[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 155 (Wednesday, September 25, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5691-S5695]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RESOLUTIONS TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for
as much time as I consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ukraine
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the
Republican motion to instruct on paid family and medical leave.
Before I move to the issue at hand, I do want to address the very
serious allegations against President Trump and the new information we
are learning from the memo the White House released today.
It is deeply concerning to learn that President Trump asked Ukrainian
President Zelensky to work with the United States to investigate Vice
President Biden. Our democracy is at risk, and President Trump has
betrayed our country. I support Speaker Pelosi in starting the
impeachment inquiry she announced yesterday, and the revelations today
make these investigations even more necessary.
Paid Family and Medical Leave
Mr. President, I now want to talk about an opportunity that we have
in the Senate today to serve the Nation by guaranteeing paid family and
medical leave for 2 million Federal workers and their families through
the Schatz motion.
Every other industrialized country in the world has some version of
paid leave, which allows workers to take care of their loved ones when
a medical emergency arises. Yet the vast majority of our workforce in
America lacks access to paid leave. That means far too many of our
workers are unable to take paid time off if they need to care for a new
child, a sick parent, or their spouse. Sadly, this includes 2 million
of our Federal employees--and I know the Presiding Officer is aware of
this, given his own family situation--but we have a chance to fix that
right now. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Schatz motion.
However, Senate Republicans have offered an additional motion that
would block this benefit from every other working American. This is
nothing short of an attack on all workers' access to affordable and
accessible paid family and medical leave.
What my Republican colleagues are suggesting is that our workers
should work overtime to compensate for family leave. Their motion would
require workers to shift around their hours and take on more hours in
order to receive the paid time off they need in an emergency situation
or when welcoming a new child.
Let me be very clear. This is not a benefit. It is a cynical plan
that would erode our American workers' abilities to make ends meet and
harm their access to real paid leave. It would hurt those who need this
the most, including women, communities of color, and low-wage workers.
Most workers living paycheck to paycheck will not be able to take
extra shifts to earn paid leave. Too many families across the country
don't even have $400 in savings for emergency expenses. Take Shelby
Ramirez Martinez, for example. She found herself in the most untenable
situation when her daughter and her father both had simultaneous
surgeries scheduled. Shelby is a mom of two, caregiver to her father,
and a full-time student and security officer. She didn't have access to
paid leave, so she was forced to take 2 weeks off and forgo her pay.
She couldn't have planned for that by working overtime and sacrificing
time with her daughter or with a flex savings account. What Shelby and
all Americans need is dedicated and extended time off for medical
emergencies and births.
The Republican motion to instruct calls for employer tax credits that
are handouts to large and rich companies like Google, which already
provide paid leave and leaves taxpayers footing the bill. They are
false incentives for small businesses that still will not be able to
afford the leave.
My bill, the FAMILY Act, would provide 12 weeks of paid family and
medical leave for all workers. It is the only comprehensive proposal
that is accessible and affordable for all working Americans. It is
modeled off of very successful State programs like California's,
ensuring that working Americans do not have to choose between their
family and their paycheck.
It shouldn't be so hard. So many workers around the country have new
children, sick spouses, or elderly parents, and they need access to
paid leave. Today, let's stand together and reject fake paid leave by
voting no on the Ernst motion to instruct, for people like Shelby and
her family.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Huawei
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor to urge
adoption of two resolutions that are going to be considered by the U.S.
Senate, instructing the conferees to the NDAA bill, which is the
Defense authorization bill. One of those motions urges the conferees,
or directs the conferees, to adopt bipartisan legislation introduced by
Senator Cotton, who is now the Presiding Officer in the Chair, and me
and others. It is called the 5G act, and it deals with Defending
America's 5G Future Act. What it does, very simply, is codify the Trump
administration's Executive order putting Huawei on what is called the
entity list and then making sure that before there is a change to this,
if you wanted to take them off entirely, that would require a
congressional action. But it also says that if you want to seek waivers
under that act, you should come to Congress and at least give Congress
the opportunity to disagree. This is very important to protect our
security, to protect U.S. technology from theft. I urge my colleagues
to support that resolution.
