[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 150 (Wednesday, September 18, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5562-S5569]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the 
Senate the message to accompany S. 1790.
  The Presiding Officer laid before the Senate the following message 
from the House of Representatives:

       Resolved, That the House insist upon its amendment to the 
     bill (S. 1790), entitled ``An Act to authorize appropriations 
     for fiscal year 2020 for military activities of the 
     Department of Defense, for military construction, and for 
     defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 
     military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for 
     other purposes,'' and ask for a conference with the Senate on 
     the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon.


                            Compound Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move that the Senate disagree to the 
House amendment, agree to the request of the House for conference, and 
authorize the Chair to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

[[Page S5563]]

  



                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. 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 bill 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 
     disagree in the House amendment, agree to the request from 
     the House for a conference, and authorize the Chair to 
     appoint conferees in relation to S. 1790, a bill to authorize 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2020 for military activities 
     of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and 
     for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to 
     prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, 
     and for other purposes.
         James M. Inhofe, Shelley Moore Capito, Thom Tillis, John 
           Boozman, Cindy Hyde-Smith, Jerry Moran, John Cornyn, 
           Mike Crapo, Johnny Isakson, Joni Ernst, James E. Risch, 
           Roger F. Wicker, David Perdue, John Thune, Mike Rounds, 
           Kevin Cramer, Mitch McConnell.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call 
be waived and that the cloture vote occur at a time to be determined by 
the two leaders.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Tribute to Lamar Alexander

  Mr. McCONNELL. Now, Mr. President, this week our friend and 
colleague, the senior Senator from Tennessee, will mark a major 
milestone in his State's history.
  As of tomorrow, Lamar Alexander will have served as Tennessee's 
Governor or U.S. Senator for 24 years, 8 months, and 15 days--more 
combined years and offices than any other Tennessean.
  Of course, Senator Alexander also remains the only Tennessee Governor 
ever popularly elected to the Senate. He is the only Tennessee 
Republican to be undefeated in six statewide primary elections. And his 
2008 general election vote total of 1,579,477 votes is still the 
largest ever recorded by a Tennessee statewide candidate.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement from the 
Tennessee secretary of state, Tre Hargett, who has calculated each of 
these political accomplishments, be printed in the Record following my 
remarks.
  As impressive as these statistics are, all of Lamar Alexander's 
colleagues know that political record-setting is not what makes him 
tick. Here is something he likes to say about serving in the Senate:

       It's hard to get here. It's hard to stay here. So while 
     you're here, you might as well try to accomplish something.

  Well, he certainly lived out his own advice. During Senator 
Alexander's very first term, he got 70 Senators to support his 
bipartisan America COMPETES Act to help our country stay competitive 
with the rest of the world. He even persuaded the Democratic and 
Republican leaders to join forces as the principal sponsors. When it 
was enacted in 2007, everyone knew who the chief engineer had been.
  Senator Dan Inouye said at the time:

       I wish to commend my colleague, Senator Alexander, for his 
     broad and very intricate history of bipartisanship. If all of 
     us in this body follow this process in all major legislation, 
     this would be a historic session. . . . I thank the Senator 
     from Tennessee very much.

  That was Senator Dan Inouye from Hawaii.
  Then in 2012, after being elected three times by his peers as 
chairman of the Republican conference, Lamar did something that is not 
often done around here: He gave up that power and his future ambitions 
for elected Senate leadership in order to ``spend more time working to 
achieve results on the issues I care the most about.''
  Since then, not coincidentally, there have been a steady stream of 
important new laws dealing with those very issues. Time after time, 
Lamar has taken the lead, often as the principal sponsor or chief 
engineer. He has worked behind the scenes. He has collaborated across 
the aisle to get things done. He hasn't often stepped into the 
spotlight himself, but he has almost always been the key driving force.
  As chairman of the Senate HELP Committee, he worked with Senator 
Patty Murray to fix No Child Left Behind. President Obama called it ``a 
Christmas miracle,'' and the Wall Street Journal said it was the 
greatest devolution of power to States in a quarter-century. The 
Nation's Governors and the National Education Association recognized 
Lamar with awards. We are dealing with a rare public servant who can 
literally win plaudits from the Wall Street Journal editorial board and 
the Nation's largest teachers union at the same time.
  In 2013, Senator Alexander was one of a group of Senators who 
revamped Federal student loans with a new market-based interest rate to 
save hundreds of millions of dollars for students attending college.
  In 2016, he and Senator Murray sponsored the 21st Century Cures Act. 
It is landmark legislation that I was proud to be involved with and 
view as the most significant law of that entire Congress.
  In 2018, again with Senator Murray, he offered the landmark Opioid 
Crisis Response Act. President Trump called it ``the single largest 
bill to combat a drug crisis in the history of our country.''
  Last year, working with Senator Hatch, he was the chief engineer of 
once-in-a-generation legislation to ensure America's songwriters are 
paid fair-market value for their work.
  For the last 5 years, as chairman of the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Subcommittee, he has worked with Ranking Member 
Feinstein to deliver record funding for our National Laboratories, 
funding to keep America No. 1 in supercomputing, and 6 years of full 
funding for inland waterway infrastructure.
  This is quite a distinguished record, and this is far from all of it.
  I have heard that Senator Alexander explains to Tennesseans that they 
can think of Congress like a split-screen television show. On one side 
are the dramatic public fights, the partisan showdowns, but on the 
other side, he explains, you see huge bipartisan majorities working 
diligently on issues that directly affect the daily lives of millions 
of Americans. Well, that side of the screen is where you will find 
Senator Alexander. In fact, he is a star player.
  Senator Alexander has announced he won't seek a fourth term in 2020. 
While the end of his time here may be in sight, I am confident the 
catalog of his hard work and leadership is nowhere near complete just 
yet. As chairman of HELP, he and Senator Murray have reported the Lower 
Healthcare Costs Act to the full Senate. They are working together to 
reauthorize and update the Higher Education Act. He and Senator 
Feinstein have produced an appropriations bill--passed by the 
Appropriations Committee--that would provide a fifth year of record 
funding for the National Laboratories, a sixth year of full funding for 
our inland waterway infrastructure, and the resources to keep America 
No. 1 in supercomputing. And there is almost certainly more to come 
over the next year and a half. Lamar's service reminds us that there 
are many ways to be a transformational leader in this body.
  As a young man, I was an intern for Senator John Sherman Cooper of 
Kentucky. He was never an elected leader but was always regarded by his 
colleagues as a leader because of his willingness to do what he thought 
ought to be done. Senator Cooper once said to me:

       I not only represent Kentucky, I represent the Nation, and 
     there are times you follow, and times when you lead.

  In fact, two of the three Senate office buildings are named for 
Senators who were never elected the leader of their party's caucus. 
Lamar Alexander is just that kind of leader.
  We are proud to celebrate this milestone as Senator Alexander notches 
more combined years as Senator and Governor than anyone else from his 
State, but even more, we recognize the example the Senator has set for 
all the rest of us. It is just like he says:

       It's hard to get here. It's hard to stay here. So while 
     you're here, you might as well try to accomplish something.

  Congratulations, my friend.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                               September 17, 2019.
     Hon. Lamar Alexander,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Alexander: I am writing to congratulate you on 
     your record years of

[[Page S5564]]

     service to Tennessee. On September 19, 2019, you will have 
     served more combined years as either Governor or United 
     States Senator from Tennessee than any other Tennessean. This 
     is a milestone that illustrates your dedication to public 
     service and to Tennesseans.
       September 19, 2019, marks your 9,024th day in office as 
     either Tennessee Governor or U.S. Senator from Tennessee. 
     Your 24 years, 8 months, and 15 days of service will then 
     surpass the previous longest serving Governor and United 
     State Senator from Tennessee, Isham Harris.
       This is just one of your many elections records in the 
     state. You are the only Tennessee Governor ever popularly 
     elected to the United States Senate. You have won more 
     Tennessee Republican statewide primary elections--six--than 
     any other Tennessean. And your 2008 general election vote 
     total--1,579,477 votes--is the largest vote total ever 
     recorded by a Tennessee statewide candidate.
       I congratulate you on this, and your many other, great 
     accomplishments and I thank you for your service to our great 
     state.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Tre Hargett,
                                               Secretary of State.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, it is such an honor to be here 
following Leader McConnell and talk about the achievements of our 
State's senior Senator and recognize his wonderful work, not only in DC 
but also in Tennessee. I want to touch on just a few of those 
highlights and the importance to our State.
  For me, being a State senator involved in our community, coming to 
serve in Congress, and now serving in the Senate with our senior 
Senator is something that is a wonderful experience.
  The majority leader just mentioned that our senior Senator will 
retire at the end of next year. Of course, we are all going to miss 
seeing him around Capitol Hill. Senator Alexander has really 
distinguished himself as a man who is committed to Tennessee tradition 
and to helping Tennessee find prominence on the global stage.
  Anyone who has ever entered Senator Alexander's office knows that he 
is a music lover. What they may not know is that he is also both a 
classically trained pianist and a pretty good gospel and country 
pianist. He has even performed on the stage of the Grand Ole Opry, and 
rumor has it that he really rocked the house the night he was there. 
His love of music and of Tennessee's musicians has caused him to work 
tirelessly in these efforts.
  In the House, I started a songwriters' caucus. He did likewise in the 
Senate, bringing the issues that confront our Nation's performers into 
the Senate, finding solutions, and, as the leader mentioned, passing 
and being instrumental in the crafting--not just the passing--of the 
Music Modernization Act. He was honored just this week by the Nashville 
Songwriters Association International, which gave him the White Hat 
Award. This is an honor that he and I share.
  It is important to note that the White Hat Award has only been given 
15 times in the 52 years of that organization's history.
  As Governor--then Governor, now Senator Alexander opened the doors to 
automobile industries, including Saturn, GM, Nissan, and auto parts 
producers, which solidified Tennessee's place in the global economy. As 
Senator, he has focused on improving Tennessee from the inside out, 
giving priority to practical concerns. He led the charge on healthcare, 
education, and, as the leader mentioned, the opioid crisis. He has 
supported teachers, stood up for working moms, and enacted tax policies 
that kept more money in the wallets of Tennesseans.
  Today, I rise to honor a leader, a friend, and, I have to say, the 
team captain for our annual Crockett Cup baseball game. And they were 
the winners. They are the holders of the Crockett Cup.
  I yield the floor.
  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. UDALL. 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.


                                S. 1790

  Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I rise to urge this body to protect the 
Constitution, to defend the separation of powers, and to prevent an 
unauthorized, unconstitutional war with Iran.
  The Constitution is clear. Under our article I powers, the 
Constitution spells out that Congress shall have the authority to 
declare war.
  The Founders debated which branch of government should be given the 
solemn power to wage war. Entering into battle had been the personal 
prerogative of Kings, and Kings had shown that they would bankrupt 
their countries and risk lives because of self-serving, power-seeking 
feuds.
  Therefore, our Constitution's Founders placed the decision to go to 
war with the people's representatives. They wanted any decision to wage 
war to reflect the will of the people. They deliberately rejected 
giving this most consequential decision only to the President.
  Yet, despite the clarity of the Constitution, President Trump 
insists--without any equivocation--that he does not need congressional 
approval to engage in military hostilities against Iran, and now, 
instead of working with the U.S. Congress, he is publicly deferring to 
the royal family of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Our President said we 
are waiting for Saudi Arabia to say ``under what terms we would 
proceed.''
  When discussing retaliation for the attack on a Saudi oil-processing 
facility, our President has praised the Saudis as good customers who 
``[pay] cash.''
  President Trump explained further as follows:

       [T]he fact is that the Saudis are going to have a lot of 
     involvement in this if we decide to do something. They'll be 
     very much involved, and that includes payment. And they 
     understand that fully.

