[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 169 (Thursday, October 24, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6138-S6142]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                 United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, we are rapidly approaching the 1-year 
mark since President Trump and the Prime Minister of Canada and the 
President of Mexico signed a new trade agreement to strengthen our 
economies.
  The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, will replace NAFTA, the 
North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, and continue to guide 
trade with our northern and southern neighbors in the future.
  It is estimated by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that the number of 
jobs in the United States that have been created directly as a result 
of trade with Mexico ranges around the 5 million figure, with another 8 
million from binational with Canada, so this is no small matter.
  Since NAFTA was enacted in 1994, a lot has changed. The way we 
communicate and the way we shop and even go about our daily lives rely 
heavily on technology that didn't exist 25 years ago.
  Make no mistake--NAFTA has been a huge benefit to our country, and

[[Page S6139]]

Texas has arguably benefited more than any other State. In 2018, Texas 
exported nearly $110 billion in goods to Mexico, and we imported $107 
billion worth of goods from Mexico.
  When you consider actions being taken by China to counter our 
interests all over the world, our reliance on North American partners 
has become increasingly important. That only underscores the need to 
ratify the USMCA and strengthen our trading relationship to ensure we 
are not left behind as the global economy continues to evolve.
  The USMCA is the most significant update to U.S. trade policy in a 
generation and will propel our growing economy into the 21st century. 
It takes into account businesses and practices that didn't exist when 
NAFTA was created, such as 2-day shipping, online microretailers, and 
digital products like eBooks and music. It also requires Canada and 
Mexico to raise their de minimis shipment value levels, meaning 
additional classes of shipments can enter all three countries with 
expedited entry procedures. That is a big win for small and medium-
sized businesses, which often lack the resources to pay customs duties 
and taxes.
  The USMCA prohibits restrictions on the cross-border movement of 
data. It increases goods market access. It supports small businesses. 
It boosts digital trade and safeguards intellectual property and 
supports agriculture. It also keeps jobs here at home.
  In short, this trade agreement is a big win for the American people. 
Some even argue that the USMCA is more important than restoring our 
normalized trading relationship with China.
  Earlier this year, the International Trade Commission provided 
insight into what we could expect to see once the USMCA is ratified. 
Within 6 years, they say, we are looking at 176,000 new American jobs 
and an increase in the gross domestic product by more than $68 billion. 
That is a bigger impact than the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade 
agreement.
  The USMCA is expected to have a positive impact on every industry 
sector in the U.S. economy. We can look forward to a more than $43 
billion increase in exports and more than $31 billion in imports. That 
is great news for North American workers, farmers, ranchers, and 
business men and women who will reap the benefits of this agreement.
  When I am meeting with my constituents back home or here in 
Washington, one of the most common questions I get asked is, ``When is 
the USMCA going to pass?''
  Mexico has already ratified the agreement, and Canada is waiting for 
us to move before acting. The agreement has broad support in the 
Senate, and clearly the President is on board as well. So the only 
holdup in the entire process is the House of Representatives.
  Up until about a month ago, I told my constituents that I thought the 
prospects for passage sometime this year were looking pretty good. 
House Democrats did have some concerns, but Speaker Pelosi was 
reportedly working in good faith with the administration to work 
through them. There were indications of progress and productive 
conversations with Mexico and Canada to address their concerns as well.
  It looked as though we were moving along a path to a deal, but then 
the House blew up all plans for a productive year in Congress. They 
marched headlong into impeachment and tossed aside important 
legislation. Forget working on a trade deal that will benefit every 
sector of the economy; House Democrats are too busy conducting secret 
hearings in an effort to force the President--someone they despise--out 
of office.
  Whether they intend to allow the USMCA to receive a vote in the House 
is unknown, but I sincerely hope that House Democrats have enough good 
sense to avoid blowing up a vital trade deal over political 
disagreements with the President. As we all know, the closer you get to 
an election, the more challenging legislating actually becomes, and the 
clock is ticking away. It is a shame that the House continues to put 
politics ahead of good policy that will benefit the entire American 
people.
  The USMCA is good for the economy, good for business, good for 
workers, and it sure is good for Texas. It is time for the House to 
quit playing games so we can ratify this trade agreement without 
further delay.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PAUL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Yount). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2625

