[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 164 (Thursday, October 17, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5858-S5869]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5, 
    UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL 
    PROTECTION AGENCY RELATING TO ``REPEAL OF THE CLEAN POWER PLAN; 
EMISSION GUIDELINES FOR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM EXISTING ELECTRIC 
UTILITY GENERATING UNITS; REVISIONS TO EMISSION GUIDELINES IMPLEMENTING 
                             REGULATIONS''

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I move to proceed to S.J. Res. 53.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the joint resolution by 
title.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 53) providing for 
     congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 
     States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental 
     Protection Agency relating to ``Repeal of the Clean

[[Page S5859]]

     Power Plan; Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions 
     From Existing Electric Utility Generating Units; Revisions to 
     Emission Guidelines Implementing Regulations''.

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I know of no further debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The clerk will report the joint resolution by title.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 53) providing for 
     congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 
     States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental 
     Protection Agency relating to ``Repeal of the Clean Power 
     Plan; Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From 
     Existing Electric Utility Generating Units; Revisions to 
     Emission Guidelines Implementing Regulations''.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the joint 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until noon 
is equally divided.
  The Senator from Maryland.


                      Remembering Elijah Cummings

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, as the senior Senator from Maryland, I 
want to comment on the remarks by Leader Schumer about the great loss 
we had that we learned about early this morning--the death of 
Congressman Elijah Cummings. I found out about this as I awoke this 
morning. It is a sad day for Baltimore, for Maryland, and for our 
country.
  Two days ago, I had a chance to talk with Maya Rockeymoore Cummings, 
Congressman Cummings' wife, to inquire as to how the Congressman was 
doing. She explained to me that he was still in the hospital but he was 
using every ounce of energy he had to carry out his responsibilities as 
chairman of the Oversight Committee and as a Member of the House of 
Representatives. We all know that he used his energy every day on 
behalf of the people he represented.
  Our Nation has lost one of the great champions for social justice. 
What a powerful voice he was for those whose voices would otherwise not 
have been heard. It is a great loss. It is a great loss for the people 
of Baltimore--his record of accomplishment on behalf of our city and 
our region is well known--and it is a personal loss for me.
  I first got to know Elijah Cummings when he was elected to the 
Maryland General Assembly. I was speaker of the house. I recognized 
that here was a person coming in with incredible talent. I gave him an 
opportunity to use that talent, and he used it so effectively on behalf 
of the people of his district as a member of the Maryland General 
Assembly.
  Congressman Cummings and I have a lot in common. We both attended the 
same public high school in Baltimore City, Baltimore City College High 
School--different years. He graduated from the University of Maryland 
Law School, and I also graduated from the University of Maryland Law 
School. We served together in the Maryland General Assembly, and we 
served together in the House of Representatives.
  God gave him the talent to communicate like no one I have heard. 
There was incredible passion in his voice. I had the opportunity to see 
firsthand what he was able to accomplish on behalf of the people. What 
a legacy. He used every moment. He achieved the high position of 
chairman of the Oversight Committee but never lost his sense of purpose 
for the people he represented. He went home to Baltimore every night. 
You could see him in the community every day at schools and at church. 
He never lost the passion for the people he represented.
  What a legacy he has left for all of us. We can't fill the void that 
has been created by Congressman Cummings' passing, but all of us need 
to step up and help carry out that legacy of public service. It is a 
terrible loss for the people of our community and a terrible loss for 
our Nation.
  Our prayers go out to Maya Rockeymoore Cummings and his family in 
this incredibly difficult time. We will commit ourselves to carrying on 
the legacy of a great American, our friend Elijah Cummings.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, before I begin, I, too, want to join with 
my colleagues who have preceded me and just say how sad I was to hear 
of the death of Elijah Cummings. We joined the House together. He got 
there a little before I did in a special election in 1996. I came in 
January of 1997. I always admired his fire and his dedication. He was a 
fierce advocate for his constituents and for the causes he believed in. 
The House will be a lesser place for his absence.
  Our prayers are with his family and all those who had the opportunity 
to know him, his constituents, those he represented in Baltimore and 
the State of Maryland who are going to mourn his loss today and miss 
his presence for many, many days in the future.


              United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement

  Madam President, farmers and ranchers have gotten some good news on 
the trade front in recent weeks with the signing of a trade deal with 
Japan.
  U.S. farmers depend on access to the Japanese market. It is the 
fourth largest market for U.S. agricultural producers. This agreement 
will remove barriers to the sale of a variety of products, from cheese 
to sweet corn, beef, pork, and wheat.
  While this is very good news for farmers and ranchers, we have a lot 
more work to do on the trade front to help our ag community and to 
increase demand for American agricultural products around the world, 
and we should start by passing the United States-Mexico-Canada Free 
Trade Agreement. Canada and Mexico are the No. 1 and No. 2 markets for 
American agricultural products, and preserving and expanding access to 
these markets is key to improving the economic outlook for America's 
farmers. Over a year ago, the administration finished negotiating a 
strong deal with these countries that will help boost our struggling 
agricultural economy.
  To start with, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement will provide 
farmers with certainty about what these important markets are going to 
look like going forward. One of the biggest challenges facing farmers 
on the trade front right now is the uncertainty about what markets 
around the world are going to look like. The United States-Mexico-
Canada Agreement will give farmers and ranchers clarity on what trade 
is going to look like with these two key trading partners.
  In addition to providing certainty and preserving American access for 
American farmers and ranchers, the United States-Mexico-Canada 
Agreement makes a number of improvements to the status quo. Of 
particular interest to South Dakota are the agreement's dairy 
provisions. If you drive the I-29 corridor north of Brookings, SD, you 
can see firsthand the major dairy expansion South Dakota has 
experienced over the past several years. The U.S.-Mexico-Canada 
Agreement will preserve U.S. dairy farmers' role as a key dairy 
supplier to Mexico, and it will substantially expand market access in 
Canada. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates that the 
agreement will boost U.S. dairy exports by more than $277 million.
  The agreement will also expand market access for U.S. poultry and egg 
producers. It will make it easier for producers to export wheat to 
Canada and much more.
  I have just focused on the benefits for farmers. In fact, the United 
States-Mexico-Canada Agreement will benefit almost every sector of our 
economy, from the automobile industry to digital trade and e-commerce. 
It will create 176,000 jobs, and it will raise wages for workers.
  Given the major benefits not only for farmers but for the economy as 
a whole, why hasn't Congress passed this agreement yet? That is a good 
question, and the answer really is quite simple. By law, the House of 
Representatives has to take up the agreement first, but the House has 
unfortunately been more focused on political theater of late than on 
collaborating on measures that would actually help American families, 
and unfortunately it doesn't look like that is going to change.
  I heard the Democratic leader down here earlier sort of attacking the 
current administration for not doing enough on this or that. Well, the 
fact is, if you look at the economic statistics over the past couple of 
years, they

[[Page S5860]]

are pretty remarkable. Unemployment is at a historically low rate--3\1/
2\ percent. Those are numbers we haven't seen in a very long time--
about 50 years, as a matter of fact. The number of jobs that have been 
created since the President took office is about 6.4 million jobs. In 
fact--a very important data point--the number of people looking for 
work juxtaposed against the number of job openings in our economy--for 
the 17th month in a row, we have more jobs available--about 7.3 million 
jobs available--than those people looking for work--about 5.9 million 
people. That is a historically sort of unprecedented, if you will, 
statistic.
  So if you look at the overall economy, things are in the right place. 
They are moving in the right direction. Wages are up--the highest level 
in a decade. The American people's pocketbooks, the things they care 
about, the things they talk about over the kitchen table in terms of 
their wages, their jobs, their prospects, their certainty about the 
future--those things have all improved over the past couple of years 
because of the policies this administration has put in place, coupled 
with the work this Congress has done to try to create conditions that 
are favorable to economic growth.
  What does that mean? Well, his tax policy. We have cut tax rates for 
individuals and families. We have cut tax rates for small businesses 
that are trying to expand. We allowed them to accelerate their cost 
recovery. Those are both key incentives when it comes to investment and 
expansion. And we have seen the results of that.