DETER Act
Mr. President, I am also here to urge my colleagues to support
another resolution. This one is directing the conferees to the Defense
authorization bill to support a motion and resolutions put forward by
Senator Rubio and me and others--again, a bipartisan resolution, making
it clear that we should deter foreign interference in U.S. elections.
It is based on the principles of bipartisan legislation, a bipartisan
act that we have introduced called the DETER Act. The idea is very
simple, which is this: We want to say up front that our intelligence
communities, or others in the administration, should inform Congress
immediately if there has been interference in our elections. If the
answer is yes, that would trigger immediate and stiff sanctions on
whatever foreign government is acting to interfere in our elections.
We can spend a lot of money and resources protecting our election
infrastructure and our election systems, and we should do that. We can
urge all of the social media companies to improve their platforms and
make it more difficult for foreign governments and adversaries to use
those platforms to influence and impact our elections.
None of those measures actually impose a big cost on a foreign
government
[[Page S5692]]
like Russia for interfering in our elections. All those things do is
make it harder, and we should make it harder. In this case, the best
defense is a good offense, meaning the best defense to having a foreign
government interfering in our elections is to discourage and deter them
from doing that in the first place.
Right now, what we have learned is there is no cost to Vladimir Putin
and the Russians for interfering in our elections. In fact, they assess
that they get a significant benefit from creating division within the
United States. If you are Vladimir Putin and you are doing a cost
benefit analysis--should I interfere in the U.S. elections or not?--you
conclude: Hey, I am going to gain something by creating this kind of
division and confusion within the United States. What we should be
doing is saying in advance and up front to Vladimir Putin and Russia or
any other foreign leader or government, if we catch you interfering in
our elections, you will definitely pay a price in the form of sanctions
against some of your financial institutions or key aspects of your
economic sector. We need to spell that out in advance.
This resolution requires that Congress be notified after the election
as to whether we have detected foreign interference. Next time, someone
like Vladimir Putin will know in advance that if we catch them, there
will be a price to pay, a penalty to pay. That will, of course,
discourage the activity in the first place.
It doesn't cost us a dime to do this. Yes, we should continue to
spend money, as I said, to harden our systems at home and better defend
ourselves. For goodness' sake, we should at least take the position
that we are going to let foreign powers know in advance, if we catch
you--and by the way, we will catch you if you interfere in our
elections--there will be an immediate and severe price to pay.
I urge my colleagues to unanimously support this resolution. It is
appropriate that we are directing the conferees to the National Defense
Authorization Act to include this provision because, after all, the
reason we invest in our defense is to protect our country and to
protect our democracy. That bill should include a provision telling
foreign powers: If you mess around and interfere in our Democratic
elections, you will pay a price. That will make it less likely they
will do so to begin with.
I urge adoption of the resolution.
Mr. President, 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. VAN HOLLEN. 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.
Vote on S. Res. 330
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Van Hollen
resolution to instruct.
The resolution (S. Res. 330) was agreed to.
(The resolution is printed in today's Record under "Submitted
Resolutions.")
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S5692, September 25, 2019, second column, the following
appears: The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the
Van Hollen resolution to instruct. The resolution (S. Res. 330)
was agreed to.
The online Record has been corrected to read: The PRESIDING
OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Van Hollen resolution
to instruct. The resolution (S. Res. 330) was agreed to. (The
resolution is printed in today's Record under "Submitted
Resolutions.")
========================= END NOTE =========================
Vote on S. Res. 331
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote on the resolution
to instruct.
The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
S. Res. 331
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly about our
resolution, which is to instruct the conferees to adopt the bipartisan
Defending America's 5G Future Act into the conference report.
Huawei is no ordinary telecom company. It is the eyes and ears of the
Chinese Communist Party. That is why the administration earlier this
year put it on the Commerce Department's blacklist. It is a rare action
that both Republicans and Democrats can support.
Our legislation, to a large extent, codifies that decision to keep
Huawei on the blacklist and to ensure that Congress has a say on any
exclusion, say for a small rural telecom that needs time to transition.
We might pass a resolution of disapproval if we oppose that action.
