[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 172 (Wednesday, October 30, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6281-S6294]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND 
  DRUG ADMINISTRATION, INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, 
  VETERANS AFFAIRS, TRANSPORTATION, AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 
                  APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2020--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 949

  Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I am very happy to be joined on the floor 
with Senator Merkley, who has worked with me for a long time on the For 
the People Act, and we will both be speaking here in that order.
  The American people sent us here to do the people's business, but 
under Republican leadership, the Senate is not responding to what the 
American people need and want. We are not solving the kitchen table 
issues the American people elected us to face every day.
  For example, we are not making sure every American has access to 
affordable, quality healthcare. We need to lower costs and take on Big 
Pharma, and we are not doing that. We are not passing commonsense gun 
safety legislation that 90 percent of the voters support in order to 
stop shootings in the schools, on our streets, and in our communities. 
If we can't pass bills that save children's lives, our democracy is not 
working. We are not even taking on the most pressing issue that faces 
our planet--climate change. Younger generations are urging us to act, 
but this body is running away from taking any action.
  The number of gravestones in the majority leader's legislative 
graveyard--where urgent bills are stalled and buried--steadily mounts. 
Bills keep going into the majority leader's graveyard, but Congress 
will not and cannot do the people's business when the bills to fix our 
democracy also rest in that graveyard.
  The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the For the People 
Act, H.R. 1. It passed it in March. At the same time, I introduced the 
Senate companion to the For the People Act, which has the support of 
all 47 Democrats and Independents in the Senate. Yet, along with a pile 
of other good and necessary bills, Leader McConnell has buried the For 
the People Act.
  The For the People Act repairs our broken campaign finance system, 
opens up the ballot box to all Americans, and lays waste to the 
corruption in Washington. These are all reforms that the American 
people support. Why will the Senate majority leader not let us vote on 
them?
  There is hardly a day that goes by that we don't see evidence of why 
it is so important that we pass the For the People Act. Foreign 
influence in our elections is only growing, and 2016 was just the 
start. Associates of the President's personal lawyer have been indicted 
for laundering foreign money into our elections. The President's lawyer 
is under investigation for the same. Political ads from foreign sources 
are flooding social media.
  Our bill fights foreign tampering in our democracy. It prohibits 
domestic corporations with foreign control from spending money in U.S. 
elections. It cracks down on shell companies that are used in order to 
launder foreign money into our elections. Our bill makes sure that 
American elections

[[Page S6282]]

are decided by American voters without there being foreign 
interference. It protects our democratic institutions, increases 
oversight over election vendors, requires paper ballots, and supports 
security upgrades for States' voting systems.
  This body should have gotten serious about election security 
immediately after the 2016 election, but under the majority leader's 
direction, we have not done that.
  At a time of increased foreign interference, the President has 
invited foreign assistance in any way it might benefit him personally, 
politically, or financially. Day in and day out, we see this President 
taking full advantage of his position to benefit himself, his family, 
and his political prospects.
  The President never divested. He never formed a blind trust for his 
assets. Every day, we see foreign officials and foreign nationals 
currying favor with the President and padding his pocketbook, wining 
and dining at the Trump properties. Indeed, Mr. Giuliani and his two 
close associates lunched at the Trump International Hotel, right here 
in Washington, just before these two individuals were picked up at 
the Washington Dulles International Airport with their one-way tickets 
abroad. The same individuals have been charged with illegally funneling 
foreign money into our democracy. In addition, the President only 
relented from hosting the next G7 summit at his Doral resort in Miami 
after the Republicans told him that even they couldn't defend that.

  All the while, the President calls the emoluments clause--intended to 
stop these very abuses--phony.
  The For the People Act requires the President to fully disclose his 
or her financial interests and disclose the last 10 years of his or her 
tax returns, which is something this President has never done. It 
requires the President to fully divest and transfer all of his or her 
assets to a blind trust. The American people deserve to know their 
President is acting in the national interest, not in his or her own 
self-interest, and not being subjected to leverage by foreign interests 
that seek to corrupt our electoral process.
  The intelligence community has been very clear with its disturbing 
warnings. Adverse foreign interests are actively trying to manipulate 
our democracy. They did so in 2016 as the Mueller report and 
prosecutions from that investigation confirmed. They will try to do so 
again in 2020. We are watching it happen in realtime before our eyes.
  These foreign interests are not red or blue--not Democratic or 
Republican. They will use whomever they can to pursue their interests--
interests that are often opposed to ours or are simply corrupt. We must 
unite in the defense of our electoral system and in the defense of the 
sanctity of our democracy. Like the other bills the Democrats are 
seeking to pass this week, the For the People Act would provide that 
protection. The House's version, H.R. 1, would do so as well.
  We want to partner with the Republicans in these efforts, and we are 
open to negotiation. Yet, while the American people demand that we fix 
our out-of-control campaign finance system, make sure elections are 
secure, and root out the corruption in Washington, bills to address 
these issues gather dust on the leader's desk.
  I, for one, will not stop fighting for the comprehensive democratic 
reforms that we need and for bringing power back to the people--where 
the Founders intended it to be. Our democracy will always be worth the 
fight.
  Once again, Senator Merkley has been a great partner to work with on 
the For the People Act.
  I yield to the Senator from Oregon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I am honored to join my colleague who 
has led this battle for the vision of the For the People Act that will 
restore the ``we the people'' democratic republic.
  Here we are on the floor of the Senate. It is an institution that 
once reverberated with great debates on the great issues our Nation 
faced--issues of war and peace, of civil rights, of healthcare and 
housing, of education and infrastructure, and of living-wage jobs; 
issues of equal opportunity and of environmental pollution; issues that 
affect the fundamental success of each family in America and our 
collective success as a nation.
  Yet, if you are sitting here today and are observing the Senate from 
the benches up above, you will be hard-pressed to see any of that 
because those debates are not happening in the U.S. Senate. This 
Chamber is silent on the great issues that face America.
  Before he was the majority leader, the majority leader promised that 
things would be different under his leadership.
  He said:

       A Senate majority under my leadership would break sharply 
     from the practices of the Reid era in favor of a far more 
     free-wheeling approach to problem solving. I would work to 
     restore its traditional role as a place where good ideas are 
     generated, debated and voted upon.

  Now, one of the fundamental principles is that every Senator should 
be able to raise any issue and have the chance to defend it, to present 
it, to see it attacked, to respond to those attacks, and to have the 
American people see where we stand. But, today, the Senate is not 
operating in that manner today. The reality is reflected in a different 
quote by the majority leader from this past year.
  He said:

       Donald Trump is still in the White House, and as long as I 
     am Majority Leader of the Senate, I get to set the agenda. 
     That's why I call myself the Grim Reaper.