  We have seen regulatory changes made by the administration--in some 
cases cooperating and coupled with the steps we have taken here in the 
Congress--that have lessened the burden for businesses that are trying 
to invest and grow and expand and create more jobs.
  If you look at the energy changes, energy policy, we have become 
energy independent--something that a decade ago or two decades ago, 
nobody ever anticipated was possible. As a nation, we are now actually 
an exporter of energy--a remarkable change over a short period of time. 
I would argue that is largely due to changes in policy that have 
enabled and encouraged that kind of investment in energy, regulatory 
changes that have lessened the regulatory burden and made it less 
expensive and less difficult to create jobs in this country rather than 
more expensive and more difficult, which is what we particularly saw in 
the past administration, and lowered the tax burden in a way that 
provides incentives for people to invest, to grow their company, to pay 
better wages, and to add jobs.
  Those are the types of policy changes that have been made that have 
resulted in the economic data and statistics we are looking at today. 
They are not just data and statistics; they are actually being felt by 
people across this country. So it begs the question as to why, then, 
another step that we could take on that road to economic progress 
hasn't been taken yet. Why, 320 days after the President signed the 
U.S.-Canada-Mexico Free Trade Agreement, has that not been taken up and 
passed by the House of Representatives? I would argue that if they 
would take that up and send it to the Senate, we would vote on it here. 
We would pass it. We would send it to the President. He would sign it 
into law, and farmers and ranchers in places like South Dakota and 
other agricultural States across this country would get the benefit 
from that. And it is not just farmers and ranchers. As I mentioned 
earlier, it is pretty much every sector of our economy. It is 
manufacturing. It is digital.
  There are benefits in this trade deal that translate into a stronger, 
more robust economy that will keep this expansion going forward and 
will continue to create these good-paying jobs and higher wages and 
create that better standard of living and quality of life for people in 
this country. The reason it hasn't moved is because it is up to the 
House of Representatives. They have all the control on this. The 
Speaker of the House can move this whenever she wants to. What they are 
trying to do now is renegotiate the deal all over again.
  Unfortunately, they are very much obsessed at the moment with other 
types of activities in the House. If you look at what is happening over 
there right now, it doesn't look like that is going to change anytime 
soon. With even the Speaker of the House joining the far left's now 
impeachment crusade, I don't think it is likely that Democrats are 
going to wake up one morning and decide they should spend less time on 
partisan politics and more time working with Republicans to pass real 
solutions for the American people. But I do hope they will not destroy 
this trade agreement. There are thousands of farmers in my State of 
South Dakota and around the country who are waiting for the relief that 
the United States-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement would bring.
  Irrespective of what the distractions are in the House of 
Representatives at the moment and much of the partisan rush toward 
impeachment that is underway there, I hope they will figure out a way 
to multitask and will do what they should have done a long time ago, 
and that is to pick up this free-trade deal, pass it through the House 
of Representatives, send it to the U.S. Senate, where we can pass it, 
and send it to the President, where it can be signed into law, and the 
American people can continue to see the benefits of policies that are 
good for this economy, that will create more growth in our country, 
faster growth in our economy, better paying jobs, and a better quality 
of life for people not just in South Dakota but all across America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                         Defense Spending Bill

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor today to discuss 
the current partisan blockade. It is a blockade of critical military 
funding for our troops at home and abroad.
  Last month, Senate Democrats blocked a key vote on the defense 
spending bill. We need to pass this bill to fully fund the Defense 
Department. By blocking the bill, Democrats are denying America's 
troops the pay raises that they have earned and that they deserve.
  To add insult to injury, both parties in both Houses agreed a couple 
of months ago to give the troops this raise. We did it more than 2 
months ago. In fact, it was part of the bipartisan budget deal that was 
signed in August.
  By moving the Defense spending bill, Republicans are keeping their 
promises to our all-volunteer American force. Still, Democrats have 
broken their promise to the troops.
  Why on Earth would the Democrats want to play political games with 
the paychecks of our troops? Under the harshest conditions, these brave 
men and women defend our cherished freedoms 365 days a year. America's 
servicemembers--our servicemembers--help keep us safe. They keep us 
strong, and they keep us, as a Nation, prosperous. Without question, 
they deserve our full support, and that support should be bipartisan. 
Why it isn't right now is beyond me.
  Recently, I had the privilege of visiting Wyoming troops, our Wyoming 
National Guard. We have a very large deployment, our largest in 10 
years. They are serving in Kuwait, in the United Arab Emirates, and in 
Kosovo. We have troop members serving, as well, in Afghanistan.
  We have about 1,500 members in the Wyoming National Guard, and, right 
now, about 400 of them are serving overseas. They are from towns like 
Casper, Cheyenne, Guernsey, Laramie, Sheridan, Lovell, Moorcroft, 
Wheatland, and brothers from Sheridan and Casper. I met with all of 
them. Some 370 Wyoming Guard members are currently serving in 
Afghanistan, the Middle East, and in Europe. It is our largest 
deployment in a decade.
  I was honored to spend time with these dedicated servicemembers from 
my home State. First, I visited the 115th Field Artillery Brigade 
Forward in the United Arab Emirates. It is in the desert across from 
the Strait of Hormuz. From there, I traveled to Kuwait to meet with our 
2nd Battalion, 300th Field Artillery. My father-in-law, Bob Brown, was 
a member of this group during Korea. He had also served in World War 
II, as I know, Mr. President, your father was part of the D-day 
invasion. I finished visiting with the troops in Kosovo, the C Company, 
1st Battalion, 297th Infantry Regiment in

[[Page S5861]]

Kosovo, up near the Serbian border. In service to our country, these 
soldiers now find themselves far from home, and we owe it to them to 
give them the raise that they have earned and that they deserve.
  You know, before I left, I gave every one of our soldiers a challenge 
coin. It is a challenge coin for me, as a Senator, and it is something 
I learned about through the military. It is something you give to 
somebody for camaraderie and a job well done. The coin shows the 
Wyoming iconic cowboy sitting on a bucking bronco. I gave it to each 
one of them saying: You are from Wyoming, you are a cowboy, and cowboys 
never quit and never complain, and neither will the U.S. military.
  So when it comes to a raise, they are not quitting, and they are not 
complaining. It seems to me that it is the Democrats who have quit. The 
Democrats have quit. They have gone back on their word to approve the 
pay raise that they approved a couple of months ago and now are 
blocking us moving forward with this piece of legislation.
  You know, the troops I met invited the cowboy spirit. They love to 
see it. They don't need to see it for long because they have a lot to 
do. They are working 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, and 365 days a 
year. They wanted to talk about what is happening at home. They wanted 
to talk about Wyoming football. They wanted to talk about the hunting 
season. They wanted to talk about the weather at home, where we have 
already had snow. The day I was in one of the locations, it was 108 
degrees, and the heat index was higher than that, and they are, of 
course, in full uniform. They are there doing the job of keeping us 
safe and keeping us free, and they deserve the pay raise that they have 
earned.
  They are on the frontlines. They are defending our freedoms. They are 
doing it every day.
  I had a meal with them, as you see here right now, visiting with 
these men and women. It is a time for camaraderie. We talked about the 
challenges they are facing overseas.
  I toured each of their bases. They know that the world is a very 
dangerous place in which they are living and serving, and they know 
what is happening in the threats to Iran, which to this group was only 
a little over 100 miles away, across the Strait of Hormuz.
  Look, clearly, the best way to protect Americans at home is to keep 
up the pressure on our enemies abroad. Our presence there is 
restraining evil in the region. That is why our troops need our full 
support, and they need it right now. They shouldn't be placed at a 
point where they have to tolerate and wait for the Democrats to come 
back to the table and come to an agreement that they had reached and 
made promises on earlier this year.
  With growing threats from abroad, the Defense funding bill delivers 
critical resources that our military needs to keep us safe. One thing 
is crystal clear from my visit: The best way to honor our troops is to 
honor our commitments to them.
  So let's give these men and women in uniform the raise that they have 
earned, that they deserve, that they are entitled to, and let's give 
our troops the state-of-the-art tools they need to protect the American 
people in a dangerous world. It is time for Democrats to lift their 
hold on this blockade that they have had on our Defense funding bill. 
We must work together, in a bipartisan way, to complete the regular 
Defense appropriations process and fully fund our military, as our 
Nation demands and our troops certainly deserve.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). The Senator from New 
Mexico.