  Does this Congress think the patriotic men and women of our military 
are mercenaries at the service of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? I reject 
that idea completely. When a President is threatening a military attack 
because of a foreign King's oil interests, it is well past time for 
Congress to assert its institutional authority.
  Congress needs to make it clear: The President cannot begin a war 
with Iran without coming here first, coming here to the Congress.
  In June, we voted on a bipartisan amendment to the National Defense 
Authorization Act that prohibited any war with Iran unless authorized 
by Congress.
  Getting a vote on the Udall-Kaine-Paul amendment was historic, and a 
bipartisan majority of Senators voted to support our amendment that 
day.
  The House of Representatives has sent us its NDAA, which includes a 
bipartisan provision prohibiting war against Iran without congressional 
approval. The NDAA is now going to a Senate-House conference committee. 
The conference committee must adopt our amendment that prohibits 
unauthorized war against Iran.
  Since our vote in June, tensions with Iran have not subsided; they 
have only increased. The threat of miscalculation and unauthorized war 
has only gotten more serious. This week, the President, on Twitter, is 
threatening that the U.S. military is ``locked and loaded'' on behalf 
of the Saudi Kingdom.
  Iran's behavior in the region is highly problematic, but Saudi 
Arabia's oil interests do not determine whether the United States goes 
to war. Congress determines that, Congress and Congress only, based on 
our national interests.
  Rather than threats of war, the right move is active diplomacy to 
lower tensions in the region.
  We are at this point in the Middle East because of the Trump 
administration's failed policies. Its unilateral withdrawal from the 
Iran nuclear agreement, its maximum pressure policy, its abandonment of 
diplomacy--these policies are only causing more chaos in the region and 
doing nothing to advance U.S. interests.
  When the President unilaterally withdrew from the Iran agreement in 
May 2018, against the advice of his military and intelligence Chiefs, 
he promised he would get us a better deal.
  The deal we had in place secured for the United States and the world 
an Iran that would not develop nuclear weapons. It was a deal that had 
strict verification requirements and a deal his advisers and outside 
independent groups said Iran was complying with.

[[Page S5565]]

  It has now been 16 months since the President tore up that deal and 
said he could get us a better one. Well, the President's supposed deal-
making prowess has only produced increased tensions, bringing us to the 
brink of war.
  In June, we were 10 minutes away from an attack that likely would 
have cost Iranian lives. Even after that aborted strike, the President 
threatened Iran with ``obliteration like you've never seen before.'' 
Now we are ``locked and loaded.''
  While it is a positive development that John Bolton is no longer 
whispering in the President's ear--urging regime change in Iran--this 
mercurial President could get us into a war before we know it, but 
these are my own views about the President's foreign policy. I 
understand others in this body do not share them, including others who 
voted to support this amendment previously.
  I want to underscore that this is not about what you think of the 
President. This is about defending the separation of powers as outlined 
in the Constitution, and this is about standing up for the will of the 
American people. The American people do not want another endless war in 
the Middle East.
  While our military is the most capable on Earth, no conflict with 
Iran would be easy. Iran has twice the population of Iraq and is four 
times the size. Even so-called targeted strikes could escalate into a 
much wider war.
  Make no mistake, our amendment retains the President's authority to 
defend against any attack upon us. While the chief complaint from 
opponents of the amendment was that it tied the President's hands from 
attack, this is a false argument. The amendment expressly reserves the 
President's powers to defend the Nation. The Department of Defense's 
rules of engagement remain in place. The President's full authority as 
Commander in Chief to repel an attack and defend the Nation remains 
intact.
  If there are still concerns, we can continue to consult experts and 
refine language in conference. That is part of the regular order, but 
the Defense bill must prohibit an unauthorized war with Iran.
  For too long, Congress has abdicated its constitutional duty to 
decide matters of war and peace. We have hidden from the hard votes. We 
have allowed the Executive to fill the vacuum.
  We in this body need to step up to the plate and assume our 
constitutional responsibilities. This is not about partisan politics. 
This is not about tying the hands of the President in defense of our 
country. This vote is not even about whether you think we should or 
should not go to war against Iran. Even if you think military action on 
behalf of the downed drone or Saudi oil is justified, the place to 
debate and make that decision is on this floor in this Congress. It is 
not the decision of one man in the White House.
  I am making this call to our conferees: Affirm the Constitution. 
Affirm our sworn responsibility to uphold the Constitution. Affirm that 
our men and women in uniform will not be sent off to risk their lives 
in war unless the people's representatives make that somber decision.
  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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cramer). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                Authorization for Use of Military Force