  The majority leader is taking great pride in preventing this Chamber 
from being the legislative body that was envisioned in the 
Constitution, one in which we examine the issues that the citizens of 
our States present to us with great concern and ask us to resolve so as 
to take this Nation forward. Instead, we are deeply mired in the 
legislative graveyard that the majority leader has been so proud to 
create.
  How about the Bipartisan Background Checks Act? It is now engraved on 
a tombstone. The Paycheck Fairness Act? Engraved on a tombstone. 
Violence Against Women? On a tombstone--or how about Save the Internet? 
Or the Climate Action Now Act?
  How about healthcare? Across my State, in rural areas and urban 
areas, everybody wants the same fair price, even if they have 
preexisting conditions. That is the fundamental nature of an effective 
insurance strategy for healthcare, but the Protecting Americans With 
Preexisting Conditions Act has never been debated on this floor.
  The American Dream and Promise Act, the Securing America's Federal 
Elections Act? How about the Raise the Wage Act? How about the Equality 
Act that grants every member of our society, LGBTQ Americans, the full 
opportunity to have the doors of opportunity opened, rather than 
slammed shut--debated and passed just down the hall, each and every one 
of these bills, but here, they haven't been debated. The Senate is 
failing its constitutional responsibility.
  In fact, during the last 2 years, there has only been three 
priorities that have seemed to have arisen in this Chamber. One was the 
goal of stripping healthcare from 30 million Americans. It failed by 
the slimmest of margins. A second is to pack the courts with judges who 
believe in a supercharged amendment to give power to the powerful, 
rather than power to the people.
  The third is a $2 trillion tax cut to enrich the richest Americans. 
In any chamber that truly represents the people, you don't see the goal 
of destroying healthcare for 30 million Americans and giving $2 
trillion to the richest Americans. But that is what we have seen here, 
while we fail to see the bills on healthcare, on housing, on education, 
on infrastructure, on living wage jobs--the fundamentals by which the 
American families prosper.
  Why is it that this Chamber is now a completely owned subsidiary of 
the most powerful people in this country? It is because of the 
fundamental corruption of our constitutional system, starting with 
gerrymandering.
  Many of us hear that phrase, ``equal representation,'' and understand 
we are talking about fundamental fairness of distributed power, but 
gerrymandering is the opposite of that. The Supreme Court has given 
complete license to extreme partisan gerrymandering, instead of 
defending the constitutional vision of equal representation. It is 
principle in a democracy and in a republic that the citizens choose 
their legislators, the legislators don't choose

[[Page S6283]]

their citizens. But that legislation to address that, to create 
nonpartisan commissions to prevent that gerrymandering, hasn't been 
debated on the floor of this Chamber.
  A second piece of corruption is voter suppression. The Supreme Court 
opened the doors by gutting the Voting Rights Act, again failing to 
defend the vision of the Constitution. But have we remedied that here 
on this floor? Have we addressed that fundamental corruption in which 
all kinds of tactics are created to prevent people from voting across 
this country--all kinds of clever ID laws to disempower communities 
that are minority communities or college communities or poor 
communities or Native American communities? We have not.
  There is perhaps the most vicious form of corruption, the dark money 
flowing through our campaign systems. Jefferson was very clear that if 
you have government by the powerful, you end up with laws for the 
powerful. So you have to have distributed power so that the power of 
the people results in laws that reflect the will of the people. That is 
the difference between the vision of our constitutional system here in 
the United States of America and the system of kingships that dominated 
Europe.
  But because of the corruption of dark money in our campaign system, 
it has created the concentration of power, the exact opposite of what 
Jefferson laid out and our Founders laid out in our Constitution. We 
start our Constitution with those powerful first three words, ``We the 
people,'' because that is the vision of our Constitution--not ``We the 
powerful,'' not ``We the privileged.''
  So a bill has been crafted, H.R. 1, the For the People Act. My 
colleague from New Mexico has led this charge to address this 
fundamental corruption in order to restore the vision our Nation was 
founded on because, if we restore that foundation, then we would be 
addressing healthcare on the floor of the Senate, making it more 
affordable, stopping the price gouging of Americans, the challenges of 
access in communities across this country.
  We would be addressing the shortage of housing that is driving a 
homeless epidemic in this country, partly because of the economics, the 
structure of our economy, and partly because of unaddressed mental 
illness and drug addiction.
  We would be addressing education because education is the path to 
full participation; yet today, we have seen a shrinkage of the 
opportunities through apprenticeships for working people and through 
college--affordable college for the dreams taking you in that direction 
if you weren't previously burdened by a debt the size of a home 
mortgage. We would be addressing infrastructure and jobs. We would be 
addressing the environmental challenges our planet faces if we restore 
the vision of our Constitution.
  This For the People Act is the most important piece of legislation 
because everything else we care about as Americans is going to fail if 
we let this Chamber be controlled by powerful special interests through 
this corrupted system. So let's take it on. Let's take on the 
gerrymandering and the voter suppression and the dark money. Let's have 
the courage to debate it on this floor because that is what we were 
elected to do, was to work on the big challenges facing our Nation, and 
there is perhaps no bigger challenge than this.
  Madam President, I yield back to my colleague from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance 
Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 949, the 
Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be 
considered read a third time and passed; and the motion to reconsider 
be made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Reserving the right to object, I would like to object. I 
would like to talk about this bill for a minute.
  In March, the House passed a bill that would give the Federal 
Government unprecedented control over elections in this country, 
despite the fact that, for more than 200 years, we have had a history 
of State-run elections. That diversity is part of the strength of our 
system. I objected to the request at that time to pass that bill.
  S. 949 appears to be almost exactly the same bill. Apparently, the 
powerful special interests that my friend, Mr. Merkley, talked about 
are the State governments because that is where we are taking authority 
from here. We are taking authority from the State governments.