                            Border Security

  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, last month, both the Senate and the House 
of Representatives resolved, on a bipartisan basis, to terminate the 
President's declaration of a national emergency along our southern 
border. I was proud to lead the charge before this body to terminate 
that declaration--a declaration the President is using to raid 
congressionally appropriated military construction funds to build this 
border wall. Plain and simple, the President's emergency declaration is 
an end-run around Congress's spending powers and the Constitution.
  Last week, a Federal district judge agreed and concluded that the 
President's declaration is ``unlawful.'' Article I, section 9, of the 
Constitution could not be clearer. It reads: ``No Money shall be drawn 
from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law. . 
. .''
  The Founders gave Congress the power to appropriate--the power of the 
purse. This is one of the most consequential powers. Congress has this 
power to make sure that decisions about how public dollars are spent 
have widespread support and are not the product of an extreme minority, 
let alone one man.
  Our power to appropriate is part of the system of checks and balances 
built into our Constitution. The Founders made sure that the three 
branches of government exercised their own separate and limited powers, 
and they made sure that no one branch and no one person could exercise 
too much power, especially over the use of taxpayer money.
  The President's emergency declaration is an unconstitutional power 
grab. Congress has not fully funded his requests for border wall 
funding. We set different budget priorities. Our priorities include the 
$3.6 billion worth of 127 military construction projects across 23 
States, 3 Territories, and 20 countries, and the President canceled 
them.
  But this President will not accept Congress's judgment or our 
constitutional authority. His emergency declaration is an exercise of 
power that is just not his under the Constitution.
  Our system of checks and balances only works if each branch has the 
will to check the other branch if there is encroachment. We have seen 
some good bipartisan pushback, but this is the point where we need more 
of that. It is up to Congress, the legislative branch, to guard our 
constitutional authority and to exercise the will to do so.
  The President has now vetoed Congress's resolution, and it is up to 
this body to assert our constitutional authority and override that 
veto. Not only is a fundamental constitutional principle at stake, but 
the President's emergency declaration has real life impacts--impacts to 
our national security and impacts to the 23 States whose projects are 
now gone.
  My home State of New Mexico is one of those 23 States. We are home to 
two military bases that will be hit by the President's raid on military 
construction projects to fund his wall.
  Scuttled is an $85 million project at Holloman Air Force Base that 
would improve drone pilot training facilities that are aging, have 
sinkholes, and bat infestation. Training our military to pilot drones 
is mission critical in this day and age. The Air Force is battling a 
shortage of these pilots.
  At White Sands Missile Range, a $40 million project designed to 
replace an aging and fire-damaged information systems facility has been 
cut. This project was to prepare the range to take on the next 
generation of missiles and weapons testing, including future hypersonic 
testing.
  Twenty-two other States are losing military construction projects, 
from Alabama to Arizona, North Carolina to Texas, and Maine to Florida. 
In Utah, the Air Force has sought a new control center at Hill Air 
Force Base to replace ``structurally deficient'' and dilapidated World 
War II-era warehouses for mission control. In Louisiana, the Air 
National Guard sought to replace an aircraft parking ramp in a New 
Orleans facility that exposes the public to an ``unacceptable risk'' of 
being impacted by an explosive accident.
  In Indiana, Army servicemembers have worked in violation of safety 
standards for handling explosives and need additional space for 
munitions. In Kentucky, the military seeks to repair ``substandard, 
deficient, inadequate, and undersized facilities'' at a middle school 
at Fort Campbell that ``impair the overall education program'' for the 
children of servicemembers.
  Not only is New Mexico one of the States hit by the President's 
canceling important military construction projects, but we are one of 
four States that borders Mexico. We are ground zero for the President's 
border wall and the havoc it will wreak on our communities, our way of 
life, the local economies, landowners, and the environment. New Mexico 
and Mexico share a 180-mile border. This border passes

[[Page S5862]]

through three counties--Dona Ana, Luna, and Hidalgo--that are home to 
11 percent of our State's population. A majority of the population in 
those counties is Hispanic. We have vibrant communities along the 
border and near the border, including our second largest city, Las 
Cruces, 45 minutes from Mexico.
  We have two ports of entry--in Columbus and Santa Teresa--that are 
bustling with commerce, international trade, and hundreds who cross the 
border daily to visit family and friends, to go to school, and to shop.
  I know our border communities. I can tell you for a fact, there is no 
justification for the diversion of military construction funding away 
from our troops and to this wall.
  Now, I support smart border security and have voted many times to 
fund smart investment. New Mexico knows what real border security is: 
well-funded, well-trained, adequate resources; mobile assets; 
surveillance technology combined with well-staffed ports of entry that 
welcome commerce, visitors, and also asylum-seekers seeking refuge from 
horrific persecution.
  The President's wall, at upward of $25 million per mile, is not a 
smart investment. It is antiquated and is not designed for today's 
challenges. This wasteful approach contrasts to the sound investment we 
made in the Columbus port of entry. Commerce, personal vehicle traffic, 
and foot traffic have increased exponentially over the years. Customs 
and Border Protection needed more secure facilities. We pushed to 
expand and update this New Mexico port. For $90 million, we greatly 
enhanced border security and added to economic growth. Now, that is a 
wise investment of taxpayer dollars.
  In New Mexico, we are concerned about the land grab underway by this 
administration. They are pushing to expropriate private lands for the 
President's wall, and there are lots of landowners who don't want their 
lands cut in half or made unusable.
  We can't get answers from the administration about what they are 
doing, and so Senator Heinrich and I, along with Senator Schumer and 
Senator Durbin, requested the Government Accountability Office to 
investigate the number of citizens who could have their land seized, 
the cost of property acquisitions, and the time it will take. I am 
pleased the GAO has opened an inquiry. Not only is there concern that 
the Trump administration will skirt eminent domain laws, but there is a 
real threat that environmental laws will be tossed out the window in 
the administration's rush to fulfill the President's campaign promise 
to build 500 miles of wall.
  The wall would run through hundreds of miles of untouched, pristine 
lands that are home to wildlife like antelope, deer, and javelina. A 
wall will tear up these lands and their vegetation, cause erosion and 
flooding, and cut off migratory paths for wildlife.
  The Department of the Interior is set to transfer 500 acres of lands 
in New Mexico, Arizona, and California to the Army for the President's 
wall, and 213 of those acres are in my State. The Department of the 
Interior is supposed to protect our natural resources, not endanger 
them with a border wall that will compromise their ecological value, 
destroy habitat connectivity, and harm wildlife.
  The President's wall and his divisive rhetoric toward immigrants is 
deeply offensive to New Mexicans. We have strong family, cultural, and 
economic ties to Mexico. We are a proud multicultural State. Our 
diversity does not divide us; it defines us. It is our strength.
  This body holds the power of the purse, not the President. Now is the 
time to affirm this constitutional power and affirm the appropriations 
decisions we have made for our own States and the Nation.
  We should override the President's veto and make sure that legitimate 
national security interests are protected by seeing that the 127 
military construction projects go forward on schedule.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, the next vote, the vote we will take in 
less than an hour, is a vote that would exercise the Congressional 
Review Act, of which I am a supporter. The idea that we should use the 
Congressional Review Act is a good thing for us to look at what any 
administration does and determine if that is the right way to go.
  Today, I certainly intend to vote to maintain the position that the 
administration has had on the affordable clean energy rule. This is a 
rule that will have a very positive impact on our State, just like the 
rule that it replaces would have a very negative impact. We are in the 
top five coal-using States for energy in our State.
  With the Obama administration's rule, the massive energy regulations 
would have imposed billions of dollars in compliance costs that would 
have been passed along every single time that someone harvests a crop, 
flips on a light switch, shops for groceries, or walks into the door at 
work. Under the Obama-era rules, families in Missouri would have faced 
double-digit utility price increases; in fact, the average Missourian's 
average utility rate would have doubled in approximately a decade. A 
vote for this Congress review act would put that rule into effect, as 
opposed to the rule that replaces it.
  These rules always have good titles. The current rule that the Trump 
administration has put into place, the Affordable Clean Energy Rule, 
would replace the clean power rule. That is significant. They both 
propose to do the same thing. One rule states they will have clean 
power; the other rule states it will have clean energy. The difference 
in the title is actually the difference in effect, which is one 
proposes affordable clean energy. It doesn't seem like a very tough 
decision: You either want affordable clean energy or clean energy that, 
in my view, is clearly not affordable.
  What the new rule would do would be to look at individual sources of 
energy and decide from a selection of things that can be done, what can 
be done at those individual sources.
  I was on this floor many times talking about this rule prior to the 
2016 elections. It had been held in abeyance by courts that said, no, 
it went too far. The administration didn't have the ability to do what 
they were trying to do. When I was on the floor all those times talking 
about what this rule would do to our State and our economy and similar 
things all over the country, what I said was, the next time you write 
your utility check, just write it out of your checkbook again because, 
within a decade, you would be paying twice as much in Missouri for 
utilities as you are paying right now. The cost would have gone up, and 
it would have happened quickly.
  Thankfully, President Trump and the administration--with the support, 
frankly, I believe, today, of Senate Republicans--will have charted a 
new course resulting in huge strides toward American energy 
independence. We are doing that on other fronts. In fact, September and 
August were the first 2 months in 37 years that we have been a net 
exporter of energy, not an importer of energy. Energy self-sufficiency 
is important, particularly when there is an all-of-the-above strategy 
with oil, natural gas, nuclear, wind, and solar as a part of the 
portfolio of energy that needs to grow, but doesn't need to grow in a 
way that cripples American families when they try to pay their bills or 
when they try to get a job. To become a net exporter of energy, we have 
done all those things while we were still cutting emissions. Carbon 
dioxide emissions in the power industry are down 28 percent since 2005, 
without the Clean Power Plan ever having gone into effect.
  The EPA's Affordable Clean Energy Rule strikes exactly the right 
balance--in my view and, I believe, today in the view of a majority of 
my colleagues--between reducing emissions and ensuring that Americans 
can still continue to have access to reliable, affordable energy.
  For many families, the cost of energy is one of the biggest items to 
think about when they think about their budget. In fact, for many 
families, there is not much to think about. You pay whatever you are 
paying for your housing, then you pay your utility bill, and you see 
what is left over. The luxury of having a technical budget with how you 
are going to do all the things your family would like to do doesn't 
happen all too often now. It would happen much less often if the 
utility bills are twice what they are today.
  The action we take here today, supporting the affordable energy rule 
and