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Members of the U.S. Senate and House of 
Representatives face many votes on many subjects. Most of them you vote 
on and forget very quickly. There are some you will never forget. At 
least two votes that I cast here 18 years ago are on that list in terms 
of my Senate service.
  It was 18 years ago, and just shortly after the 9/11 attack in 2001, 
in which 3,000 innocent Americans lost their lives. President George W. 
Bush came to Congress and asked for authority under our Constitution to 
wage a war--in fact, to wage two wars. He wanted authority from the 
U.S. Senate and Congress to invade Iraq and to invade Afghanistan. 
There was a long debate leading up to it about why it would be 
necessary for us to start a war with those two nations.
  In the case of Iraq, the argument was made that Saddam Hussein, their 
leader, had weapons of mass destruction that were dangerous to the 
region and, ultimately, dangerous to the United States. He was a tyrant 
and everyone knew it, but those threats were the ones that led many 
people to conclude that the invasion of Iraq was necessary. I 
disagreed. We cast that vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and 23 of 
us voted no--1 Republican and 22 Democrats.
  It turned out, after we invaded Iraq and took a close look, there 
were no weapons of mass destruction. The real basis for the war did not 
exist.
  Eighteen years later, having lost almost 5,000 American lives and 
spent trillions of dollars, we are still in Iraq. I don't know how this 
will ever end or when our troops will finally be able to come home. 
Hussein is gone, for sure, but the situation in that country is 
certainly not dramatically better than it was when we invaded it. We 
couldn't guarantee tomorrow what is going to happen there, whether it 
will be stable or friendly to the United States after all we have 
invested in, all we have lost in that invasion.
  At the same time, we were debating a war in Afghanistan. To me, it 
was a different proposition. The administration said: We know the 
terrorists responsible for 9/11 are in Afghanistan. What is our message 
to those who turn around and attack the United States and kill so many 
innocent people?
  So I saw Afghanistan different than Iraq, and I voted for the 
military effort that was undertaken to go after the terrorist 
organization responsible for 9/11, the al-Qaida organization.
  It took us years to find Osama bin Laden, who was responsible for 
masterminding that deadly day in our history, and to finally bring him 
to justice. The fact is, 18 years later, we are still in Afghanistan 
today. It is hard to explain. Thousands of American lives have been 
lost there. Millions, billions, maybe even trillions of dollars have 
been spent. And most people agree, the day after we leave, whenever it 
is, the country will revert to what it was before we walked in. There 
have been 18 years of sacrifice, 18 years of suffering, and even death, 
for America's patriotic soldiers. It is a reminder about these wars 
that seem like such a good idea, so necessary, the right way to 
respond, and here we sit with two of the longest wars in the history of 
the United States.
  Now the question is, Are we preparing for another war? I hate to say 
those words, but I have to be honest. What this President has done in 
our relationship with Iran has brought us to the moment where we have 
to ask that question: Is the President preparing to ask us to go to war 
against Iran?
  The first thing he did--one of the first things--was to disparage the 
Iran nuclear agreement, an agreement entered into under President Obama 
to stop the development of nuclear weapons in Iran. I thought it was a 
good agreement. I supported it and still do. I am not making any 
excuses for Iran. They are engaged in conduct around the world that is 
inspiring terrorism and threatening our allies and friends. I am making 
no excuses for that. But to make certain that Iran did not have nuclear 
weapons in the future was the right thing to do.
  We entered into this agreement under President Obama. China, Russia, 
European nations, and others joined us, and we sent international 
inspectors into that country. They reported back to us regularly that 
there was no evidence of the development of nuclear weapons, and every 
door was open to them. We had surveillance on the ground in a country 
that has been largely secretive and isolated. I thought that was the 
right thing to do, and I still do. President Trump disagreed, and the 
United States withdrew from the Iran nuclear agreement.
  Since then, there has been an escalation of tension between our two 
nations, between Iran and the United States. Some of it is, clearly, a 
reaction by the Iranians to sanctions that we have imposed, which have 
caused great problems with Iran and their oil supply. They have 
answered in kind by threatening oil tankers from other countries. It is 
the kind of escalation you would expect two countries that

[[Page S5566]]

are leading up to a confrontation to engage in. Now the questions are, 
Will we, in fact, go to war, and if we are prepared to, will this 
President--Donald Trump--follow the Constitution of the United States?

  The votes I talked about 18 years ago gave the people of the United 
States, through their elected representatives, a decision-making part 
of the process. Their Members of Congress voted. The question is 
whether President Trump will follow his constitutional responsibility 
in coming to Congress for the authority to engage in a war in Iran.
  I certainly don't believe the vote I took 18 years ago, before many 
of the Members of the Senate were even here, has authorized him or any 
President to invade Iran. That was never even considered when we were 
in that debate.
  Now the question is, Will he come forward and give the American 
people a voice in this process in deciding whether we are going to war?
  I, for one, look at this with great skepticism and even negativity. A 
war is so much easier to get into than it is to get out of. We have 
proven that over and over again. Politicians who make the speeches and 
rationalize these wars are usually not the ones who face combat and 
death on the battlefield. That is turned over to our young women and 
men in uniform who bravely fight for the causes we identify as 
politicians.
  I would sincerely hope what Senator Udall has brought to the floor, 
to open a conversation and discussion, is really taken to heart by the 
American people and, more importantly, by the White House. As Senator 
Udall has reminded us, any President--this President--needs the 
constitutional authority to bring this Nation into a war. Without that 
authority, he cannot and should not move forward.
  They point to the recent attacks on Saudi Arabia and their oilfields. 
Of course, they were terrible. Whether they came from Houthi rebels in 
Yemen or whether they came from Iran itself, it is terrible, but the 
fact is, the United States has not signed an agreement saying we are 
prepared to defend Saudi Arabia, whoever attacks them.
  We want to have a good alliance with them--it is difficult with the 
current leadership--but we haven't entered into a mutual defense pact 
by any means. When Saudi Arabia is attacked, we are not required to 
muster our American troops in their defense. We should take care and be 
thoughtful and not escalate this situation.
  Senator Udall's amendment regarding Iran is a straightforward and 
timely reaffirmation of what is already in article I, section 8 of the 
U.S. Constitution--only the U.S. Congress can declare war. I am pleased 
to join him and others in this legislative effort to reaffirm that 
without the consent of Congress, no war with Iran is authorized. I hope 
the Defense authorization conferees will keep this in mind.
  This Congress has rubberstamped too many of the President's worst 
instincts. We must not do so again and march into another war in the 
Middle East. Two wars still going, still costing American lives, even 
to this day, are way too many. A third war at this point is 
unthinkable.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                           Government Funding