  The For the People Act is really the For the Federal Government Act. 
It represents a one-size-fits-all Federal power grab that would take 
control of election administration away from the States, at the great 
expense to the American people. It requires all the States to fit into, 
frankly, what House Democrats saw as a narrow view of what elections 
should look like and, just as frankly, what House Democrats for 20 
years have had in mind that would in every case, in their view, give 
them an advantage in the election process. The security of our 
elections comes, in large part, from the very diversity of the way they 
are set up and the way they are administered. This bill would really 
undermine that decentralized system.
  I spent 20 years as an election official, part of it as the chief 
election authority in what was then the third largest county in our 
State, and the rest of it was as the secretary of state, the chief 
election official. I know for a fact that people who conduct these 
elections are unbelievably focused on a fair process before an election 
day and on election day.
  I also know for a fact that the very fact that they can't blame some 
faraway regulator on their inability to do what needs to be done makes 
a difference. I have seen that happen at 6 o'clock in the morning. I 
have seen it happen at 12 midnight as the last precinct comes in. I 
have seen it happen as people were doing everything they can to be sure 
that people that are trying to vote are able to vote. I have seen the 
development of the provisional ballot system that the States all use 
now if someone for some reason believes they should vote and the 
records aren't there to allow that.
  So there are a lot of things that Senator Merkley understands better 
than I do. I am sure there are a lot of things that Senator Udall 
understands better than I do. I look forward to the times when I have 
and will continue to seek advice for them on those issues. I am pretty 
sure that this is an issue that, at least from the point of view of the 
strength of the local election system and the State election system, I 
have reason to have confidence.
  In fact, former President Obama expressed the same view when he said: 
``There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that 
you could even rig America's elections, in part, because they are so 
decentralized and the numbers of votes involved.'' He said that late 
summer, early fall 2016.
  I think that was true when he said it; I think it is true now. This 
bill tells States how to run every aspect of their elections. It takes 
away the authority of the States to determine their own process for 
voter registration. In fact, it requires online voter registration. If 
you are trying to focus on election security, online voter registration 
would not be at the top of that list.
  It requires automatic voter registration. It requires same-day 
registration. It requires States to accept voter registrations from 
people who are not old enough to vote yet. It dictates the criteria 
that people can be removed from the voter rolls or can't be. It tells 
the States what kind of election equipment they must use, how their 
ballots must be counted, how the ballot counts must be audited. It even 
goes so far as to tell the States as to what kinds of marks must be 
made on ballot-marking devices and what kind of paper their ballots 
must be printed on. It tells States they must offer early voting sites. 
It tells them those early voting sites where they must be and what 
hours they must operate.
  The bill doesn't stop at election administration. It tells States how 
they redistrict, how they establish redistricting commissions, who can 
be appointed to that commission, how the lines are drawn. This would be 
a major Federal takeover of a system that would not benefit from that 
takeover. It also creates a program for public financing for elections, 
tax dollars to politicians to run elections with.

[[Page S6284]]

  And so, Madam President, I do object to the unanimous consent 
request, and I think for good reason.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. UDALL. Madam President, this bill does just the opposite. It 
supports States. It doesn't take over from States. The States have 
asked us for help when it comes to actions like cybersecurity and other 
things that are happening out there. It roots out foreign interference 
in our elections which happens in Federal elections and happens in 
State elections and, I think, can only be done at the Federal level.
  The distinguished Senator from Missouri says that these things that 
are being required, States are adopting all of these. States are moving 
very aggressively forward with things like automatic registration and 
moving to make it easier to vote, and we are trying to lay a consistent 
basis so the States know how to operate. So this is a good bill. It is 
a solid bill. It puts the American people back in charge.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I might just respond by saying that, if 
States are adopting these things because they think they are a good 
idea, that is one thing. For Washington, DC, to tell them they have to 
do it because we think it is a good idea, that is another thing. If my 
friend from New Mexico is right and States are adopting many of these 
changes, I guess there would be no particular reason to have the bill. 
I am pleased that this is a bill that is going to take further study 
before it is ready to come to the Senate Floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                               H.R. 3055

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, the substitute amendment to H.R. 3055 
contains the Appropriations Committee-reported versions of four bills: 
Agriculture; Interior; Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, 
one bill; and Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies.
  I was very excited to see today's earlier cloture vote, which passed 
88 to 5, which means that we can see those four bills to help fund 
government move forward.
  The Commerce-Justice-Science portion of this minibus, or CJS, was 
reported out of the Appropriations Committee on a unanimous 31-to-0 
vote. I particularly care about this bill as ranking member on that 
subcommittee.
  The CJS bill provides $70.8 billion to protect the Nation from 
criminals and terrorists, warn us about violent storms and climate 
change, enable fair trade, promote manufacturing and sustainable 
fisheries, partner with State and local law enforcement, and provide 
resources for the census to count every person in the United States 
fairly and accurately.
  CJS Subcommittee Chairman Moran and I took a collaborative approach 
to drafting this important bill. The CJS Subcommittee held substantive 
hearings, considered 1,564 individual and group requests from 75 
Senators, and worked in a bipartisan way to meet the needs of the 
Nation and our individual States.
  Under the Constitution, since 1790, every 10 years the United States 
has conducted the census, and we only get one chance every 10 years to 
get it right. In addition to determining the number of Representatives 
each State will have, Federal programs rely on census data to 
distribute more than $900 billion annually, nearly $4 billion of which 
goes to my home State of New Hampshire.
  Chairman Moran and I have worked together to make sure the census has 
the resources it needs. The bill provides $7.6 billion for the Bureau 
of the Census--nearly double the amount provided in fiscal year 2019. 
This fully funds the life-cycle estimate for the 2020 census, along 
with contingencies that have been recommended by Secretary Ross but 
were not requested in the budget.
  The bill also directs the Census Bureau to invest in partnership and 
communication efforts in hard-to-count areas in order to increase self-
response rates and offset the need for expensive door-to-door followup.
  Once again, the subcommittee has provided increases to law 
enforcement and grant programs that fight gun violence and violent 
crime. The bill includes at least a 3-percent increase for Justice 
Department law enforcement agencies--more than $476 million higher than 
the fiscal year 2019 level for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 
and Explosives, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the FBI, and the 
Marshals Service.
  Especially important, we have provided $131 million for the FBI's 
National Instant Criminal Background Check System, NICS--$24 million 
more than last year. This system is the key to making sure firearms are 
purchased legally and helping keep weapons out of the hands of those 
who wish to do harm. The bill includes increases for States to improve 
record submission to NICS and for mental health courts.
  We continue to provide the full $100 million authorized for STOP 
School Violence Act grants. But as we know, gun violence isn't just 
happening in schools, so we have included funding for other grant 
programs, like $8 million for community-based violence prevention and 
nearly 10 percent more for the Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention to help keep children and their families safe in 
their neighborhoods.
  We are also addressing another form of violence facing our law 
enforcement officers, and that is police suicide. I would really like 
to provide more statistics regarding this important issue of police 
suicide, but unfortunately I can't, and neither can anybody in this 
body because no Federal agencies collect data on the subject. That is 
why in the CJS bill, we direct the Justice Department to begin a 
national data collection to report on police suicide so we can all 
better understand the scope of the problem. We also direct the 
Department to report on best practices for officer mental health and 
wellness programs, including peer mentoring.
  One thing we do know about police suicides, though, is that we lose 
more police officers to suicide each year than we do to officers killed 
in the line of duty. Our police officers need help now, so we have been 
able to add $3 million for grants to allow State and local law 
enforcement to provide improved mental health services, training to 
reduce the stigma of officers seeking help, and programs to address 
resiliency for departments and officers to handle repeated exposure to 
stress and trauma.
  This is an issue, sadly, we know all too well in New Hampshire, where 
in the last couple of months, in the city of Nashua--our second-largest 
city--we lost a very much appreciated, well-respected, and loved police 
officer to suicide. We were lucky because the chief of the Nashua 
Police Department and the family of that officer were willing to talk 
about that suicide to raise concern about this issue so that we can 
know and try to address it.
  Another area of funding in this bill that will help our first 
responders, in addition to the support to our State and local 
governments and community organizations, is the $505 million in 
dedicated grant programs to fight substance abuse, including opioids, 
and to fight drug trafficking. This amount is $37 million higher than 
the fiscal year 2019 level and $127.5 million higher than the budget 
request.
  In part because of the resources we have brought to bear on the 
opioid crisis in New Hampshire and throughout New England, the 
substance use disorder epidemic is developing and changing, and we are 
now seeing a rapid rise in the use and trafficking of meth 
amphetamines. When efforts are focused on preventing and stopping one 
drug, sadly, we see others gain traction, and that is what is 
happening.

