercut 
its own reporting. We now have an uncorroborated accusation, rooted 
only in unnamed sources, with no direct knowledge of the event and that 
the alleged victim doesn't even remember.
  Now, you know about the New York Times. Their slogan is that they 
only print what is ``fit to print.'' I just described this situation of 
no corroboration rooted in an unnamed source without direct knowledge 
of this event and that the alleged victim doesn't even remember.
  Now, to get back to the slogan of the newspaper, when did this stuff 
I described become something ``fit to print'' by the supposed American 
paper of record?
  The sad consequences of this article are a misinformed public, a 
greater divide in our own discourse, and a deeper lack of faith in our 
news media.
  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. BROWN. 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.

                          ____________________