[[Page S5863]]

walking away from the clean power rule, will make a difference for 
those families. It makes a difference in the utility bill at home, and 
it makes a difference in the utility bill at work. Lots of jobs simply 
just don't work at twice the cost of today's utility bills. It is a 
foolish rule and has been properly replaced with a rule that makes 
sense. I urge my colleagues to maintain the rule we are headed to, 
rather than the one we are running away from.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Trump Administration

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today because our 
Nation is at a crossroads that strikes at the heart of our democracy. 
The increasingly outrageous actions of this President and his 
administration have brought us to this moment where we, as a nation, 
must make a decision about who we are, what we stand for, and what kind 
of behavior we will allow at the highest levels of our government.
  As we continue down this road paved by the President's reckless 
actions and his complete disregard for our Nation's laws and democratic 
norms, I want to take a moment to step back and talk about how we got 
here and how much is truly at stake for our country and our democracy 
if we don't get this right.
  Let's start by considering what we know for sure. The President has 
repeatedly sought foreign interference in our elections, which we 
should all find appalling. We know that President Trump and his 
associates pressed the Ukrainian Government to meddle in our democratic 
process, pushing them to launch an investigation without basis into the 
President's political opponents in an effort to help his election.
  We know that he has made overtures to China--out in the open--to do 
the same. This is important. We don't have to take anyone else's word 
for it. We saw President Trump's call record with the Ukrainian 
President, and we all heard the President and his associates admit to 
the surreptitious actions from their own lips on camera.
  These facts are indisputable and can't be spun. President Trump and 
his circle of friends have been clear about their actions and their 
intentions, and it is clear they are unacceptable, but even more 
seriously, there are still many questions about the extent of President 
Trump and his associates' actions and their potential impact on our 
democracy, questions for which the American people undoubtedly deserve 
answers.
  That is why the House is right to begin impeachment proceedings to 
determine if President Trump has committed high crimes and 
misdemeanors, and why months ago I, too, called on the House to open an 
inquiry to investigate the President's deeply distressing actions 
because, for me and for so many other people across the country, this 
is not about partisan politics or any politics. This is about 
maintaining our Nation's security and defending the rule of law. It is 
about nothing less than the future of our democracy. Let me be clear: 
Because of President Trump, all of this is on the line. That is how 
serious this is.
  I have news for my Republican colleagues: As much as you would like 
to stay silent on this, it is not an option. Our forefathers warned us 
against the power of foreign interference to undermine the foundations 
of our democracy, and their cautions echo as clearly and as strongly 
today as they did more than 200 years ago.
  As Members of Congress, as representatives of the American people, we 
took an oath to defend our Nation's security and our democracy. That is 
why the Constitution gives authority to Congress and the immense 
responsibility to provide oversight of the President's actions. Based 
just on what we know, it would be a dereliction of duty for Congress 
not to investigate the grave threats to our country's safety and to our 
democratic institutions.
  If President Trump and his administration have nothing to hide, they 
should stop obstructing. Let Congress do its job and find the facts. 
Furthermore, if Congress fails to investigate these issues, it would 
set its own dangerous new precedent, essentially green-lighting this 
President's unethical behavior and his attacks against our democratic 
institutions for future generations of our Nation's leaders. That is a 
frightening notion.
  We are now at the crossroads, and we have to make a decision. Over 
the coming weeks, the actions of the House and possibly each individual 
in this body will in large part determine which path we take. Will we 
allow foreign actors to interfere in our elections and undermine our 
security or not? Will we stand by it and allow this President and 
perhaps future Presidents to ignore our Constitution and mangle our 
democratic norms or not? Will we be a nation of laws or not?
  I believe that this country is a country of laws, that our elections 
must be completely free from foreign interference, and that every 
elected official should ensure that these fundamental principles come 
before party or partisanship as this process moves forward.
  There are other priorities Congress needs to focus on, important work 
we have to continue doing to secure our elections, which is all the 
more paramount given this President's actions. We will, of course, 
continue, as well, our efforts to lower healthcare costs and address 
the climate crisis and the epidemic of gun violence and more, but we 
cannot ignore what President Trump and his associates have done and 
said and the impact their actions can have on our elections, our 
democracy, and the future of this country.
  I sat in this Chamber as a juror in an impeachment trial before. It 
was a deeply serious undertaking, and one each Member took seriously 
before rendering a decision. That is the same seriousness that is 
required in this moment at this crossroad. If and when the House elects 
to accuse the President of an impeachable offense or offenses, the 
Senate right here will host the trial, and as Senators, we will all 
serve as jurors. If and when that time comes, I know I will approach it 
seriously, and I deeply hope each of my colleagues will, as well. Each 
of us will have to put aside every other consideration beyond the facts 
and focus solely on preserving the integrity of our democracy and 
upholding our solemn obligation to defend the Constitution. History 
will record where we all stand.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, there is very little question today 
that our democracy is under attack. The threat is not only from outside 
our country but from within with the threat to our rule of law, our 
basic values, and our democratic institutions.
  From outside the country, that threat is reaffirmed by the Senate 
Intelligence Committee, which recently released a bipartisan report 
offering a sobering warning of fresh signs of interference by Russia 
and other foreign actors in the upcoming election.
  The fact is that the lights are flashing red. The warning has come to 
us from multiple sources. Our intelligence community has warned us. The 
FBI has warned us. Our national security professionals have warned us. 
Still, the majority leader has refused to permit us a vote on 
commonsense measures that will better guarantee election security.
  We need to move forward on these measures that safeguard our 
democracy from outside interference--cyber attack and social 
disinformation. And, of course, I have sponsored some of these bills. 
Many of them are bipartisan. We can move forward with that effort even 
as we confront the challenge and the obligation, which we must do in 
the ongoing impeachment proceedings.
  What saddens and angers me is that in the midst of this crisis and 
the threat from outside our Nation from Russia and other countries, our 
Commander in Chief has essentially refused to believe that threat 
exists. He has in fact and in effect denied that there is any threat. 
That is what happened when the President used the power and authority 
of the Oval Office to pressure a foreign leader, President Zelensky of 
Ukraine, to investigate a political opponent, Joe Biden. This action is 
not only a breach of his oath of office and his constitutional duty, it 
is unpatriotic, immoral, criminal, and it is a

[[Page S5864]]

threat to our national security because, again, it invites 
interference. In fact, it pressures interference in our democracy. It 
validates and strengthens Vladimir Putin, not this Nation.
  That is why the impeachment inquiry is being conducted by the House 
and why it is so important. Impeachment is not a remedy we take lightly 
or happily; it is a serious, last-resort remedy for the worst abuses of 
power and an unchecked, rogue President who cannot be held accountable 
in any other way. But the President has given us no choice. He may not 
be upholding his oath of office, but we must uphold ours.
  The most powerful proof here comes from the words of the President 
himself in that July 25 conversation. There is no Member of this body 
who is unfamiliar with those words inviting, soliciting, in fact 
extorting the President of a foreign nation to interfere in our 
democracy. He involved officials at the highest level who joined in 
trying to cover it up, who now have a whistleblower complaint, as well 
as those call notes between President Trump and President Zelensky that 
repeat the President's own words. The transcript of that call is truly 
chilling and frightening almost beyond words.
  When Mr. Zelensky mentioned that Ukraine was ``ready to buy more 
Javelins from the United States for defense purposes,'' President Trump 
responded with, ``I would like you to do us a favor though.'' That is a 
quote: ``I would like you to do us a favor though.'' And the favor was, 
of course, interference in our election.
  That kind of invitation emboldens not only the President of Ukraine 
but every other autocrat and tyrant who might seek similarly to 
interfere. Let us remember that what the Founders feared most was 
exactly that kind of interference, whether it was from the imperial 
powers that we had just fought and successfully won our freedom or 
dictators like Vladimir Putin or other nations that will be emboldened 
to interfere.
  My Republican colleagues' silence will not age well. Not only are 
they unwilling to stand up to this President's abuses and threats to 
our democracy, the majority leader has refused to put those bills on 
the floor. He has outright refused to give us a vote on security 
legislation.
  My bill, the duty to report bill, would require campaigns, 
candidates, and family members to immediately report to the FBI and 
Federal Election Commission any offers of illegal foreign assistance. 
It codifies into law what is already a moral duty and a patriotic duty. 
It is basic common sense. The law already forbids soliciting and 
accepting that kind of foreign assistance during a campaign; this 
measure, very simply, would require it to be reported.
  I have told this body--and I have repeated it numerous times--that 
when FBI Director Wray came before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he 
warned that the Russians are still actively trying to interfere in our 
election. But President Trump just said that if offered foreign 
assistance, ``I'd take it.''
  Congress must pass this Duty to Report Act, along with other 
commonsense measures that support election security. Not only can we do 
it while we are considering impeachment, we must do it because the 
impeachment offense, in fact, involves foreign interference that these 
election security measures would help to stop.