But, most importantly, it is to ensure that Congress affirmatively acts
to pass a resolution of approval to remove Huawei from the blacklist,
because that is where Huawei belongs and where they should stay without
a decision of the people's representatives in Congress.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I join with my colleague, the Senator
from Arkansas, in this bipartisan motion to instruct.
Huawei is a menace. It is a menace to our national security. It is a
menace to our economic growth. It is a menace to the future of America
in many ways. If we are not tough with Huawei, whom are we going to be
tough with? If we are not tough with Huawei, what are we going to do
when China continues to take advantage of us in ways that are unfair--
whether it be economic, national security, cyber, or whatever.
This resolution will ensure that the conferees know that the Senate
is strongly in support of being tough with Huawei on national security
grounds, on economic grounds, and, basically, on ensuring that America
stays No. 1 in many of the leading technologies that we will need to
create job growth, wealth, and prosperity in the future.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the resolution
to instruct.
Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, I request 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 bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio)
would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker),
the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 4, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 303 Leg.]
YEAS--91
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Jones
Kaine
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
Markey
McConnell
McSally
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Roberts
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NAYS--4
Crapo
Enzi
Paul
Risch
NOT VOTING--5
Booker
Harris
Rubio
Sanders
Warren
The resolution (S. Res. 331) was agreed to.
(The resolution is printed in today's Record under "Submitted
Resolutions.")
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S5692, September 25, 2019, third column, the following
appears: The resolution (S. Res. 331) was agreed to.
The online Record has been corrected to read: The resolution (S.
Res. 331) was agreed to. (The resolution is printed in today's
Record under "Submitted Resolutions.")
========================= END NOTE =========================
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
remaining votes in the series be 10 minutes in length.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Vote on S. Res. 332
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote on the Jones
resolution to instruct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. JONES. Colleagues, today we are about to vote on a resolution
that will correct a long-held injustice--one that has been on the books
for decades; one that has caused significant pain to military spouses
who have given so
[[Page S5693]]
much for our country. It is an elimination of the military widow's tax.
It has been voted on in this body for over 18 years and has never
gotten across the finish line. Now is the time. This is our time to
make sure that we tell our veterans that we are supportive but we show
it with our actions, not just with our words. I urge everyone to please
vote to instruct the conferees to eliminate the military widow's tax.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I agree with the comments made by the
Senator from Alabama. There is one problem with this, and that is, it
is not paid for. I am supporting it. I am actually a cosponsor of the
bill and was a cosponsor of the bill long before this year, but we are
going to have to really get busy to figure out how to pay for this. It
is very expensive. But I do encourage people to vote for it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on adoption of the Jones
resolution.
Mr. SASSE. Madam 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 senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the Senator from Florida (Mr.
Rubio).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio)
would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker),
the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 304 Leg.]
YEAS--94
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Jones
Kaine
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
Markey
McConnell
McSally
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NOT VOTING--6
Booker
Burr
Harris
Rubio
Sanders
Warren
The resolution (S. Res. 332) was agreed to.
(The resolution is printed in today's Record under "Submitted
Resolutions.")
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S5693, September 25, 2019, second column, the following
appears: The resolution (S. Res. 332) was agreed to.
The online Record has been corrected to read: The resolution (S.
Res. 332) was agreed to. (The resolution is printed in today's
Record under "Submitted Resolutions.")
========================= END NOTE =========================
Vote on S. Res. 333
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to the vote on the Schatz resolution.
The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, this resolution urges the inclusion of
the Federal Employee Paid Leave Act in the final conference agreement
on the NDAA. This resolution provides 12 weeks of paid family leave for
Federal employees in all situations already covered under the FMLA.
Too many of our Federal employees have to make the impossible choice
of getting a paycheck or looking after a sick child, caring for an
aging parent, or recovering from a health condition. As a result, many
have been forced to leave their jobs and obtain other employment.
Paid family leave is not only the right thing to do for Federal
workers, but it is the smart thing to do for our Federal workforce.
This is the most practical and fiscally responsible way to provide
family leave for Federal workers.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time in opposition?
All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the Schatz resolution.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam 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 Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Florida (Mr. Rubio).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio)
would have voted ``nay.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker),
the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cramer). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 48, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 305 Leg.]