  After hearing from local law enforcement and community organizations, 
this bill provides more flexibility to allow communities to respond to 
a variety of substance abuse issues in addition to opioids in the 
Comprehensive Opioid, Stimulant, and Substance Abuse Program. 
Communities should not be turning away individuals who have substance 
use disorders because we have a narrow definition of the programs that 
can help.
  Another way this bill seeks to keep Granite State communities 
vibrant--and this helps other communities that depend on coastal 
economies--is we reject the elimination of grants that help our coastal 
communities and their economies. The bill keeps key weather satellites 
on track and provides an increase for job-supporting coastal programs 
like Sea Grant, Coastal Zone

[[Page S6285]]

Management Grants, the National Oceans and Coastal Security Fund, and 
the National Estuarine Research Reserve System.
  The bill includes continued funding to prevent a burdensome and 
costly at-sea monitoring fee from being imposed on New Hampshire and 
other New England fishermen. I have heard directly from our fishermen 
in New Hampshire that without this support, they would have to stop 
fishing and declare bankruptcy. So many seacoast communities rely on a 
strong fishing industry. That is why the bill also includes $2.5 
million for New England groundfish research, including looking at 
measures to improve stock assessments.
  Beyond the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, the 
bill also supports strong investments in research and development at 
the National Science Foundation; the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, NASA; and the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, NIST. The bill includes a 5-percent increase for NIST, 
which is an agency that promotes U.S. innovation and competitiveness 
through scientific and technological standards and measurement.
  I am pleased that the bill provides $2 million for NIST to study 
whether firefighters are subject to PFAS exposure, a chemical that has 
been linked to serious adverse health implications.
  What we have seen is that--we think the actual equipment that is used 
by so many firefighters has PFAS chemicals in that equipment, so that 
while risking their lives fighting fires, firefighters also may be 
exposed to a dangerous chemical that can affect their health. The last 
thing our firefighters need when they are on duty is to be concerned 
about the safety of their own firefighting gear.
  Within NASA, we have provided balanced funding that enables science 
supported by decadal surveys, supports the International Space Station, 
continues developing and flying new transportation systems, and allows 
for an eventual return to the Moon by humans.
  We have also provided more than $900 million to restore widely 
supported programs that the administration proposed to eliminate--
programs like Space Grant; EPSCoR; the Wide Field Infrared Telescope or 
W-FIRST; the Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud ocean Ecosystem mission, PACE; 
and Restore-L. What is important about these programs is that they 
allow young people--students in every State--to be involved with NASA 
and implement high-priority science objectives and to get excited about 
space and the opportunities space investment offers us.
  These are some of the highlights of just the Commerce-Justice-Science 
portion of this minibus. I believe it is a strong, comprehensive bill. 
I am proud it is on the floor. I hope it is going to pass with as 
strong a margin as we saw this morning's vote give us, and I hope we 
will be able to enact this bill into law before the current continuing 
funding resolution expires on November 21.
  I want to give credit to all of the members of both the majority and 
the minority on the Appropriations subcommittee that helped negotiate 
our CJS bill and all of the bills that are on the floor. They do 
tremendous work, and they deserve our credit for all of their effort.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                           Government Funding