  Likewise, I want to mention gun violence protection. Senator Graham 
and I and others in this body have worked hard over months on 
negotiating emergency risk protection order legislation. It could be 
passed along with background checks, and the two should go together.
  The ball is in the White House's court. The President has shifted 
ground one way and the other, unpredictably and uncertainly, but I feel 
we can muster a consensus here. Even as we consider impeachment, we can 
move forward on a comprehensive set of measures that would help make 
America safer.
  My goal, eventually, is to save as many lives as possible and as 
quickly as possible through those kinds of measures that would include 
not only background checks made universal and emergency risk protection 
orders passed by States with the incentives we would provide with this 
bill but also a ban on assault weapons and safe storage in honor of 
Ethan Song, a young man who was killed in Guilford, CT, because of 
improper storage of a gun that he and a friend were playing with. They 
would include a ban on high-capacity magazines and a reversal of the 
sweetheart deal that gave the gun manufacturers near-complete immunity. 
These commonsense measures can be done even as we consider impeachment.
  Likewise, to take another guarantee of our values and the rule of 
law, forced arbitration clauses cause harm to millions of Americans 
every year. These clauses are often tucked into the fine print of 
lengthy consumer contracts and employee handbooks, with workers and 
consumers having no meaningful choice but to consent to the terms. 
These forced arbitration clauses, like that immunity for the gun 
manufacturers, denies basic justice. They deny Americans their day in 
court, and they deny public accountability. Consumers and workers are 
forced into unfair arbitration clauses where corporations can write the 
rules. They write the rules. Everything can be done in secret, and 
there is no meaningful judicial rebuke. In many cases, these clauses 
are paired with provisions that block Americans who have suffered 
similar harm from banding together in seeking accountability together 
in a class action lawsuit.
  At the start of this Congress, 34 Senators joined me in sponsoring 
the FAIR Act. This bill would render invalid or unenforceable any 
arbitration agreement between workers and consumers and corporations 
that governs employment, civil rights, consumer, or antitrust disputes. 
It has an exception for those arbitration agreements that are the 
product of real collective bargaining agreements. It is hardly a 
radical proposal; it is a reform to give Americans access to the 
justice system again. Yet Senator McConnell regrettably has blocked 
this bill and others from a vote. Senator McConnell said: ``As long as 
I am majority leader of the Senate, I get to set the agenda.'' 
Meanwhile, corporations are cheating workers, consumers, children, and 
families out of their day in court.
  We need to move forward on these matters: gun violence protection, 
election security, the FAIR Act. We can do it because America wants it. 
We will go back to our constituents in this next election, and my 
colleagues who will face them will be asked: What have you done? We can 
answer with real action if we come together and move forward.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                              S.J. Res. 53

  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, before we vote, I want to take a few 
minutes to express my strong opposition to what our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle are doing with their Congressional Review Act 
resolution. They are asking the United States to give up a very good, 
responsible, and Affordable Clean Energy Plan and replace it with the 
old, Obama-era, illegal, and unconstitutional Clean Power Plan.
  Prior to being elected to Congress, I spent nearly 10 years in North 
Dakota as an energy regulator and oversaw both economic and 
environmental policies and regulations in our State. I know something 
of this issue. For the American people, a fully implemented Obama-era 
Clean Power Plan would result in much higher electricity costs, less 
money in their pockets, fewer well-paying jobs, and just a lot less 
freedom. Across the country, their plan would reduce household spending 
by $79 billion. It would increase electricity prices in my State of 
North Dakota by 43 percent, and it would cost over 125,000 jobs over 
the next decade.
  Perhaps one of the most disturbing things about the Clean Power Plan 
that was presented by the Obama administration--one of the reasons, 
frankly, that it was deemed to be unconstitutional and illegal and had 
a stay put on it by the U.S. Supreme Court--was that in my State, under 
the proposed rule, we had a CO2 reduction target of 11 
percent. Yet, in the classic bait-and-switch maneuver, the final rule 
increased that 11 percent by 400 percent. The 11 percent, while 
illegal, was doable, but the 400 percent was ridiculous.
  So make no mistake, right now, here in the U.S. Senate, the Democrats 
are asking us to vote to eliminate good

[[Page S5865]]

jobs, to raise the cost of living, and to take more money out of the 
pockets of the American people. For what? The United States does not 
need an unconstitutional Federal power grab, like this one, in order to 
lead the world in reducing our emissions. In fact, we already do. 
Emissions have been declining in the United States for nearly 50 years. 
We don't need to apologize for our action or inaction. In fact, we need 
to start honoring the innovators who have made these reductions 
possible in the first place. We should be encouraging them and 
incentivizing them to continue their work in order to pave the way for 
responsible energy production that will be used for generations to come 
not just here in the United States but across the world.
  In the context of several issues, I often speak about needing to 
follow a Federalist model, the cooperative federalism that our Founders 
envisioned when they created the States. That is a model of State 
control, with Governors being in charge, not Presidents. This is under 
the umbrella, of course, of good Federal oversight and, of course, some 
authority. Yet States need to have primacy. Put those who are closest 
to the people in charge, give them the authority and the resources they 
need, and this model will produce the best results nearly every time, 
if not every time. The Obama era's Clean Power Plan is exactly the 
opposite of that. It is a Federal power grab that the States have 
rejected and, yes, that the Supreme Court has ruled a stay on.
  By stark contrast, the affordable clean energy rule that has been put 
forward by the Trump administration, which is the rule the Democrats 
want to overturn today in favor of the unconstitutional plan that hurts 
the American people, is a win for North Dakota and for States across 
the country. It respects the law and restores the proper balance 
between States and the Federal Government. It also promotes energy 
security. Maybe one could even say it promotes energy dominance.
  ACE, as it is called, gives States the flexibility to set their own 
emission standards. It focuses on energy efficiency improvements at 
individual powerplants, and it incentivizes increased efficiency for 
coal powerplants, which allows them to remain open. We have that 
important base of low-cost, reliable electricity in the form of clean 
energy.
  This simple, responsible plan is what the Democrats find so 
abhorrent. With the vote today, they are asking us to scrap the 
affordable clean energy rule and return to a rule that is 
unconstitutional, that tramples on States' rights, that kills jobs, 
that raises electricity rates, and that does nothing substantial to 
reduce emissions.
  I applaud President Trump and EPA Administrator Wheeler for having 
included Governors and States and innovators in the discussion before 
having made the final rule.
  We cannot let this happen today, and I urge my colleagues to join me 
in voting no.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak before 
the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Turkey and Syria

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise to express my outrage with regard 
to President Trump's decision to withdraw U.S. troops from northeast 
Syria. This decision is dangerous, premature, and wholly inconsistent 
with what the facts on the ground in Syria and the advice from 
everyone--from our diplomats to our military advisers.
  In just 1 week, President Trump has managed to undo 5 years of hard-
fought stability in northeast Syria. Just 1 week ago, over 10,000 ISIS 
fighters, including high-value prisoners who targeted American victims, 
were secured in prisons throughout northeast Syria. We face, today, a 
very different picture. Several ISIS prisons are already unmanned as a 
result of Turkey's incursion, and it is estimated that over 100 ISIS 
prisoners have been released already. We don't know what will happen in 
those other detention centers that have housed ISIS prisoners.
  One week ago, a limited U.S. troop presence of 1,000 Special Forces 
stabilized a population that was once terrorized by the Syrian regime 
and later by ISIS. These forces secured a region of Syria that controls 
over two-thirds of Syria's natural resources. American troops have, 
today, either left or are preparing to leave this area, and the Syrian 
regime is moving in.
  Russian troops have moved into U.S. military bases, and over 160,000 
Syrian civilians have already fled their homes as a result of the spike 
in violence that has been instigated by Turkey. It is so hard to watch 
the videos on television that show Turkey-affiliated fighters 
assassinating Kurdish forces--Kurds with their hands tied behind their 
backs.
  I traveled to Syria a year ago last summer. Lindsey Graham and I saw 
firsthand the work of the combined joint task force, Operation Inherent 
Resolve. We saw the work its partner forces, the Syrian Democratic 
Forces, were doing, and it was truly remarkable. The United States owes 
a huge debt of gratitude to the men and women of the SDF who sacrificed 
over 11,000 of their own lives in fighting ISIS so we didn't have to 
sacrifice our own.
  Because of this sacrifice, when we were in northeast Syria last 
summer, we witnessed communities like Manbij steadily recover and 
rebuild after 3 years under ISIS's brutal occupation, and the 
widespread appreciation of the U.S. presence among local, multiethnic 
residents was a testament to the importance of our partnerships and our 
willingness to lead in times of crisis. As we drove down the roads, we 
saw kids flashing victory signs at our troops. When we were in the 
marketplace, we had people come out and tell us how relieved they were 
that the United States was there to help ensure that peace was being 
kept. We saw local governance taking place on the ground.
  So it is incredibly difficult now to see images coming out of Manbij 
and the other places we visited in northeastern Syria. The Syrian 
regime has already moved troops back into this region, and Turkey's 
proxies, who are seemingly undeterred by the Syrian presence, continue 
to move into the city of Manbij with heavily armed vehicles. Meanwhile, 
Russia has spent the last few days touring and posting videos of 
abandoned, taxpayer-funded U.S. bases.
  What is taking place in Manbij and in so many cities across northeast 
Syria is an insult to the thousands of American servicemembers who have 
risked their lives to help stabilize that region and support the fight 
against ISIS, and it could have all been avoided.
  This really began in December of 2018 when the President said he 
planned to withdraw troops from Syria. That was after holding up for 
months the stabilization dollars that could have been used to make it 
very clear that we were committed to the region--to ensuring that ISIS 
wouldn't rebuild there and that there would be stability in 
northeastern Syria. We were committed to making sure the United States 
was at the table when Russia and Iran and Assad moved in and carved up 
Syria.
  I ask unanimous to have printed in the Record the recommendations on 
the best way forward in Syria that were issued last month by the 
bipartisan Syria Study Group, which I helped to create.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           Executive Summary

       The United States cannot avoid or ignore the conflict in 
     Syria. From the outset of hostilities, minimizing American 
     involvement in the war and safeguarding U.S. national 
     security interests have proven to be incompatible goals. This 
     will remain the case for the foreseeable future. The 
     essential question before American policymakers is not 
     whether the United States should keep or withdraw its forces 
     in Syria, but what strategy and mix of tools will best 
     protect the United States from the conflict's reverberations 
     and advance American interests. This report sets out such a 
     strategy.