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am on the floor to talk about a problem 
that is far too common here in Washington; that is, Federal Government 
shutdowns. They don't make any sense. If we don't do something in 12 
days, Congress, once again, will face an unnecessary and costly 
government shutdown. We have to avoid that.
  I have been through five different government shutdowns since my time 
working in the George H. W. Bush White House back in 1990, and three 
shutdowns just over the last 5 years. None of them worked.
  I don't know anyone who likes them now because we found out that when 
you shut down the government, taxpayers actually pay more, not less. It 
might seem like if you shut down the government, that is good for 
taxpayers, but it is actually bad for taxpayers. They foot the bill for 
the backpay of Federal workers for the days they weren't allowed to go 
to work, and they pay for other things, too, that they wouldn't have to 
pay for if Congress did its job, got its spending bills done, and 
didn't shut down the government. Delayed projects, late payment fees, 
lost productivity, deferred maintenance--it all adds up. Shutdowns also 
disrupt government services, of course.
  By the way, it is not just the poor government programs and services 
at the time--that continues. So even now, 9 months since the last 
government shutdown, you have the Agencies and Departments saying: 
Well, we would like to be able to process your tax return or we would 
like to be able to, as I found out last week, process your 501(c)(3)--
which is a charity return to give you a nonprofit status, you can get 
contributions that are deductible--but because of the shutdown, we are 
still backed up. They are delayed and late. That hurts everybody.
  Federal contractors, of course, are hurt. A lot of those are our 
constituents, private sector individuals. Federal employees, 
themselves, of course, get hurt, especially those who are considered 
essential. They have to go to work even though they are not getting 
paid. A lot of people, whether it is TSA personnel at the airports or 
our Border Patrol down at the border, are doing their best to protect 
us. Yet they are told they can't get paid, so they can't make their car 
payment, their mortgage payment, or their rent. It puts them in a tough 
situation. Again, it also hurts taxpayers and families and communities 
all across the country.
  No shutdown was more frustrating for me than the one we had most 
recently. It was the longest shutdown ever. It was 35 days this past 
winter, in December. During that month, we all heard firsthand from our 
constituents how they were affected by the shutdown. I heard from NASA 
engineers in Cleveland, OH, as an example. We have the NASA Glenn 
Research Center there.
  I also heard from TSA employees every time I flew. I asked them: How 
are you doing? They would tell me, and it was tough--missed paychecks, 
mounting mortgage payments that I talked about. In some cases, medical 
bills were piling up. Morale was down. Families were hurting. Again, 
even after the government opened and backpay was sent to the furloughed 
workers, a lot of that damage had already been done.
  What we have learned is, it wasn't just Federal workers and their 
families who felt the effects of the shutdown. The economy as a whole 
suffered too. The Congressional Budget Office has done some estimates 
of this. After the shutdown, they estimated it had reduced economic 
growth by a combined $11 billion for the fourth quarter of 2018 and the 
first quarter of 2019. Not only that, but CBO--the Congressional Budget 
Office, a nonpartisan group that looks at these issues--later projected 
that the rate of economic growth would have been 0.4 percent higher in 
the first quarter of 2019 than it was if not for the government 
shutdown. That sounds like a small number, 0.4 percent, but that is a 
big deal. That means economic growth in the first quarter of this year 
would have been 3.5 percent, not 3.1 percent. That is a big deal. That 
is billions of dollars in lost growth, not just because people weren't 
working who should have been working but because there was lost 
productivity in our economy and billions of dollars in lost growth just 
because we couldn't figure out how to keep the lights on here in 
Washington, DC.
  All of this is indicative not just of the loss of purchasing power 
for Federal employees but also a serious ripple effect to Federal 
contractors, small businesses, and others who serve the Federal 
Government.
  Shutdowns have another effect. Each time our government fails to fund 
itself, the public's faith in our institutions, including, of course, 
in this body, the Senate, the House, the Presidency, falls even 
further, not just here but around the world. It just seems crazy that 
the Federal Government can't stay open. People can't get that, and I 
understand why they don't get it.
  Now, with the threat of another government shutdown looming just a 
few weeks away, let's not repeat the mistakes of the past. The reason 
our Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations looked at this issue over 
the past 9 months was to learn the lessons and to get the actual 
numbers to determine what the real impact was of the shutdown.
  This week, the Permanent Subcommittee, of which I chair, released a

[[Page S5567]]

bipartisan report signed by me and the ranking member, Tom Carper, the 
result of which is what we are reporting today. We learned that the 
total cost of the three government shutdowns that have occurred in the 
last 5 years alone have combined for a total of 54 days of partial or 
full government closure. During those three periods of shutdown, the 
pricetag to the American taxpayer was $4 billion. So the three 
government shutdowns that have happened in the last 5 years, taxpayers 
had to eat $4 billion--three shutdowns, $4 billion.
  We also learned that a lot of that number comes from the loss of 
productivity. Furloughed Federal workers who were prohibited from going 
to work during that shutdown were owed $3.7 billion in backpay, which 
they got even though they weren't working because they couldn't work. 
Compounding that was at least another $338 million in other costs, 
including extra administrative costs, lost revenue, late fees on 
interest payments, and other costs.