  Mr. ROMNEY. Madam President, I rise today to talk about two problems 
that are related. These two problems have been spoken about for I think 
virtually decades here in this Chamber and across the political 
spectrum.
  One relates to preserving our extraordinary entitlement programs--
Social Security, Medicare, our highway trust fund, and the like. These 
programs are very much under threat because within 13 years, each of 
these trust funds, each of these programs will face insolvency.
  The other problem I want to talk about is the massive overspending, 
the deficit and the debt we have. That is something which Republicans 
and Democrats have been speaking about for a long time, although 
speaking about it less frequently as of late.
  These two problems are related because two-thirds of our spending at 
the Federal level is automatic. It is associated with our entitlement 
programs. So let me start with the debt.
  When I was running for President and when I had the chance also to 
run for the Senate, the No. 1 issue among the people in my State was 
the issue of whether we would stop spending more money than we take in. 
We took in about $3 trillion last year in tax revenue, but we spent 
about $4 trillion.
  There are some people who have decided to stop thinking about the 
deficit, to stop worrying about the debt, but as the debt reaches 
almost $23 trillion, it is beginning to be a real issue. I don't think 
we are about to face a failed auction where people won't be willing to 
buy our debt. We are, after all, the reserve currency of the world, and 
people want to have American dollars. But I am concerned that the 
interest is beginning to have an enormous impact on our capacity to 
meet our priorities.
  Last year we spent almost $300 billion on interest on the Federal 
debt, and over time, this debt, as we add to it year after year after 
year, is going to mean that the burden of interest payments on the 
American people will get larger and larger.
  There is a small group of people who say: Well, this isn't a problem 
because interest rates are so low.
  Well, it is not a problem until it becomes a problem, because if 
interest rates start creeping up at some point, it can become an 
extraordinary burden on the American people.
  If we are sending hundreds of billions of dollars to people like the 
Chinese, when they use those dollars to confront our military, we have 
a real problem leading the free world.
  The issue is, how come we can't deal with the debt and the deficits, 
and why haven't we been able to do so? There has been effort to talk 
about that, even though more recently it has been kind of quiet. It 
relates, of course, to what I started to speak about, which are our 
trust funds, with Medicare, with Social Security, our retirement 
programs. Social Security, the disability program, as well as the 
highway trust funds--these are scheduled to run out of money within 13 
years.
  To deal with this issue, Senator Joe Manchin, Senator Todd Young, 
Senator Doug Jones, Senator Kyrsten Sinema, and I have proposed 
something called the TRUST Act. It is designed to save the trust funds 
associated with these major programs. It is designed to make sure we 
have a process for finally getting balance in Social Security--both 
trust funds in Social Security, as well as Medicare, as well as the 
highway trust fund.
  This is an effort that has been undertaken in the past 
unsuccessfully, and a lot of people say that it can't be done now. But 
it has to be done now. If it is not done now, the burden that will fall 
on our seniors eventually will become extraordinary. And the burden 
that will fall on the next generation, as they don't know whether 
Social Security and Medicare be can be depended upon, is unthinkable.
  The approach that Senator Manchin and these other Senators and I have 
taken is pretty straightforward. We are not laying out a specific plan 
to change these programs. Instead, we have laid out a process for 
modernizing these programs.
  For each one of these trust funds, our bill proposes that the 
leaders--Republicans and Democrats--in both Chambers, House and Senate, 
put together a rescue committee. For each trust fund, there will be a 
rescue committee that goes to work to see if, on a bipartisan, 
bicameral basis, we can come up with a solution to get these trust 
funds on a solvent basis for at least 75 years.
  That is an effort that will be successful only if both parties agree. 
If we do get that agreement in any one or each one of these different 
rescue committees, on a privileged basis, their recommendation, their 
proposal, their bill will be brought to the floor of the House and 
Senate and voted upon.
  On that basis, we have a process for actually resolving the 
insolvency issue that faces Social Security, Medicare, and the highway 
trust fund. We also have a pathway to finally get our budget balanced 
and end the extraordinary growth in our debt and the burden the 
interest payments are having on the American people today and in the 
future.
  I look forward to hearing from my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle. I hope we get great support from people who are willing to 
sponsor this effort

[[Page S6286]]

to be part of these rescue committees, to go to work to resolve the 
impending challenges that we have in these trust funds and in our 
overall financial status.
  I mentioned the names of the Senators I have been working with to put 
together this TRUST Act. I also want to mention a number of 
Congresspeople who are helping out and our cosponsors, original 
cosponsors:   Mike Gallagher, Ed Case, and Ben McAdams. Again, 
Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate--together, I think we can 
finally save these essential programs.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I want to thank my good friend Senator 
Romney for taking this initiative and, basically, all of us working 
together.
  Let me say this. We were Governors together--the Governor from 
Massachusetts and the Governor from West Virginia. The bottom line is, 
we had the same balanced budget amendment we had to work with. We had 
to work on a daily basis, a weekly basis--whatever it took--to balance 
our States' budgets. We had to stay within our means. We couldn't spend 
more than what we had coming in, and we couldn't put our people in 
debt.
  That was something I thought was pretty simple because it is the same 
thing you do in your personal life, the same thing you do in your small 
business or large corporation: You live within your means. If you are 
going to grow, then you grow, basically, in a balanced way.
  As Senator Romney has said, our debt is almost $23 trillion. You can 
look back through history when we have hit these numbers, but then if 
you look back, during the war, we weren't worried about balancing the 
budget during the war. We were worrying about whether we would survive 
as nation, and we did.
  Coming out of that war, we had over 100 percent debt to GDP. We were 
able to bring that back down and work in a prudent manner. Then it 
ballooned up.
  Let me tell you how I signed on to Bowles-Simpson. If you look at 
recent history, the last time--and the only time for 40 years--we 
balanced the budget was in 1997, up to 2001. That was with Erskine 
Bowles and John Casey working together--a Democrat working for 
President Bill Clinton and a Republican Congressman from Ohio. They sat 
down and worked out a plan and a tax system that worked for America. It 
worked so well that we were spinning out, basically, surpluses.
  We were told that by 2006 we would be debt-free on the path we were 
going. We had 9/11 come up. We had two wars we never paid for--the 
first time. I tell people, if you are a Democrat and you want to blame 
Republicans, go ahead. They are guilty. If you are a Republican and you 
want to blame Democrats, go ahead. They are just as guilty. There is 
basically blame for both sides. But sooner or later, you have to do 
something.
  When Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson came together, Democrats and 
Republicans said: We have to get our financial house in order.
  It made sense to me. I had just been elected. It was in early 2011. I 
was elected in November 2010. I started looking, and it made sense. We 
came so close that it would have been forced to a vote, as Senator 
Romney has just explained the TRUST Act.
  We think that someone has to have their eye on the ball here because 
when these interest rates balloon--and they will--and when people lose 
confidence and faith and will not put their money in and buy our paper, 
basically, for the low return we are giving them--or no return at 
times--and demand more, then we are going to have to outbid, and it is 
going to cost a lot more to do business in our country.