               The Syrian Conflict and American Interests

       From the conflict's beginning in 2011 as a peaceful 
     domestic uprising, experts warned that President Bashar al-
     Assad's brutal response was likely to have serious, negative 
     impacts on U.S. interests. Given Syria's central location in 
     the Middle East, its ruling regime's ties to terrorist groups 
     and to Iran, and the incompatibility of Assad's authoritarian 
     rule with the aspirations of the Syrian people, many worried 
     about the conflict

[[Page S5866]]

     spilling over Syria's borders. These concerns are now a 
     reality. The Syrian conflict spawned a refugee crisis that 
     has encumbered Syria's neighbors and roiled European 
     politics, strained U.S.-Turkish relations to the point of 
     crisis, led to direct hostilities between Iran and Israel, 
     provided a vector for Russia's resurgence in the Middle East, 
     and challenged international norms around weapons of mass 
     destruction and the protection of civilians. Areas of Syria 
     have become safe havens for al-Qaeda and its fellow travelers 
     and home to the largest concentration of foreign terrorist 
     fighters since Afghanistan in the 1990s. The conflict also 
     fueled the rise of ISIS, prompting an ongoing U.S.-led 
     military intervention. Eight years in, the conflict has not 
     been meaningfully contained, nor has the United States been 
     sheltered from its effects.
       Events on the ground disprove the narrative that the 
     conflict has been won by the Assad regime. The Syrian war, 
     far from ending, is entering a new phase. As of this writing, 
     the Assad regime and its patron Russia are pressing an 
     offensive against Idlib that could spur a new humanitarian 
     catastrophe and outflow of refugees. Tensions are simmering 
     between the Kurdish element that dominates the U.S.-trained 
     Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in northeastern Syria and the 
     Arab populace of some of the areas under SDF control. Turkey 
     is positioning troops to invade northeastern Syria, which 
     would divert the SDF away from the essential task of 
     preventing ISIS's resurgence. ISIS itself, down but not 
     defeated, is already resurfacing as an insurgency and may yet 
     attempt to retake territory in both Syria and Iraq. Iran and 
     Israel, already locked in a low-level conflict in Syria, may 
     escalate to open conflict, especially in the Golan Heights. 
     The Assad regime and its partners may seek to cross the 
     Euphrates River, which could in turn breathe life into the 
     ISIS insurgency and allow Iran to consolidate its land routes 
     from Iraq to Lebanon. All of these scenarios become more 
     likely without U.S. forces in Syria and without committed 
     U.S. leadership to avert these scenarios.
       The Syria Study Group uncovered no easy solutions in Syria; 
     optimal outcomes were left behind long ago. Yet the Group 
     determined that the threats the conflict in Syria poses--of 
     terrorism directed against the United States and its allies 
     and partners; of an empowered Iran; of an aggrandized Russia; 
     of large numbers of refugees, displaced persons, and other 
     forms of humanitarian catastrophe; and of the erosion of 
     international norms of war and the Western commitment to 
     them--are sufficiently serious to merit a determined response 
     from the United States. The United States and its allies 
     retain tools to address those threats and the leverage to 
     promote outcomes that are better for American interests than 
     those that would prevail in the absence of U.S. engagement. 
     Using those tools effectively, however, will require better 
     alignment of ends and means--the former must be more 
     realistic and the U.S. investment of the latter increased--as 
     well as clear, consistent, and high-level political 
     leadership. Sharp shifts and reversals in American policy, 
     and the failure of senior U.S. government officials to 
     prioritize the issue with their counterparts, have undermined 
     American credibility and the effectiveness of U.S. policy.


              Assessment of the Current Situation in Syria

       While the conflict in Syria is often characterized as 
     winding down, it is the assessment of the Syria Study Group 
     that this is incorrect; in fact, the conflict remains dynamic 
     and dangerous. In particular:
       The liberation of ISIS-held territory does not eliminate 
     the group's threat to the United States. ISIS no longer holds 
     significant territory in Syria or Iraq, but it is not 
     defeated. The group has morphed into an insurgency with the 
     will, capability, and resources to carry out attacks against 
     the United States. ISIS will seek to take advantage of any 
     opening, whether a reduction in U.S. counterterrorism 
     pressure or discontent among eastern Syria's Arab population, 
     to recruit new fighters and mount attacks. ISIS's terrorist 
     ideology, or ``brand,'' continues to hold global appeal.
       The ISIS detainee population is a long-term challenge that 
     is not being adequately addressed. Although ISIS has suffered 
     significant casualties, many of its fighters--including 
     thousands of foreign fighters--remain in detention under SDF 
     management. If released, they will form the core of a new 
     iteration of ISIS or a similar group. In addition, tens of 
     thousands of family members of ISIS fighters are residing in 
     camps in eastern Syria. The SDF has custody of both groups 
     but lacks the resources and outside support to hold them 
     indefinitely. U.S. and allied efforts to deal with this 
     problem have suffered from a lack of political will.
       Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups remain active in Syria 
     and threaten the United States. Although ISIS has received 
     far more attention, other terrorist groups are active and 
     control territory, especially in Idlib. Al-Qaeda offshoot 
     Hayat Tahrir al-Sham has formed a government in Idlib, which 
     is home to numerous other groups, including al-Qaeda's Syrian 
     affiliate, Hurras ad-Din, and a large number of foreign 
     terrorist fighters. The United States lacks freedom of action 
     to conduct a full-fledged counterterrorism campaign in these 
     areas.
       Despite Israeli air strikes and U.S. sanctions, Iran 
     continues to entrench itself in Syria; Russia and Iran show 
     few serious signs of divergence. Iran appears to be pursuing 
     a two-track policy of military entrenchment and political and 
     economic activity designed to enhance its power and influence 
     in Syria for the long term. Iran's activities have reportedly 
     caused discontent among Syria's population, but the Assad 
     regime is heavily dependent on Iranian support. Israeli 
     officials believe that Israel's air strikes have disrupted 
     Iran's attempts to move sophisticated weapons systems into 
     Syria, but Iran's overall objectives appear unchanged and the 
     risk of broader Iran-Israel conflict remains high. Although 
     Russia has acquiesced to the Israeli campaign against Iran, 
     there are few signs of a wider divergence between Moscow and 
     Tehran regarding aims or tactics in Syria.
       Assad has not won the conflict in Syria. The regime has 
     recaptured large swaths of territory and now holds 60 percent 
     of the country. However, its control outside Damascus is 
     tenuous, in part because it lacks the forces to secure the 
     areas it retakes, but also because it pursues punitive 
     policies against local populations. In much of regime-held 
     areas, civilians are subject to conscription as well as 
     arbitrary arrest, torture, and execution at the hands of the 
     regime. Crime and warlordism are rampant. The Assad regime is 
     determined to retake Idlib and is receiving Russian 
     assistance to do so, but so far it has struggled to recapture 
     territory without the help of Iranian ground forces
       Progress toward a political settlement to the Syria 
     conflict has stalled, and Assad shows no willingness to 
     compromise with his opponents. Neither the UN-led ``Geneva 
     process'' based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254 nor 
     the ad hoc ``Astana process'' comprising Russia, Iran, and 
     Turkey has yielded progress toward a political settlement to 
     the conflict. While the United States is leading a new effort 
     to break the stalemate, the fundamental obstacle remains the 
     Assad regime's unwillingness to countenance meaningful 
     reform. Presidential elections in 2021 are unlikely to 
     produce a legitimate electoral outcome, because there is 
     little chance that the regime will permit free and fair 
     elections or the credible participation of the Syrian 
     diaspora.
       The United States underestimated Russia's ability to use 
     Syria as an arena for regional influence. Russia's 
     intervention, beginning in 2015, accomplished its proximate 
     aim--the preservation of the regime in defiance of U.S. calls 
     for Assad to ``go''--at a relatively low cost. Russia has 
     enhanced its profile and prestige more broadly in the Middle 
     East. The extent of Russia's success in Syria is debatable--
     it has yet to translate Assad's military gains into the 
     political victory Moscow seemingly seeks--but Russia has 
     nevertheless reestablished itself as a crucial player in the 
     region's politics for the first time in decades.
       U.S.-Turkey relations are strained in Syria by starkly 
     diverging views of the SDF. A Turkish incursion into 
     northeastern Syria would represent a major setback to U.S. 
     aims in Syria and a new crisis for the U.S.-Turkish 
     relationship. The United States regards its decision to 
     partner with the SDF to fight ISIS as having been 
     necessitated by the lack of credible and timely Turkish 
     alternative; Turkey regards the SDF as a grave security 
     threat due to its links to the Kurdistan Workers' Party 
     (PKK), a threat made more dangerous by U.S. training and 
     equipping of the SDF. This dispute has played a significant 
     role in the erosion of U.S.-Turkish relations and may yet 
     prompt a third Turkish incursion into Syria, which would 
     severely complicate the U.S. military campaign against ISIS. 
     There is little sign that Turkey intends to relinquish 
     control of the two Syrian areas it currently controls--Afrin 
     and the ``Euphrates Shield'' area.
       Although the SDF has been a highly effective partner in the 
     fight against ISIS, it must undergo a transition to ensure 
     stability in northeastern Syria. The SDF is regarded by the 
     U.S. military as a highly effective partner in the 
     conventional military campaign against ISIS. That partnership 
     faces new challenges with the shift from fighting to 
     governing. The SDF remains dominated by Syrian Kurds--
     specifically by the People's Protection Units (YPG)--despite 
     its control over large stretches of predominantly Arab 
     territory. This disparity, and the YPG's heavy-handed 
     approach to governing and resource allocation, has led to 
     unrest in Arab tribal areas. Minimal U.S. civilian engagement 
     and the halt in U.S. stabilization funding in northeastern 
     Syria have diminished American influence.
       The Assad regime's systematic targeting of civilians and 
     civilian infrastructure constitutes war crimes and demands 
     accountability, as well as enhanced efforts to protect 
     civilians. The Assad regime and its patrons, including 
     Russia, have systematically targeted civilians and civilian 
     infrastructure. A UN commission found the regime guilty of 
     crimes against humanity. Syrians have been subjected to 
     arbitrary detention, torture, and execution at the hands of 
     the regime. Although prospects for accountability are dim in 
     the near term, efforts to document the regime's atrocities 
     are under way.
       Syria's humanitarian crisis, not least the challenges posed 
     by internally displaced people and refugees, will reverberate 
     for decades. Most refugees are unlikely to return voluntarily 
     given current conditions in Syria. The Syrian conflict has 
     provoked the most serious human displacement since World War 
     II, 6 million Syrians are internally displaced, and nearly 6 
     million more are registered as refugees outside the country. 
     Refugees have placed a heavy economic