  On top of everything else, the workers who weren't able to come in to 
work represented a combined lost productivity of about 57,000 years of 
lost productivity. Think about that--almost 57,000 years of 
productivity loss. Again, this is from folks who are Federal employees 
who weren't allowed to work because the government was shut down but 
who later got paid.
  These figures, the $4 billion in costs to the taxpayers and the 
56,938 years in lost productivity, are relatively low numbers. It is 
actually higher than that. Do you know why? It is because although we 
got figures from 26 different Agencies and Departments--and over the 9 
months we did this research, we sent this questionnaire around to all 
the Agencies and Departments--a bunch of them, comprising less than 
half but close to half of the workforce, refused to respond to us. Why? 
Because they said they didn't know how many of their workers were 
furloughed. They didn't know how many of their workers were essential 
employees. They didn't know what the lost productivity was. That is 
equally disturbing. That included the Department of Defense, the 
Department of Agriculture, the Department of Justice, the Commerce 
Department, and the EPA. They wouldn't give us complete information 
about employee furloughs and backpay because they said they just didn't 
have the information. The cost is even higher than indicated here. We 
don't know how much higher, but we know it is at least this high.
  We are sending letters to the Agencies that were unable to provide 
the complete financial information related to employee furloughs and 
backpay to find out why and to ask them how they plan to address those 
issues going forward. Over the 9 months we did this research, our 
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations is not done with its work 
because, in the process, we uncovered another problem, which is 
Agencies not even knowing the basic information about their workforce 
and what happens during the shutdown.
  Our report also documents examples of how the shutdown negatively 
affected the Federal Government's ability to conduct important 
operations on a wide range of issues. I encourage people to take a look 
at the report.
  While we shut down the government over fighting about border 
security--remember, that was the issue at the time, whether we are 
going to have a wall or not and what kind of funds were going to go to 
border security--the Department of Homeland Security had to delay 
important facility maintenance, which had a serious impact on law 
enforcement officer operations and safety, including at the border. The 
lack of these critical maintenance and repair services actually made it 
more risky, even endangered the lives of some law enforcement officers, 
and made it harder to defend the border. The shutdown certainly didn't 
work in that regard.
  Meanwhile, the Department of Justice was forced to cancel about 
60,000 immigration hearings for nondetained aliens who were scheduled 
during the 35 days of the shutdown. During the 35 days, you couldn't 
have immigration hearings. There were 60,000 immigration hearings 
canceled. We already had a big backlog in these hearings, as some of 
you have heard about, to the point that often it takes a couple of 
years to have your case heard by an immigration judge. Now it is even 
worse. Again, we still haven't resolved that issue. That is a problem 
that is compounded so that today you have so many of these hearings 
that are still outstanding.
  A lot of my constituents back in Ohio were affected too. Let me give 
you an example. We have a poor neighborhood in Cleveland, OH. A guy 
wanted to start a deli there, which was a great idea. It is kind of a 
food desert there. This deli was ready to go, ready to be put into 
operation, but they couldn't get the approval by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture to use the machines to accept the SNAP benefits--the food 
stamp benefits--so they had a really hard time launching. They couldn't 
make much money because a lot of people in the area were SNAP 
recipients. The USDA couldn't certify the machines to have it work 
because of the shutdown. That one was really frustrating for me.
  At the Piketon, OH, uranium enrichment plant, a lot of employees were 
unsure if their healthcare premiums would be paid, despite potentially 
being exposed to levels of radiation that could be dangerous to them.
  At a vineyard in Lorain, OH--Lorain County is a place where there is 
more wine being grown. It is exciting--this vineyard submitted six 
label approval requests to the Alcohol and Tobacco and Tax and Trade 
Bureau. The Alcohol and Tobacco and Tax and Trade Bureau has to approve 
these labels. The owners of the vineyard were left in limbo throughout 
the entire shutdown as they waited for approval. They lost sales 
because in that business, it is all about the new thing. You want to 
have your new label out there, your new product out there. That was 
frustrating to me too. These are small business owners--again, 
entrepreneurs who are taking a chance, trying something exciting that 
has been a growth to business in our State, but they couldn't get 
approval.
  The National Transportation Safety Board stopped an investigation of 
a plane crash in Wayne County, OH, that took the lives of two 
individuals in January because of the government shutdown.
  It doesn't just affect the border or TSA or others I have talked 
about; it affects a lot of our constituents.
  Ohioans applying for Customs and Border Protection Trusted Traveler 
Programs had their applications suspended during the shutdown and then 
faced long delays in getting their applications approved once the 
government reopened because of the backlog.
  Home loans across the State were unable to get processed because of 
the backlogs at the IRS, where employees were still working overtime 
and weekends to catch up on work as caseloads doubled. Even last week, 
I talked about this nonprofit that couldn't get its 501(c)(3) status 
because of the backlog, the IRS said, even though it happened 9 months 
ago.
  There are only a few examples here I have been able to give you. 
Again, I would encourage you to look at the report. Go onto our website 
for the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and take a look at it. 
There are so many issues and vulnerabilities that happen in all of our 
States. It is clear we need to find a way to prevent this from 
happening again.
  Part of the problem we face here is that this constant threat of 
shutdowns has become kind of the norm. People are already talking about 
it--12 days from now. Are we going to shut down or not? It has kind of 
a chilling effect on our economy just to talk about it.
  For the past two decades, the government has routinely operated on 
temporary funding because we don't get our spending bills done. 
Congress is supposed to pass 12 appropriations bills, which comprise 
all the Agencies and Departments. Last year, we did a pretty good job 
of getting close to the 12. You have to go back to 1997 to find a year 
when we completed all 12 of the spending bills.
  If we don't complete a spending bill and have it signed off by the 
House and the Senate and signed into law by the President, we do these 
temporary spending bills. They are called continuing resolutions. You 
just kind of continue the spending from the previous year. They are 
always short term.