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it has been 2\1/2\ weeks since the 
President announced he was abruptly withdrawing U.S. forces from 
Syria--betraying our Kurdish allies and derailing the international 
fight against ISIS in Syria.
  In the course of one tweet, this President blindsided our allies in 
the region--yes, the Kurds--but the Israelis and others as well. He 
blindsided our diplomats and blindsided our military from the top brass 
down to our forces who serve on the ground. Frankly, the only one who 
seemed to know that this was coming was the Turkish President, Mr. 
Erdogan.
  As a result, brave men and women who have fought alongside the United 
States are now at risk of being slaughtered by Turkish forces. Already, 
Kurdish fighters and unarmed civilians have been killed by Turkish 
armed groups--militias. Already, hundreds of ISIS detainees have 
escaped from prison, and ISIS is being given the space and time to 
regroup.
  Simply put, we may be witnessing one of the most significant 
counterterrorism setbacks in recent history.
  With nowhere else to turn, the Kurds have aligned themselves with the 
Assad regime. That is good news for one of history's most brutal 
dictators--a man who gases his own people. It is also good news for his 
allies in Iran.
  No one has, perhaps, benefited more from this disaster than Vladimir 
Putin. Just this week, Russia and Turkey agreed to a new joint strategy 
in Syria, green-lighting Russian and Syrian forces to clear the border 
region of any of our remaining Kurdish allies and, unfortunately, 
expanding Russia's footprint in the Middle East.
  The truth is that I believe the President's sudden withdrawal from 
Syria without his having a plan and without there being serious 
consideration for our Kurdish allies is a disaster that may haunt our 
foreign policy for decades to come.
  If this is how the United States treats its allies, how will anyone 
trust the United States on a going-forward basis?
  Frankly, I fear most of the damage may have already been done. No 
tweet, no press conference, and no personal assurance from Erdogan or 
anyone else can rebuild the years of trust and progress that have been 
destroyed. The least we can do--and perhaps, unfortunately, the most we 
can do--is to make sure those Kurdish allies who served alongside U.S. 
forces as translators and in other military support roles are not left 
to die in Syria.
  That is why I have introduced the Syrian Allies Protection Act. This 
legislation is similar to programs in the past which have granted 
special immigration visas to Iraqi and Afghan nationals who have served 
alongside U.S. forces. The truth is these Kurdish allies and their 
families are now at risk because of their work with U.S. forces. They 
are threatened not only by the Turkish incursion but also by freed ISIS 
fighters and Assad regime forces.
  This legislation would provide permanent American residence to Syrian 
nationals who have worked for the U.S. Armed Forces for at least 6 
months, who have obtained a favorable recommendation from a general or 
a flag officer in the chain of command, and who have passed a thorough 
background check and screening.
  The legislation also directs the administration to evacuate eligible 
individuals to safety. If their lives are at

[[Page S6140]]