  Sooner or later, we are basically writing checks our kids can't cash. 
That is about it in a nutshell. If we are responsible to leave our 
children and the next generation in better shape than how we received 
it, we have done a very poor job. We truly have.
  Again, I thank the good Senator from Utah for basically bringing this 
fiscal plan we have worked together on and looking at where we are. The 
roadmap is pretty clear. If you haven't learned from history, you will 
make history. And it is not going to be a good kind of history you are 
going to make.
  Let me tell you who these recessions hit the most. In my State, I 
have a very hard-working State, a very rural State, and a State that is 
not of the highest per capita income in the country by any means. With 
that, they are the first ones who get hurt. If we don't really care 
about Social Security, if we don't care about the highway trust fund, 
infrastructure, if we don't care about Medicare--this is a life-
sustaining influx of money they have because very few people who work 
from paycheck to paycheck are able to put money aside so that they 
don't need Social Security and they can pay their own medical bills.
  I have seen the effect of this. I can tell you, it is not pleasant. I 
have people on my side of the aisle who talk about Medicare for All. 
That is aspirational. We can't even pay for Medicare for Some--the 
``some'' who have already earned it and paid into it.
  By 2026, we are going to be in default. We are going to be out of 
funds. By 2032, Social Security could be out of funds. These are things 
that are fixable now. They will not be fixable in 2026 for Medicare. It 
will be too late. For Social Security, in 2030, 2032, it will be too 
late, and that is just around the corner. For the highway trust fund, 
look at the infrastructure. Everyone who has run for President within 
the last decade or so basically has talked about a big infrastructure 
package. It will be the first thing they have done. They get elected, 
and guess what happens. Nothing. We don't see an infrastructure 
package.
  It is the most politically right thing you can do. A pothole doesn't 
have an R's or a D's name on it. It is not partisan. It will bust your 
tire, and it will break your rim. It doesn't care who you are.
  These are things we can fix, and they are things we can do to gain 
the trust of the public. Yet we fail to do them. We continue to divide 
this country and push us apart. This TRUST Act is what will bring us 
back together. It will put our priorities where they should be.
  All of us have run for public office. We have put our names out 
there. We can go out there and explain: We are protecting your Social 
Security.
  If you want to protect Social Security, then do something. The TRUST 
Act does that.
  We are going to take care of your Medicare. Do you want to take care 
of Medicare? Support the TRUST Act. It will do that.
  These are things we can do, and we can do them now. We shouldn't 
wait. We should bring this back to the floor, and you should go on 
record to vote. Are you really going to support Social Security? Are 
you really going to support Medicare? Then vote.
  If you don't have the guts to vote, that means you don't support 
Social Security, and you don't support Medicare, and quit being a 
hypocrite going out there campaigning and saying you do. That is really 
what it comes down to.
  We are just trying to fix something in an orderly fashion, where 
everybody has it--bipartisan, bicameral. If we can't do this 
bipartisan, bicameral, we can't do anything in a bipartisan, bicameral 
way. This is where we are today.
  I thank my dear friend. I really do. I thank my friend Senator Romney 
for saying: Let's do this, Joe.
  I said: Absolutely, Mitt, I am onboard. Count me in.
  We have other Senators. Not surprisingly, we have former Governors. 
This is how we had to operate. These were our day-to-day operations. 
During the crisis of 2007, 2008, I used to meet once a week in West 
Virginia with my finance people. They would give me the projections, 
and we had to make adjustments. In 2007 and 2008, with the recession 
coming on as hard it was, we were meeting twice a day, trying to stay 
ahead of it and figure out how we could keep from getting in the hole. 
But we made it. I have never seen that type of attention here. I have 
not seen one Presidential candidate--right now with all of them out 
there--talking about the finances of our country, talking about what 
the children of the next generation will inherit, how they are going to 
be able to manage, how their mothers and their fathers and all of them 
are going to have Social Security secured and Medicare taken care of. I 
haven't heard that at all. Maybe we can get the dialogue started now.

[[Page S6287]]

  With that, I yield floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                             Appropriations

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor today to support 
the funding bill for the defense of our Nation. This funding package 
provides a well-earned, well-deserved pay raise for our troops--the men 
and women in uniform, the men and women I had the privilege of visiting 
earlier this month, part of the Wyoming National Guard deployments in 
multiple places around the world.
  Yet Democrats have blocked a key vote. They did it last month. I want 
to make sure they don't do it again. It seems they are doing it for 
purely political reasons. It is a partisan blockade of our Nation's 
troops' pay raise. It is hard to believe they are doing it, but they 
did it, and it seems they want to do it again.
  Both parties agreed to support our military, and they support our 
military families as well. They made that promise 3 months ago. Then 
they went back on the promise. It was part of that bipartisan budget 
deal that was signed in August.
  By moving this defense funding measure, Republicans are keeping our 
promises; the Democrats are breaking theirs. Now it is time once again 
to vote. It is time for Democrats to stop blocking the bill. It is time 
to stop playing politics, especially with our troops' paychecks.
  We need to pass this bill to fully fund the Defense Department. It 
honors our commitment to our troops. It delivers critical resources our 
military needs to keep us safe, to keep us strong, to keep us 
prosperous. The bill protects America's standing among our allies and 
our adversaries.
  We need to get this done. It also funds Health and Human Services. 
That is what we are looking at as well. It includes our Nation's 
medical research.
  It is time for the Democrats to get to yes. It is time to keep our 
promises to the military; it is time to honor our commitment to our 
troops; and it is time to get on with the business of our Nation. It is 
time to pass the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cramer). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cramer). The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Boeing 737 MAX

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  We just heard Senators Romney and Manchin talking about our Nation's 
economic woes and legislation they are handling on a bipartisan basis. 
I think it is always a good and positive thing when we can approach our 
work in a bipartisan way. It is what the American people are expecting 
us to do.
  Yesterday, in our Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, we 
had bipartisanship at work again. We were carrying out one of the 
duties we have in Congress, which is to conduct oversight and to make 
certain that not only the processes of government and the fiscal health 
of our government are on a firm footing but also to look at things like 
consumer protection and public safety.
  Our hearing yesterday dealt with these deadly and disastrous crashes 
that happened with the Boeing 737 MAX. We know that those crashes 
occurred and remember that one occurred in Indonesia and one in 
Ethiopia.
  I will tell you that, in my opinion, the executives from the Boeing 
Company tried--and they failed--to explain to members of the Senate 
Commerce Committee why they allowed the 737 MAX aircraft to reach the 
commercial market.
  We discovered that the company's highest echelon neglected a 
responsibility to ensure that the aircraft met their highest safety 
standards. It was of concern to us. I don't know, and I think many of 
us were left trying to figure out, whether this was something that was 
a corporate culture problem, whether it was a communication problem, or 
whether it was a negligence issue.
  Until a few weeks ago, executives, including president and CEO Dennis 
Muilenburg, had not read emails revealing how Boeing officials 
convinced the FAA to approve training materials and delete troublesome 
flight systems data and had not read text messages showing that 
employees lied to regulators about safety problems with the plane's 
MCAS system. That is the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation 
System. They had not read the text messages that spelled out there was 
a problem.
  When asked at the hearing for technical details on the science and 
systems behind the MAX's approval, Muilenburg and his cohort were 
unable to even give a straight answer. We did not get the answers we 
needed on questions about their process, test pilots, or simulators.
  Yesterday's hearing made it clear that Boeing leadership cannot 
provide the answers we are looking for, not for ourselves but on behalf 
of the victims and their families and on behalf of the flying public 
who, yes, safety is their priority.
  The Senate really needs to look at this issue again. Our Commerce 
Committee should schedule another hearing on the people and the 
procedures and hear from the engineers and the test pilots behind 
Boeing's MAX program.
  Perhaps these engineers and pilots will be able to do a better job 
than the executives did yesterday, and perhaps they can explain to the 
families of these 346 crash victims how so many people ended up dead 
after choosing one the world's safest modes of transportation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). The Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. CRAMER. Madam President, first of all, thank you for your 
flexibility at the chair today.