[[Page S5568]]

  So there is discussion right now of, in 12 days, having a continuing 
resolution. That is a lot better than a shutdown. It is not what we 
should be doing, because at the end of that CR, we will have another 
impasse, likely, and that is when you get another threat of a shutdown. 
It is much better to pass the actual appropriations bills.
  Since 1997, we have had a total of 117 continuing resolutions to fund 
the government. It used to be very rare. Now it is not just common; it 
is the norm. So moving forward, I hope one thing we can all agree on is 
that we should do the appropriations process, do the individual bills, 
and have the debate. We are going to have differences, and that is 
fine. At the end of the day, we have a vote on the floor.
  Today, we tried to go to the so-called minibus, a group of four 
different appropriations bills. It shouldn't be that hard. We should be 
able to get these things done. I hope we can agree that no matter what, 
we should not have government shutdowns.
  One recommendation our report makes--again, this is a bipartisan 
report coming out of our subcommittee--our report says that the 
Congress should enact an automatic continuing resolution to permanently 
prevent the Federal Government from shutting down, so forever not to 
have shutdowns by just saying: If you don't get your spending bills 
done, you will simply have a continuing resolution that is automatic.
  During the shutdown in January, I once again introduced our 
legislation called the End Government Shutdowns Act. It is legislation 
that now has 33 cosponsors here in the Senate. That is about a third of 
the Senate. It is legislation that has mostly Republicans--almost two-
thirds are Republicans. In the past, it has been bipartisan. This year, 
it has not been. I hope it will become that. I have introduced this 
legislation every Congress since 2010.
  My hope is that we will never have to publish this kind of a report 
again that talks about how many days we had a shutdown, what the cost 
was to taxpayers--$4 billion in this case--over the last 5 years alone, 
and the 57,000 hours of lost work productivity. We shouldn't have to 
have these kinds of reports because we shouldn't have shutdowns. We do 
need to put legislation on the floor and have a vote on it to be able 
to stop it.
  Our legislation is pretty simple. It says that you continue the 
spending from the previous year if you can't come to an agreement, and 
then after 120 days, you reduce the spending by 1 percent across the 
board. Why? To give the Appropriations Committees--the people who write 
these spending bills--the incentive to get to work, because none of 
them, Republican or Democrat, like across-the-board 1 percent spending 
cuts. They want to make their decision as to where the funding goes, 
and they don't want the funding to be reduced. Then, every 90 days, it 
reduces it another 1 percent. Again, it is to give them the incentive 
to get their work done.
  There is other legislation out there, one of which passed the HSGAC 
Committee--the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee--
about a month and a half ago. It had some other elements to it--that 
during a shutdown, we would be restrained from doing certain things on 
the floor. The government couldn't travel, including the executive 
branch. I think some of those bells and whistles that were put on it 
are not great policy, but I think it is so important that we end 
government shutdowns, we have to figure out a way to come together as 
Republicans and Democrats to get this done.
  I think we are at the point now where, if Democrats won't support the 
1-percent cut, which is what they are saying despite supporting it 
previously--some of them--and the House sets a bipartisan bill, then 
let's look at just an auto CR, just automatically avoiding the shutdown 
and continuing the spending from the previous year.
  The point is, we need to figure out a way to keep the lights on and 
not have these shutdowns. We need to stop missing our deadlines. We 
need to stop putting our taxpayers in a bad situation where you do a 
shutdown at enormous cost to them. We need to put our Federal employees 
in a better position, where they are not being furloughed and they are 
not being told: You have to go to work, or we are not going to pay you. 
That is not fair either.
  So let's pass legislation to provide for a continuation of government 
spending, and let's do all we can to try to get our spending bills done 
to avoid getting in that situation. I hope my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle will not allow us to fall back into this 12 days from now, 
and I hope instead we will redouble our efforts to pass spending bills 
on time into the future and immediately look at legislation that says: 
Let's end government shutdowns forever to avoid this problem going 
forward.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CASEY. 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. CASEY. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               Healthcare

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this evening to talk about 
healthcare. I will not have long remarks, but I do want to highlight a 
report that was just issued last week. The report I am holding is from 
the Census Bureau. The report is entitled ``Health Insurance Coverage 
in the United States: 2018,'' by the U.S. Census Bureau, dated 
September of 2019.
  On page 2, this fairly lengthy report, which goes on for about 29 or 
30 pages, has the general comparison in healthcare coverage of 
uninsured numbers--those without insurance in 2017 versus 2018. This is 
what it says on page 2 of the report under ``Highlights'':

       In 2018, 8.5 percent of people, or 27.5 million, did not 
     have health insurance at any point during the year. The 
     uninsured rate and number of uninsured increased from 2017 
     (7.9 percent or 25.6 million).

  And then it refers to a figure and a table.
  Basically, what is outlined is a drop in the number of Americans 
covered. Looking at it another way, there was an increase in the number 
of uninsured from 25.6 million Americans to 27.5 million Americans--a 
difference of 1.9 million. Just for general reference, I will round 
that off to say that roughly 2 million people who had insurance in 2017 
were uninsured in 2018. That is deeply troubling because the number of 
uninsured is up, not just generally from 2017 to 2018 but more broadly. 
It is a change in the trend lines where we have been for most of the 
last decade.

  I think it is pretty clear that the Trump administration's sabotage 
of health insurance is, indeed, working. It is reversing coverage gains 
that were made under the Affordable Care Act in the years after 
enactment and implementation of the Affordable Care Act. We are told, 
as well, that the number of uninsured children is up, so more children 
were without insurance from 2017 to 2018.
  Here is what one observer, whose name is Phil Galewitz, from the 
Kaiser Health News said: ``For the first time in a decade, the number 
of Americans without health insurance has risen--by about 2 million 
people in 2018--according to the annual U.S. Census Bureau report 
released Tuesday.''
  That was Tuesday of last week. He goes on to cite the numbers that I 
just cited.
  Here is another comment from Katie Keith from Health Affairs:

       Coverage losses are expected to continue in 2019. This is 
     due to a number of factors, including repeal of the 
     individual mandate penalty, the expanded availability of non-
     ACA plans, and the final ``public charge'' rule.