[[Page S5867]]

     burden on host countries, especially Syria's neighbors; 
     pressure is increasing, particularly within Lebanon and 
     Turkey, for nonvoluntary returns. Inside Syria, a large 
     proportion of the population relies on humanitarian aid, over 
     which the regime seeks to exercise control in order to 
     enhance its power.
       Despite these challenges, the United States maintains 
     leverage to shape an outcome in Syria that protects core U.S. 
     national security interests. The Group identified several key 
     points of leverage held by the United States, particularly if 
     used in coordination with allies and partners: influence over 
     northeastern Syria; sanctions against the Assad regime and 
     its backers; the withholding of reconstruction assistance 
     desired by Assad and Russia; and the ongoing diplomatic 
     isolation of the Assad regime.


                    Recommendations for U.S. Policy

       Despite its daunting assessment of the situation in Syria, 
     the Group believes that the United States is still able to 
     exercise influence over the conflict's trajectory, and that 
     it must do so given the threats the conflict poses to 
     American interests. The Group believes that the best end 
     state in Syria is one in which a Syrian government is viewed 
     as legitimate by its own population and has the will and 
     capability to end Syria's dependence on foreign forces and to 
     prevent terrorist groups from thriving on Syrian territory. 
     This in turn requires conditions in which Syrian citizens 
     live free from fear of the Assad regime and of Russian, 
     Iranian, and ISIS brutality and within an updated political 
     and social compact based on decentralized governance and 
     equitable resource allocation.
       Recognizing that such an outcome is a distant prospect, the 
     Group recommends a strategy that makes a negotiated political 
     settlement in Syria more likely yet also allows the United 
     States to defend its interests even if a political solution 
     is not found. None of those consulted by the Group believe 
     that withdrawing U.S. forces would make ISIS less likely to 
     regroup, Iran less likely to entrench itself, or a negotiated 
     settlement more likely. Although the U.S. military mission in 
     Syria is often lumped together with the Iraq and Afghanistan 
     missions in the ``forever war'' category, the Syria case 
     offers a different--and far less costly--model. A small U.S. 
     military footprint, supported by U.S. air power and other 
     high-end capabilities, reinforced by a global coalition of 
     like-minded allies and partners, rallied a local partner 
     force many times its size to liberate territory from a 
     terrorist group. What U.S. forces and their partners have 
     gained in Syria should not be discarded with a premature 
     withdrawal.
       To that end, the Group recommends that the United States, 
     working in concert with allies and partners, continue its 
     military mission in order to maintain pressure on ISIS and 
     other terrorist groups while maintaining and strengthening 
     pressure on the Assad regime and its backers until conditions 
     are conducive for a political settlement that ends the Syria 
     war. In particular, the Group recommends that the United 
     States:
       Halt the U.S. military withdrawal; consolidate gains 
     following the territorial defeat of ISIS; and support 
     communities liberated from ISIS in forming an alternative 
     model for governance, resource allocation, and security in 
     Syria. The Group recommends that the United States (1) update 
     its military mission to head off an ISIS insurgency; (2) 
     adequately prepare for various contingencies and escalation 
     scenarios; (3) return a U.S. civilian presence and 
     stabilization funding to northeastern Syria; (4) press the 
     SDF to govern more inclusively; (5) elevate the ISIS detainee 
     problem set; and (6) prioritize diplomatic and military 
     engagement in Iraq.
       Until conditions inside Syria improve, deny the Assad 
     regime and its backers all avenues for normalization by 
     enforcing the regime's diplomatic isolation and a rigorous 
     sanctions architecture. Among other steps, the United States 
     should continue to press allies and partners to refrain from 
     reestablishing diplomatic ties with the Assad regime, to 
     withhold reconstruction assistance, and to strictly enforce 
     sanctions and seek to expand them. In addition, the 
     international community should begin preparing the ground now 
     for the eventual accountability of those responsible for war 
     crimes in Syria, without imposing accountability as a 
     precondition for a political settlement.
       Test and verify Russian willingness to support political 
     settlements acceptable to the United States but continue 
     activities that increase the costs to Russia for its actions 
     in Syria. Many observers believe that agreement between the 
     United States and Russia is a prerequisite for progress 
     toward a political settlement, yet Russia has consistently 
     failed to deliver on its commitments in Syria. The United 
     States should require concrete actions of Russia pursuant to 
     any discussions of a political settlement and, absent such 
     actions, should avoid making concessions to Moscow or 
     legitimizing its positions. Concurrently, the United States 
     should pressure Moscow, in part by highlighting Russian 
     complicity in war crimes.
       Remain focused on expelling Iranian forces and proxies from 
     Syria but recognize that this is best accomplished in phases. 
     The key near-term goal should be to prevent further 
     entrenchment of Iran and its many partners and proxies while 
     raising the cost to Iran for its actions in Syria. To this 
     end, the United States should continue its support of Israeli 
     air strikes; enforce sanctions aimed at undermining Iran's 
     ability to fund its proxies and partners in Syria, Lebanon, 
     and Iraq; maintain the U.S. military presence at the al-Tanf 
     military base; and support efforts to expose Iranian 
     influence efforts in Syria. The United States should insist 
     that any political settlement require the withdrawal of 
     Iranian forces and proxies from Syria.
       Seek areas for cooperation with Turkey and address 
     legitimate Turkish security concerns while pressing Turkey to 
     avoid any incursion into northeastern Syria and to improve 
     conditions in the Afrin and Euphrates Shield areas. U.S. 
     efforts to reach agreement on a security zone or security 
     mechanism along Turkey's border with northeastern Syria 
     should continue, and every attempt should be made to isolate 
     Syria from other problems in the U.S.-Turkey relationship. 
     The United States should encourage the resumption of Turkey-
     PKK peace talks, which hold the best possibility of leading 
     to a detente between Turkey and the SDF. The United States 
     should press Turkey to improve conditions and access in the 
     areas of Syria it controls.
       Seek to avert a humanitarian catastrophe in Idlib while 
     addressing the presence there of terrorist groups. The United 
     States should explore avenues to increase the pressure on 
     terrorist groups in Idlib that may be plotting external 
     attacks. At the same time, the United States should seek to 
     deter the Assad regime and its partners from continuing to 
     target civilians in the territory. In preparation for a 
     renewed humanitarian and refugee crisis in Idlib, the United 
     States should press Turkey to facilitate the work of 
     nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) serving the population.
       Energize efforts to address the humanitarian crisis inside 
     Syria while taking steps to shore up countries hosting Syrian 
     refugees. The United States should work to ensure the 
     continued provision of humanitarian aid to vulnerable 
     populations inside and outside Syria. The United States 
     should press for the renewal of the UN ``cross-border 
     resolution,'' rally other states to fund humanitarian appeals 
     for Syria, and work with international financial institutions 
     to support refugee-hosting countries. The United States 
     should stand firmly against efforts to forcibly repatriate 
     Syrian refugees and should resume accepting Syrian refugees 
     in the United States.