risk by remaining in Syria, they can either be brought to the United 
States or to a third country while appropriate vetting takes place.
  This legislation will not reverse what we did to our Kurdish allies, 
but it will show those who have worked with our military forces--in 
many cases, we have heard of translators and others whom the American 
forces left without having even said goodbye because they had to 
withdraw so quickly--that the American people appreciate the profound 
sacrifices they have made in their supporting U.S. forces in the fight 
against ISIS. It would at least remove part of the sting.
  Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged of S. 2625 and the 
Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill 
be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, 
ironically, the Syrian Kurds may be closer to having some degree of 
autonomy or homeland than they have been in decades.
  With the new arrangement--or rearrangement--of alliances, the Syrian 
Kurds now will have an alliance with someone who will remain in Syria. 
Whether you like him or not, the Assad government is there to stay. 
There was never going to be a U.S. presence for long enough or one 
great enough to preserve or to create a homeland for them. I think 
there is every possibility, in alliance with Assad, that there will be 
some Kurdish arrangement. It happened in Iraq. In Iraq, the oil 
proceeds are shared. The Kurdish wanted more in Iraq. They didn't get 
as much as they wanted, but they got some degree of autonomy within 
their province.
  I think that sort of encouraging the Syrians Kurds to abandon their 
country is really premature and doesn't really recognize the fluidity 
of what is going on on the ground there. There is actually the 
potential, for the first time in 8 years, to break through to a peace 
agreement. Peace agreements have been unable to be achieved in the past 
because people have refused to acknowledge that Assad is staying. It is 
easy to say Assad is all of the things that he likely is, but it is 
harder to acknowledge that no matter who he is, he is staying and that 
peace on the ground will, ultimately, for the Syrian Kurds, probably 
come through an arrangement with Assad's regime.
  There has been a huge diplomatic breakthrough. As much as we have all 
of the talk of Sturm und Drang--that the world is ending and there is 
going to be a Kurdish genocide--perhaps the opposite is going to 
happen. I don't think we yet know, as no one can predict the future 
with certainty, but it actually looks as if there has been a somewhat 
reasonable withdrawal. You have the Syrian Kurdish generals now saying 
they have agreed to the withdrawal. There is now in place, hopefully, a 
long-term cease-fire.
  So, while nothing is ever perfect in Syria and while nothing is ever 
perfect in the Middle East, I think, rather than saying it is the end 
of the world, we should say that this is a big transition, that this is 
a big realignment of interests there, and that there is a possibility 
that the Kurds could get a homeland.
  The last thing you would want is to say to all of the leaders in the 
Kurdish community, to all of the intellectuals, to those who speak 
English, and to those who are open to western ways, ``Hey, come over 
here, and abandon your country.'' It would be equivalent to France's 
saying to George Washington during or after the war, ``Hey, guys. Hey, 
Founding Fathers. Why don't you all come to France?'' It is not a good 
notion to ask the leaders of a country and a movement to leave and 
abandon their country.
  With that, I respectfully object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I disagree with my friend from Kentucky 
about what may or may not happen.
  I believe that one thing we agree with him on is that we have not 
often had well-organized plans in the Middle East.
  The unique thing about our alliance with the Kurds was that after 
trying in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places around the region to find 
allies who would actually stand up and fight, in the Kurds, we found 
those allies, and they did a remarkable job dismantling ISIS.
  Now, the prognostication of the Senator from Kentucky I don't agree 
with it, but time will tell. The one area, though, and what my 
legislation would have done and where I am disappointed we were not 
able to move forward on, is regardless of the changed circumstances 
that the Assad regime may have in terms of treating people with more 
respect or the Turkish militias, which we have already seen evidence of 
their killing of Kurdish fighters, the one group--the one group I think 
that it is probably safe to say will be the targets of both the 
Syrians, the Turks--the militias--will be those Kurdish individuals who 
worked directly for the U.S. military.
  Even if the prognostication of the Senator from Kentucky plays out on 
a more macro basis, I don't think anyone with a straight face can say 
the Kurdish translators, who 2 weeks ago were working for the American 
forces, will not be victims of--whether it be Turkish, Syrian, Russian, 
or other--aggression.
  I think it would have been the right thing. I am going to continue to 
try to find ways to bring this legislation to the floor. I know it will 
be broadly bipartisan supported. I hope we will have a chance to 
revisit this.
  I don't think we can ever fully reverse the actions this President 
has taken, but at least in terms of these transfers--I am not talking 
about taking the whole Kurdish leadership--but these, generally, men 
who 2 weeks ago were working for the American military, I think we owe 
them a greater debt of obligation than to simply say good luck.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I think one of the interesting things about 
the Kurdish situation and about Syria in general is how quickly the 
Kurds and Assad actually did align.
  If you watched the war over the last 8 years, the Kurds and Assad 
have largely not fought each other. There isn't a great deal of the 
blood sort of lust or curdling animosity between the two, and it was 
actually pretty remarkable how quickly they came together.
  One of the things is we think we are doing best, and we try to do the 
best when we insert ourselves in the Middle East, but sometimes we get 
unintended consequences.
  So we have been there. We want peace, but we refuse to allow the 
Kurds to talk to Assad. There is a stalemated civil war that has gone 
on 8 years. Had we never been involved, Assad likely would have crushed 
the rebellion in 6 months, maybe 500,000 people wouldn't have died, 
maybe 3 million people wouldn't have left, and you would still have a 
dictator.
  Instead, we have 500,000 people dead, 3 million refugees, and we 
still have a dictator.
  So I think we need to question our strategy as to what our intended 
goal is and what ends up happening.
  Syria is an utter disaster but made no better by our intervention, 
the Saudis' intervention, and the Qataris' intervention.
  There is a great deal of unknowns as to whether the Sunni extremists 
who were supported by the Saudis, Qataris, and sometimes us would 
actually be more humanitarian or more for human rights than Assad is.
  I think we can agree that Assad has abused his people, has used 
chemical weapons, et cetera, et cetera, but on the other side were 
Sunni extremists allied with the ideas of radical Islam, with radical 
jihad, with the things that led to 9/11.
  So it is a very complicated situation over there, but I think we 
cannot say with certainty that there will not be a deal that sticks, 
actually, between Assad and the Kurds.
  If the Kurds want a homeland and they believe Assad is staying, it 
makes all the sense in the world for them to work together. If Assad 
wants to actually protect that region of north Syria, either from 
Turkey or from others, and the Kurds are willing to help him do it,