  She goes on from there.
  These are people who spend their lives on the issue of healthcare.
  A third commentator, Joan Alker, from Georgetown University Center 
for Children and Families said: ``As a result, 4.3 million kids were 
uninsured in 2018--a statistically significant increase of 425,000.''
  Another commentator who follows healthcare, Matt Broaddus, from the 
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said:

       [T]oday's Census data provide the clearest evidence yet 
     that Trump Administration efforts to weaken health coverage 
     under the

[[Page S5569]]

     ACA are taking a toll. They include canceling most federal 
     outreach efforts for the open enrollment period for 2018 
     marketplace coverage, supporting new state policies that make 
     it harder for people to enroll or stay enrolled in Medicaid, 
     issuing rules to expand short-term and association health 
     plans . . . and creating public confusion about the ACA's 
     future by refusing to defend its constitutionality in a 
     lawsuit by Republican state officials.

  Then I turn to the last reference by groups that follow this 
information. I will just hold up this chart. This is a chart by the 
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. This chart depicts where we 
have been over the decade and where we could be at the end of the 
decade on healthcare. This is a reference to the uninsured rate for 
nonelderly Americans. That number was over 17 percent in 2009. So 17.2 
percent of Americans were uninsured at that time. The chart says it 
then fell each year, especially after the Affordable Care Act's major 
coverage provisions took effect in 2014. You see it starting in 2009, 
and then you see the big drop. Of course, that big drop of uninsured is 
good news. When that chart depicts the number going down, that is 
obviously good news.
  Then you see the Trump administration sabotage has begun eroding this 
progress. You see it flattening out. Now, instead of a continual 
diminution or decline in the uninsured number, you see kind of a 
flattening out of that. Then you factor in the census report, which 
documents at least for 1 year an increase in the number of uninsured. 
Then the last part of the chart says: ``If the administration gets the 
courts to strike down the ACA, the uninsured rate would almost 
double.''
  It goes all the way up to 18.7 in 2019. Of course, the last part of 
the chart is a projection. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 
is asserting that if a lawsuit is successful in the Fifth Circuit Court 
of Appeals, which we know was successful at the district court level 
and is now on appeal--if they are successful, this think tank, the 
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, says that in 2019, the number 
of uninsured could go up to 18.7 percent, surpassing where we were in 
2009, when we started to pass and then implement the Affordable Care 
Act, reducing substantially the number of people who were uninsured.
  If you look at it this way, roughly over 6 years, the uninsured 
number went from about 47 million Americans down to about 27 million 
Americans. Twenty million-plus people gained insurance coverage in 
about 6 years--not even a decade.
  The concern I have is that efforts undertaken by the administration, 
unfortunately, are seen as successful, according to the Census Bureau 
numbers, because the number of uninsured is going up at a time we want 
the number to go down. When you add in the lawsuit, which, in my 
judgment, is more likely to succeed than not--I don't want it to 
succeed; I want it to fail because I think it is an insult to declare 
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, 
therefore destroying protections for more than 100 million Americans 
and ripping away coverage from so many Americans that the number of 
uninsured would skyrocket. Why would we ever go back to the days when 
the number of uninsured was that high and potentially growing? Why 
would we ever take any step--whether there is a lawsuit or whether it 
is sabotage or whatever--to drive up the number of uninsured?
  Let me conclude with a couple of headlines. The front page of the New 
York Times, dated September 11, 2019 reads: ``Fewer Insured After 
Attacks On Health Act.'' If you go to the inside of the paper, on page 
A15 there is a longer headline that says: ``Fewer Are Insured Amid 
Administration's Attacks On Health Act.''
  The Wall Street Journal--a newspaper, when I last checked, that was 
not necessarily supportive of the Affordable Care Act, editorially--
dated September 11, page 83, reads: ``Insured Rate Logs First Drop in a 
Decade.'' That means the number of uninsured is getting larger.
  I would say in conclusion that we need to sound the alarm about the 
threat to healthcare, sound the alarm about the threat to a growing 
number of uninsured Americans. This is not even factoring in the 
lawsuit, which, as the chart depicts, would make the uninsured number 
skyrocket. It wouldn't go up by 1.9 million or a percentage point or 
two; it would go up exponentially higher.
  I hope that Members of this body in both parties not only would be 
concerned about these trends and concerned about what would could 
happen if the lawsuit were successful but also would take action to 
prevent this dark result from playing out for the American people 
because the number of uninsured would explode instead of continuing to 
go down where Americans want it to go. We want the number of uninsured 
to go down. We certainly want the number of uninsured children to go 
down.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Senator Casey, for speaking out on such an 
important issue.
  He and I talked yesterday about the number of people who now have 
insurance in our States. In his State it is over a million; in my State 
it is over 900,000 because of the Affordable Care Act, because of 
Medicaid expansion, because of other things.
  Seniors have more. Seniors are getting more preventive care, and the 
cost of drugs is less in spite of the fact that this institution and 
the President do nothing to keep the prices of drugs down. We know the 
White House looks like a retreat for drug company executives, so this 
body has not done nearly what it should.
  The Affordable Care Act is so important. I appreciate Senator Casey 
always standing up for kids and standing up for Medicaid and standing 
up for the Affordable Care Act and the impact it has made on our 
States.
  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. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________