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. The report read that the United States should make the 
most of its gains and hold this critical piece of land until a 
negotiated settlement was reached between all parties. Moreover, the 
report, which was bipartisan--that had Representatives appointed by 
Members of Congress and by the administration--read that withdrawing 
U.S. troops would not make ISIS less likely to regroup or Iran less 
likely to entrench itself.
  President Trump's ill-informed and hasty decision will not only 
breathe new life into the terrorist groups--into ISIS, which is really 
just al-Qaida by another name--and cede America's hard-fought gains in 
the region to Russia, Iran, and Assad, but it will erode U.S. 
credibility in the long term. It will cede America's hard-fought gains 
in the region.
  I wish there were alternatives that we as a country could pursue. 
Sadly, I don't think we can put the genie back in the bottle. Here in 
Congress, though, I hope we will look at ways to hold Turkey and 
President Erdogan accountable for his actions.
  I certainly hope President Trump will revoke his invitation to 
President Erdogan to visit the United States. President Erdogan needs 
to hear an unequivocal message of opposition to this incursion from the 
United States, and it makes no sense to extend hospitality and niceties 
during this moment of crisis.
  Republicans and Democrats must come together and ensure that the 
administration understands the consequences of these actions. We have 
to do more to ensure that such mistakes never happen again.
  I yield the floor.


                              S.J. Res. 53

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the resolution 
of disapproval sponsored by Senator Cardin that would block the 
Administration's harmful Affordable Clean Energy Rule.
  In Maine, our economy is inextricably linked to the environment. Our 
State, which is situated at the end of the Nation's air pollution 
tailpipe, has made substantial progress in reducing harmful emissions 
by increasing energy efficiency, adopting clean energy technologies, 
and improving air quality and public health. While I am pleased by the 
progress our country has already made in reducing air pollutants, the 
administration's rule to repeal and rewrite the Clean Power Plan is a 
step in the wrong direction.

[[Page S5868]]

  Climate change is a significant risk that threatens Maine's working 
forests, fishing, and agricultural industries, as well as tourism and 
recreation and our coastal communities. I will continue to work in 
Congress to support realistic, responsible solutions that help reduce 
harmful emissions and protect our environment and the health of our 
citizens.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to complete my 
remarks prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Congressional Review Act resolution that has been put forward by the 
Democrats on which we will soon be voting.
  The Democrats' resolution would eliminate President Trump's 
affordable clean energy rule. The President's rule is commonsense 
policy. It protects our air, and it allows our economy to grow at the 
same time. The affordable clean energy rule would replace the Obama 
administration's so-called Clean Power Plan. The punishing plan would 
have damaged our economy, and what I have here is a map to go over some 
of that. It would have closed powerplants. It would have put energy 
workers on unemployment. It would have reduced the reliability of our 
electricity. It would have increased energy bills for American families 
and for small businesses.
  The results would have been dramatic. There would have been dramatic 
increases in electricity bills all across the country. The plan would 
have devastated communities, certainly in my home State of Wyoming. It 
would have raised electricity bills by 42 percent in the State of 
Wyoming, and they would have gone up in every State.
  Wyoming is America's leading producer of coal. It supports thousands 
of good-paying jobs all across the State. Across Wyoming, the punishing 
power plan would put hard-working men and women out of work. The rule 
would be a massive roadblock for States. Instead of working 
collaboratively with State governments, it would put the EPA in the 
driver's seat of setting a national energy policy.
  States would be told what energy sources were allowed within their 
borders and how to regulate them.
  Worst of all, the so-called Clean Power Plan would have barely 
reduced carbon emissions, it would have crippled our economy, and done 
very little, if anything, to help the environment.
  President Obama's plan wasn't just bad policy, it was illegal. 
Twenty-seven States, including Wyoming, filed a lawsuit to stop the 
regulation. The Supreme Court ruled that Obama's EPA went way beyond 
its legal authority. The Court blocked the overreaching rule.
  Now President Trump has put forward a commonsense replacement to 
protect America's air. The affordable clean energy rule follows the 
law, and it is good news for the people of Wyoming and the rest of the 
country. It recognizes that the EPA is not supposed to pick winners and 
losers.
  Under the new rule, powerplants can make reasonable changes like 
improving efficiency. The rule promotes the use of new cleaner 
technologies to generate electricity so energy companies can modernize 
their powerplants without having to shut them down completely.
  The rule also respects the role of States under the Clean Air Act. It 
gets rid of ``Washington knows best,'' which is an approach we deal 
with--a top-down approach of unelected, unaccountable, heavyhanded 
bureaucrats. States understand how to protect the air their citizens 
breathe. They know it is an important thing to do. The end result will 
be cleaner air and more affordable energy for America's households.
  Now Senate Democrats want to play politics once again and uproot the 
affordable clean energy rule. Democrats want to resurrect a rule that 
the Supreme Court took unprecedented action to stop. That would be bad 
for our environment, bad for our economy, and bad for our country.
  Under the Congressional Review Act, if Congress repeals the 
affordable clean energy rule, the administration couldn't replace it 
with a similar rule.
  The administration put forward a commonsense rule to protect our air 
quality, and now Democrats want to kill it. That is the proposal on the 
floor today.
  Democrats have become hostages to the far-left agenda, even when it 
doesn't make any sense. It is not good policy, and we have seen this 
before.
  The Environment and Public Works Committee, which I chair, recently 
passed legislation to help reduce the amount of plastic pollution in 
our oceans. The bipartisan bill follows up on the previous bipartisan 
Save Our Seas Act that passed and was signed into law last Congress.
  Instead of supporting the legislation, extreme environmentalists 
oppose the bill--a bipartisan bill we got passed last Congress. We are 
going on to the next level now. Now the extreme environmentalists, of 
course, oppose the bill because we are not banning all plastics. Can 
you imagine something so ridiculous? But that is what they want.
  Working together in a bipartisan way--even when we are doing things 
that to me make sense, to others make sense, to bipartisan Senators 
make sense, to the House make sense, the extreme environmentalists say 
it is still not enough for them and their extreme measures and 
approaches.
  These extreme activists want to do the same thing with our air. 
Instead of finding common ground, their goal seems to be to shut down 
our economy because that is what they are promoting.
  Democrats in the House of Representatives, regrettably, have followed 
a similar pattern. House Democrats refuse to work with Republicans to 
pass commonsense bills to protect our air and address climate change, 
which we are promoting--an effort to actually address it. Apparently, 
it is not going far enough for the extreme Democratic 
environmentalists.
  Bipartisan legislation to support carbon capture technologies, which 
we passed in this body, sits in the House of Representatives waiting 
for a vote.
  The USE IT Act--which I introduced along with Senator Whitehouse, who 
gives speeches each week on climate change on the floor of the Senate. 
We have worked together. It has passed our committee unanimously. It 
has passed the Senate unanimously. Yet, with overwhelming bipartisan 
support in the Senate, it is still being blocked in the House. The bill 
has bipartisan support in the House as well, but it hasn't gone 
anywhere. It is being stopped because Democratic leaders in the House 
refuse to move a commonsense bill that would lower carbon emissions and 
help address carbon climate change.
  They are climate alarmists. They want things done drastically, 
unilaterally, immediately, when we are trying to take commonsense steps 
in the right direction.
  Killing commonsense policies, like the affordable clean energy rule 
and the USE IT Act, makes no sense to me.
  President Trump's rule respects the law, and it helps the 
environment. It is a win-win for our country. Americans deserve clean 
air. They also deserve clear rules, and the affordable clean energy 
rule gives us both.
  I urge every Senator to oppose the resolution that is coming up to 
the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). All time is expired.
  The clerk will read the title of the joint resolution for the third 
time.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading 
and was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the 
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
  Mr. BARRASSO. 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 Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from Georgia 
(Mr. Isakson).
   Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. 
Isakson) would have voted ``nay.''
   Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Booker),

[[Page S5869]]

the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Minnesota 
(Ms. Klobuchar), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are 
necessarily absent.
   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 324 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Leahy
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--53

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Alexander
     Booker
     Harris
     Isakson
     Klobuchar
     Sanders
   The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 53) was rejected.

                          ____________________