[[Page S6141]]

the Kurds have proven they are good fighters.
  The Kurds would probably have to acknowledge there is a greater Syria 
and that they are part of it. If they want to break off from Syria, 
there will be continual war. If they are able to make an arrangement 
with Assad, there is a chance that there could be an oil-sharing 
arrangement like we have in Iraq.
  The bottom line is, we sometimes see the world in black-and-white 
terms and think we can get Thomas Jefferson in Syria or in Libya or in 
Iraq, but what happens is, time and time again, we topple a dictator, 
we get chaos, we get more terrorism. ISIS sprang out of the vacuum that 
was Iraq after a government that was incapable of doing it after we get 
rid of the same. The same thing happened when we got rid of Qadhafi in 
Libya. I think we need to rethink our approach to the Middle East.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I will not belabor the point. I know my friend from 
Connecticut is here to raise another issue.
  I don't agree with the analysis of the Senator from Kentucky. I hope 
he proves to be right. I would agree with him; sometimes our notion 
that we are going to find Thomas Jefferson to rebuild these countries 
has not proven to be the case.
  This legislation I am proposing is not broad policy changing; it is 
simply saying let's look at a very limited universe of individuals who 
2 weeks ago were working with the American military.
  My fear is, at least in terms of how those translators and their 
families will be viewed by both the Turks and by the Assad forces, that 
they will not be viewed as Thomas Jeffersons, but they will be viewed 
as Benedict Arnolds, and my fear is their fate will be on our hands.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1247

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from 
Virginia for his advocacy on this critical measure, and I support him 
on it and also for his advocacy on the FIRE Act. It is very similar to 
the measure on which I am going to ask for unanimous consent. He has 
done wonderful and dedicated work on both measures.
  Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 
1247; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the 
bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am 
concerned that this bill would put an undue burden on anybody who 
decided to run for office in the sense that you would be burdened with 
trying to understand everyone you talk to anywhere in the United 
States--whether or not they are an agent of a foreign government or an 
agent of a foreign principle, such as a foreign company.
  For example, I might run into Hunter Biden in the airport. I know he 
is an American citizen, but this bill doesn't prevent American citizens 
from being an agent of a foreign principle. Hunter Biden also worked 
for a Ukrainian oligarch and a company with mysterious origins that may 
well have something to do with our foreign policy.
  So if I meet Hunter Biden, I am concerned that now it may be against 
the law or I could be reprimanded or fined by the FEC for talking to 
Hunter Biden.
  The same might also exist--I enjoy going to the Indian New Year in 
Louisville, and I sometimes see 5,000 to 6,000 Indian Americans, but I 
can't tell you how many of them are brand new to the country, what 
their visa status is, whether they have a relative from government 
there who might come up to me.
  So I think we need to be very careful about putting forward law, 
particularly by unanimous consent, that hasn't been scrutinized and 
might end up having a burden that we don't really agree with.
  There has been a certain degree of hysteria over the Russian thing. 
Some on the other side of the aisle can't get over they lost the 
Presidential election, and so they continue to blame the Russians for 
losing the election.
  It is so bad that their candidate from the last election, Hillary 
Clinton, had to go after Tulsi Gabbard, a Democratic Member of the 
Congress, a sitting Congresswoman, the first female combat veteran to 
run for President, and she has been labeled by Hillary Clinton a 
Russian asset.
  So you can see that the hysteria over Russia is a little bit 
concerning; that we may be going too far in this hysteria.
  Then, once we apply this to the world, is there going to be a 
hesitancy to talk to someone who looks different than you, who dresses 
different than you, who has a different color skin than yours because 
you are concerned they might be from a foreign country?
  So I think this would have the ability of stifling speech--stifling 
political speech--and I think it is a reactionary way to look at 
things, and it really fits in with this unseemliness of Hillary 
Clinton's thinking everybody is a Russian agent to many of the 
Democrats saying: Donald Trump is a Russian agent.
  We spent $35 million on this notion. This was probably a notion 
promulgated by people within the intelligence community who already 
hated Donald Trump before he was elected. I hope we get to the bottom 
of this, but I am not about to allow, by unanimous consent, an attempt 
to politicize our election process and make it so absurd that you would 
have to worry about whom you talk to as you travel the country.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I truly regret the objection by my 
colleague. I regret even more the reasons for his objection, 
characterizing the threat of Russia interference as hysteria.
  Well, I suggest that my friend from Kentucky spend a little bit of 
time--it will not take a lot--with members of the intelligence 
community, any member of the intelligence community, all the members of 
the intelligence community, who agree unanimously that the threat of 
Russian interference is real. In fact, it is ongoing.
  That is the warning we have received from the CIA, the Director of 
National Intelligence, and, most pointedly, from the Director of the 
FBI. They have warned us, in no uncertain terms, that the Russians are 
interfering now, spreading disinformation, creating false accounts and 
sites and that they are planning to do it even more intensely. It is 
not only the Russians but other nations.
  That was the warning of Robert Mueller when he said that the 
Russians' interference in our last election was sweeping and systematic 
and that they were doing it again and we need to pay attention to it.
  That is exactly what my colleagues and I have been doing for the past 
few days, raising for floor consideration various election securities 
bills. We have done it not only in the last few days but for months--
the PAVE Act, the Honest Ads Act, the SHIELD Act, but my colleague from 
Kentucky says it is hysteria.
  Well, it is a well-founded fear based on fact. As one of our former 
colleagues, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once said: People are entitled to 
their own opinions; they are not entitled to their own facts. The facts 
here are indisputable, set forth in numbing detail by the Mueller 
report but also by the intelligence community, independently, in the 
hearings that have been conducted by various of our committees, in open 
and public, in Armed Services and Judiciary, and also behind closed 
doors. Some of them the intelligence community--which produced a 
report, most recently by the Senate Intelligence Committee, a 
bipartisan report, showing how the Russians scan every single State to 
penetrate them, seeking to disrupt them, and that is an absolutely 
chilling fact-based, evidence-founded prospect that we need to counter, 
and that is the reason my colleagues and I have come to the floor for 
these measures. A number of them I have been proud to cosponsor and 
helped to lead.
  The one that brings me here now is the Duty to Report Act, S. 1247, 
and it