                             Appropriations

  Madam President, the purpose for rising today is to advocate on 
behalf of our military, the men and women who are the bravest in the 
world. I feel compelled to do so because I can imagine that in these 
days of hyperpartisan politics, some of them may feel like some of us 
are abandoning them, and I want them to know for sure that we are not.
  We all took an oath to the Constitution, and the highest priority in 
the Constitution for the Federal Government is, of course, to provide 
for the Nation's defense against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
  Unfortunately, my Democratic colleagues seem to be shirking from this 
responsibility lately. They are willing to settle for, seemingly, 
mediocrity, and right now we have excellence, the best. First of all, 
they are planning to come to this Chamber tomorrow to block the all-
important Defense appropriations bill; that is to say, to block the 
funding for our military; that is to say, to block the largest pay 
increase for the men and women of our military in over a decade--just 
to name one topic that is being funded, or would be funded, by this 
appropriations bill that they are going to block.
  Back in July, the House and Senate, on a bipartisan basis--I say to 
the Presiding Officer, you just gave a wonderful speech about the 
importance of working together. On a bipartisan basis, we passed a 
major budget bill. It was a win for our military and a win for our 
country because it was supposed to provide them with certainty and an 
important path forward as they chart that path--that strategic path--
for America's superiority.
  To echo the House Speaker and the Democratic leader at the time: ``A 
bipartisan agreement has been reached that will enhance our national 
security.'' These aren't my words--although I agree with them--these 
are the words of the Democratic leadership of Congress.
  After passage, the Democratic leader went on to say: This deal would 
``strengthen our national security and provide our troops with the 
resources they need.'' I agree with the Democratic leader. Please--
please--change course while you still can and support this important 
funding bill tomorrow.
  I agreed with my colleague from New York then, and I supported that 
legislation for the exact reason to ``strengthen our national security 
and provide our troops with the resources they need.''
  This deal passed with strong bipartisan support. It was widely 
applauded.

[[Page S6288]]

Yet here we are today, this week, with our colleagues preparing to 
block the funding for our troops for which they were just a couple of 
months ago patting themselves on the back.
  This whole process shouldn't even be this complicated. In fact, I am 
convinced that the American people are tired of us complicating simple 
things. We agreed to this 2-year budget agreement just a few months 
ago. I voted for it. Party leadership pushed for it. The President 
signed it. Then we voted for a short-term continuing resolution to get 
in order before getting to the final appropriations deal.
  I reluctantly voted for the short-term CR, but the only thing worse 
than a CR, of course, is a government shutdown. So that was what we 
were confronted with.
  If one asked the military community how they feel about continuing 
resolutions, they would be quick to tell you they don't work. They 
don't work at all. They do not provide certainty beyond certainty. They 
don't allow new programs to be launched. They don't allow the pay 
increases that our appropriations bill does. So evidently it has not 
been a priority for our Democratic colleagues, but they do have 
priorities, as we know.
  This impeachment craziness, this obsession with eliminating, getting 
rid of our Commander in Chief a year before the election of the 
Commander in Chief is what their priorities are, clearly, not the 
priorities stated in the Constitution or that they were bragging about 
a couple of months ago.
  Of course, in addition, they are now standing in the way of us 
passing the reconciled National Defense Authorization Act--the 
authorization that provides the guidance for these priorities that are 
also part of our appropriations bill.
  We went through all of that, and for what? I didn't agree to the 
deals we made or take these tough votes just so the Democrats could 
block Defense appropriations and leave our military stuck with 
political gridlock that they have imposed on us now.
  By failing to pass this appropriations bill, by standing in the way 
now of reconciling in the conference committee the National Defense 
Authorization Act, they really are standing in the way of our military. 
Now there is talk of a ``skinny NDAA''--that is to say, a watered-down 
skinny version.
  For 58 years in a row, we have done what you just talked about and 
what the previous speakers talked about. We have worked in a bipartisan 
way to pass an NDAA 58 years in a row.
  As the first North Dakotan ever to sit on the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, I treated this NDAA with the utmost importance and still do. 
We made some significant progress, from nuclear deterrence to UAS 
development, establishing a Space Force, and honoring the sailors of 
the USS Frank E. Evans--a provision the Democratic leader and his 
colleague from New York supported, I will add. Both the House and 
Senate versions of the NDAA advanced important policies for my State, 
for our country, and really for the world.
  We should be working collaboratively to combine these versions and 
pass the best plan possible for our military. Instead, our work is 
being sacrificed at the altar of partisan politics, caught up in a 
partisan impeachment process that makes no sense.
  Let's make something clear about this skinny NDAA.
  Our chairman is not introducing it with haste or without great 
consideration. He first warned that this could happen well over a month 
ago. He said it would happen if our Democratic colleagues proved to be 
so incapable of setting aside their problems with President Trump that 
they could not advance the interests of our Nation's military. Ever the 
optimist, I thought they would. I thought they would.
  Now, my Democratic colleagues are balking at any and all forward 
progress on the NDAA because of their opposition to President Trump and 
his priorities for border security. They want to limit his authority to 
transfer anymore funds in order to build physical barriers at our 
southern border.
  So I want to be clear. The President would not need to use that 
authority to use any military construction funds to build a wall if our 
Democratic colleagues would simply provide the necessary funding 
through the normal appropriations process, as they always have and as 
we always have. I, for one, will not be so unreasonable in negotiating 
with them. For example, if--and I mean only if--my Democratic 
colleagues would fund the administration's border security request 
through the appropriations process, then count me in for limiting the 
President's transfer authority. I am willing to compromise, but you 
can't have it both ways. You can't say we are going to take away the 
President's constitutional authority on the one hand, and then, on the 
other hand, make sure you don't fund the priorities that he needs to 
fund, which is, again, the highest priority of our government.
  To reiterate my earlier point, I applaud the chairman for his 
handling of this process. He has been vigilant and focused on 
completing the NDAA, and I don't blame him for where we are today. No, 
House Democrats have not been willing partners and have forced the 
chairman to devise a backup plan for their intransigence.
  That is what I find so disappointing. Surely, our Democratic 
colleagues know the threat that our foreign adversaries pose. For 
crying out loud, we just came from a classified briefing. If it is not 
clear enough, I don't know when it will be.
  Whether it is the crisis at the southern border or the critical 
missions that bring terrorists like al-Baghdadi to justice, I am sure 
my colleagues want to do whatever it takes to keep our country safe. 
Surely, they are capable of putting partisan politics aside in order to 
pass the 59th straight National Defense Authority Act. Anything to the 
contrary would be unprecedented.
  Yet here we are. I find it astonishing that with all the wannabe 
Commanders in Chief right here in the Senate, they are playing politics 
with the funding and authorities of the troops they hope to lead.
  Can you imagine one of these Presidential candidates becoming the 
Commander in Chief and the first talk they have with the troops is, 
``Yeah, I held up your funding and your pay raises.'' It is not a great 
way to start.
  If it were up to our committee, this bill would have already passed. 
If it were up to our conference, this NDAA would be on its way to the 
President's desk. But unfortunately, it is not. That is the unfortunate 
reality we face today.
  The Democratic Party is continuing to put their hatred of President 
Trump and his agenda above the needs of our Nation's military, and, 
thus, our Nation's defense. It is a dereliction of duty. I find it 
sickening, and I find it embarrassing. We are better than this. This 
institution deserves better than this. The American people expect and 
deserve better than this.
  I want to make one last plea before they block tomorrow's vote. 
Please put our military men and women, our highest priority, ahead of 
partisan politics.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cramer). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                              South Sudan