YEAS--47
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Brown
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Jones
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Peters
Portman
Reed
Rosen
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--48
Alexander
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
McConnell
McSally
Moran
Paul
Perdue
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rounds
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young
NOT VOTING--5
Booker
Harris
Rubio
Sanders
Warren
The resolution (S. Res. 333) was rejected.
Vote on S. Res. 334
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote on the Peters
resolution to instruct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, let me be frank. Today, our water and our
health is at risk from highly fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS.
These chemicals have been widely used commercially, and they are also
concentrated in firefighting foams used by the Department of Defense.
They are toxic, and they have been linked to serious health issues in
those who are exposed to them.
High levels of PFAS contamination exist at the former Wurtsmith Air
Force Base in Oscoda, MI, and at military sites all across our country.
My resolution would retain the Senate language prohibiting the
Department of Defense from using firefighting foams containing PFAS
chemicals to the end of 2023.
PFAS-free foams are already widely used internationally by military
services and at major hub airports, such as Heathrow and Dubai.
We must protect our troops, our firefighters, our communities, and
our water.
I urge my colleagues to support my resolution.
I yield back all remaining time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to the resolution.
The resolution (S. Res. 334) was agreed to.
(The resolution is printed in today's Record under "Submitted
Resolutions.")
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S5693, September 25, 2019, third column, the following
appears: The resolution (S. Res. 334) was agreed to.
The online Record has been corrected to read: The resolution (S.
Res. 334) was agreed to. (The resolution is printed in today's
Record under "Submitted Resolutions.")
========================= END NOTE =========================
[[Page S5694]]
Vote on S. Res. 335
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote on the McSally
resolution.
Mr. DURBIN: Mr. President this week, the Senate will vote again on
whether or not the President was right in using a phony emergency
declaration in order to take money meant for our military and put it
toward his medieval wall on the southern border.
In March, we voted overwhelmingly, on a bipartisan basis, to repeal
this declaration. I hope we can do so again. We may also vote on a
resolution offered by the junior Senator from Arizona which calls on
Congress to ``backfill'' $3.6 billion in cancelled military
construction projects. This means should we give the President $3.6
billion to replace the $3.6 billion that he stole for his wall.
There are no protections attached to this backfill, meaning there is
nothing ensuring that he can't steal from our military again. It is
said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and
over and expecting a different result. We should not vote to hand over
more money without a guarantee that it will actually go to our military
this time. The McSally resolution contains no such protection, so I
urge my colleagues to vote against it.
Maybe you doubt that the President would repeat his border tricks.
Well, a senior administration official admitted that he actually did
plan to do it again in the Washington Post on Friday. The headline
reads, ``Trump officials considering plan to divert billions of dollars
in additional funds for border barrier.''
Yes, the President has already made our military pay $6.1 billion for
his wall, but apparently that was just round one. Talking about the
bills before Congress for fiscal year 2020, an unnamed official told
the Post, ``The plan is to sell it as replenishment money to the
Defense Department for the $3.6 billion they took this year. Then once
they got it from Congress, they would take it again.''
It is a breathtaking statement. The question for this Chamber is, Are
we really going to continue to play along? Remember, this $3.6 billion
taken from military construction projects will cause direct harm to our
military personnel, their families, and our Nation's security posture
around the world. Don't forget, that came after the White House took
$2.5 billion last spring from our military, funds which should have
gone to other military priorities were instead diverted to a political
promise.
What were some of these 127 cancelled military construction projects
in 26 States and Territories and on U.S. bases around the world? The
Pentagon prioritized rebuilding National Guard facilities and a school
for military children in Puerto Rico. Congress agreed and provided $400
million, but the President took it away a few weeks ago, and their hope
is gone.
Joint Base Andrews in Maryland needed a new childcare facility, to
replace one filled with mold and overcrowded rooms. Congress agreed.
But the President took it away with his decision. Similarly, Fort
Campbell, KY, lost a new school for military children. U.S. bases in
Europe lost projects meant to reassure our allies and deter Putin's
Russia. U.S. bases in South Korea and Japan lost projects meant to
deter North Korea and China. All of it and more was labeled a top
priority by the Pentagon and cancelled by the President anyway. This
puts our men and women at real risk.