[[Page S6142]]

very simply says there is a duty to report. If there is an illegal 
offer of assistance, if anyone knows of an illegal acceptance of 
assistance from a foreign leader or foreign national or foreign 
government, there is a duty to tell the FBI or some other law 
enforcement official.
  The plain fact is our elections are under attack, and 2016 was only a 
dress rehearsal.
  Just this week, talk about hysteria, Facebook banned dozens of fake 
Russian and Iranian accounts attempting to spread misinformation and 
disinformation to Americans--the purpose: to disrupt the 2020 election.
  It isn't necessarily an ad for one candidate or another. It may be an 
ad that seeks to suppress the vote. The point is, that attack will 
continue, and opposition to it is based on hysteria about the potential 
political implications.
  What saddens and angers me is that our Commander in Chief--not just 
some of our colleagues--refuses to believe that our elections were 
attacked and will be again. He is actively working to undermine our 
democracy.
  The President's attempts to invite a foreign leader, the Ukrainian 
President, to interfere in our democratic elections was a betrayal of 
his oath of office and an abuse of power. It is an impeachable offense. 
But it will occur again by others, as well as him, if we do not pass 
measures like the Duty to Report Act.
  It started with a whistleblower complaint, but now we have call notes 
between the President and Ukraine President Zelensky, the corroborating 
statements of multiple witnesses in the government, and President 
Trump's own statements--his own words--on live television, admitting 
that he did this. The transcript of his call chillingly shows how he 
literally pressured and extorted the Ukrainian President, using the 
threat of a cut or elimination of military aid vital to Ukrainian lives 
and Ukrainian defense against an ongoing Russian attack, not to mention 
the visit to the White House, also used as leverage with these 10 
powerful words: ``I would like you to do us a favor though.'' The favor 
was digging dirt on a political opponent through a full investigation 
to favor himself over that opponent.
  The invitation to interfere in our elections goes to the core of our 
democratic institutions. It is literally condoning and, in fact, 
inviting and encouraging an attack on our democratic institution, and 
the President has said, when he was asked, that if he were offered 
foreign assistance, he would take it. His son, during the last 
campaign, was offered Russian assistance, and his response was: ``I 
love it.''
  That is not the appropriate response for the offer of an illegal act 
of assistance. It should be to go to the FBI or another law enforcement 
agency.
  Every Republican should be asked to answer the question--in fact, 
forced to answer this question: Is it acceptable to solicit or accept 
the assistance of a foreign power to win an election?
  We cannot allow this kind of practice to become the new normal. It is 
already illegal to accept or solicit such an assistance from a foreign 
government or leader, and what we want to do is make it illegal to fail 
to report it.
  Finally, as for my colleagues' objection that it would inhibit 
somehow an active and honest campaign, someone who has reason to know 
that there is an illegal offer of assistance and someone who knows that 
that assistance is being solicited by his or her campaign or a member 
of their family, certainly, should feel a duty to report as a matter of 
simple patriotism and moral obligation, not to mention legal 
responsibility.
  With the 2020 Presidential election looming, we must stop this kind 
of foreign interference. We must take active and effective measures 
against it. We must ensure that the American people--not Russia or 
China or Iran, and they are all gunning for our democratic 
institution--decide who the leaders of this country will be and what 
direction our democracy will take.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.