The Air Force notes that without one of the cancelled projects its
base would be, ``vulnerable to hostile penetration in the midst of
contingency operations and an increased terrorist threat.'' Another
cancelled project to upgrade a munitions side would make it difficult
for U.S. fighter and bomber aircraft to operate properly.
Congress should reject the President's phony declaration and reject
the idea that Congress should throw good money after bad. Congress must
reassert its powers with these votes this week.
Mr. THUNE. All time is yielded back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the resolution.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Burr).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio)
would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker),
the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 42, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 306 Leg.]
YEAS--52
Alexander
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Jones
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
McConnell
McSally
Moran
Murkowski
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rounds
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sinema
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young
NAYS--42
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Paul
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--6
Booker
Burr
Harris
Rubio
Sanders
Warren
The resolution (S. Res. 335) was agreed to.
(The resolution is printed in today's Record under "Submitted
Resolutions.")
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S5694, September 25, 2019, third column, the following
appears: The resolution (S. Res. 335) was agreed to.
The online Record has been corrected to read: The resolution (S.
Res. 335) was agreed to. (The resolution is printed in today's
Record under "Submitted Resolutions.")
========================= END NOTE =========================
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Order of Business
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following
disposition of the resolutions to instruct on S. 1790, the Senate
proceed to executive session and vote on the motions to invoke cloture
on the Hyten and Scalia nominations in the order filed; further, that
the mandatory quorum calls be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Vote on S. Res. 336
Under the previous order, there will be 2 minutes of debate equally
divided prior to the vote on the Ernst resolution to instruct.
The Senator from Iowa.
Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this
resolution to ensure that Congress is working toward commonsense,
effective family leave solutions. It is well past time we made paid
parental leave a reality in this country. Affording all moms and dads
the flexibility to spend time with their new baby is something
Americans want to see happen.
While I appreciate the resolution by my colleague from the State of
Hawaii, putting Washington insiders and Federal employees first doesn't
add up as the right first step. I believe we need to think more broadly
about this issue and how it impacts hard-working families in Iowa and
across the country.
We all recognize there are significant barriers for new, working
parents to spend time with their baby during those critical and
precious first few months. That is why I am working with Senator Mike
Lee on a proposal to offer paid parental leave to all new parents in a
way that is both budget neutral and flexible. In fact, a number of
Republicans and Democrats are working on potential pathways forward.
At the heart of all of it, we simply cannot lose sight of the fact
that we need solutions that work for all American families, not just
those fortunate enough to have a government job. If we are serious
about enacting paid family leave policies, instead of scoring political
wins, we will support the resolution before us.
[[Page S5695]]
Families are the bedrock of our society. Let's look for solutions
that all Americans can embrace.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment because, as it is written, it really rewards only companies
that are very wealthy and successful with additional tax credits to do
something they are already doing. By that measure, it will leave most
American workers without basic access to leave.
The other potential idea is about shifting hours and suggesting that
workers have to work overtime to be able to have paid leave. Every
parent in America, every person in America, will have a time when they
have a family crisis--whether it is a dying parent, whether it is a
sick spouse, whether it is a new child--and we are still the only
industrialized country in the world that doesn't have access to
national paid leave. We should be able to come together around this
commonsense solution that Senator Schatz has offered to create at least
the first step to make sure our Federal workers aren't
disproportionately harmed because they can't compete with the private
sector.
I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Ernst
resolution.
Mr. THUNE. 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 North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the Senator from Florida (Mr.
Rubio).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio)
would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker),
the Senator from California, (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont
(Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 39, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 307 Leg.]
YEAS--55
Alexander
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
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
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sinema
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young
NAYS--39
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Kaine
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--6
Booker
Burr
Harris
Rubio
Sanders
Warren
The resolution (S. Res. 336) was agreed to.
(The resolution is printed in today's Record under "Submitted
Resolutions.")
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S5695, September 25, 2019, second column, the following
appears: The resolution (S. Res. 336) was agreed to.
The online Record has been corrected to read: The resolution (S.
Res. 336) was agreed to. (The resolution is printed in today's
Record under "Submitted Resolutions.")
========================= END NOTE =========================
____________________