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will talk just for a very few minutes 
today about something that has been on my mind and on my heart. We so 
easily forget how fortunate we are to live in a country like America. I 
wish all of our world's neighbors were as fortunate as we are, but they 
are not. We can't lose sight of that fact. I don't know why bad things 
happen to good people, and I am not suggesting that I have a complete 
solution to it, but trying to understand it is at least a good first 
step.
  I am talking about the ongoing crisis in South Sudan. As you know, 
South Sudan is a landlocked country in East-Central Africa, and it is a 
fairly new country. In the 7 years since South Sudan was plunged into a 
very bloody civil war, not only have millions of people been displaced 
from their homes, but over 400,000--think about that--men, women, and 
children have been killed in the crossfire--400,000.
  I would like nothing more than for the recent negotiated ceasefire 
between the government and the rebels

[[Page S6289]]

to hold. We all would. But if we are being honest, we have to express 
our sincere doubts. I don't have any doubt that the people of South 
Sudan yearn for peace.
  Unfortunately, there are some who are taking advantage of the sad 
situation in South Sudan. They are taking advantage of South Sudan's 
conflicts and widespread corruption within its government in order to 
steal the nation's and the people's natural resources. I am talking 
about kleptocrats. I am talking about war criminals. I am talking about 
corrupt multinational corporations that are pilfering South Sudan's 
natural resources, regardless of the chaos that they are causing and 
the extraordinary human cost.
  Until good people in this world take a stand and say enough is 
enough, the people in South Sudan will continue to be at the mercy of 
the corrupt. The predatory extraction of South Sudan's resources not 
only directs vital capital outside of the war-torn nation, where it is 
desperately needed inside, but it makes meaningful investment in 
sustained peace simply impossible.
  That is why I am respectfully calling on the U.S. Senate to stand 
with peace, to stand with right--not with might, with right--and to 
stand with the people of South Sudan. The people of South Sudan are a 
proud people. They are a resilient people. They are tired of being 
ruled by a government that is ripe with corruption. They are tired of 
seeing their nation torn apart by war. The U.S. Senate ought to condemn 
the marauding, the stealing of resources, and the widespread corruption 
within the South Sudanese Government. Furthermore, I also call on the 
United States to support sanctions against those companies and those 
individuals outside of South Sudan that continue to profit off of the 
ongoing conflicts and instability in the region.
  Now, we are a powerful nation. I just listened to your very eloquent 
talk about the men and women in our military who protect our country. 
Not only do we have the world's most powerful military, but let me put 
it another way. We have the most powerful military in all of human 
history. We also have the strongest economy the world has ever seen, 
and for that, we were blessed.
  It is the latter that we have to wield against the internal and the 
external bad actors taking advantage of the people of South Sudan. Much 
like our sanctions against the largest state sponsor of terrorism in 
the world--I am, of course, talking about Iran--and much like those 
sanctions have resulted in a successful economic pressure campaign, I 
hope the same can be done, targeting crooked government officials and 
the unethical multinational corporations that target vulnerable nations 
like South Sudan.
  It has been well documented that there are a number of multinational 
corporations with ties to nations like China and nations like Malaysia 
that have taken advantage of widespread corruption in the region, in 
South Sudan and the surrounding region, to spur their own economic and 
political gain. It has been reported and it has been independently 
verified that one of South Sudan's largest multinational petroleum 
consortiums from outside the country operating in the country, a 
company called Dar Petroleum Operating Company, has actively funded 
militia and paramilitary groups within the region.
  In fact, when Dar Petroleum isn't funding militia or brokering 
weapons deals, it keeps busy polluting local communities in South Sudan 
and water supplies with its industrial waste. The petroleum company has 
dumped ``high levels of heavy metals and dangerous chemical compounds'' 
into the surrounding countryside with no regard--none, zero, no 
regard--for local populations.
  In fact, the contamination from the joint Chinese-Malaysian-owned 
corporation has extended well beyond merely the soil surrounding Dar 
Petroleum's production and processing plants. The soil contamination is 
found to be so widespread and so extensive that over 600,000 of the 
good people in South Sudan are expected to be affected by it.
  From bribery to pollution and even murder, these unsavory actors have 
found a home in South Sudan, ruining the environment and raping the 
natural resources of the country, and they are going to continue to 
find a safe haven and continue business unless we act.
  Unless sanctions against countries and individuals that are known to 
have long taken advantage of South Sudan's weak or almost nonexistent 
rule of law are implemented, stability in the region is going to be 
nothing but a dream and nothing but happy talk.
  The United States should not remain silent as untold billions are 
stolen. The monies are being stolen, and the natural resources are 
being stolen from the people in South Sudan. The people of South Sudan 
are also being murdered in the process.
  We should not stand by. By empowering the U.S. Government to target 
the illicit financial activity that serves as the root cause for many 
of the atrocities that I have talked about, the South Sudanese can 
begin rebuilding their nation without fear of violence and without fear 
of corruption. The United States is far from the only government on the 
world stage that has the ability to do this. Now, we both know that, 
but as is so often the case, we might be the only government with the 
will and the moral conviction to do what is right.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Appropriations

  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the 
importance of the Senate providing the resources needed by our 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines.
  We are seeing increasing threats to the homeland from around the 
world. We need look no further than the recent elimination of Abu Bakr 
al-Baghdadi by U.S. Special Operations forces to show us that there are 
evil people out there who continue to devote their lives to killing 
American citizens and glorifying the fall of our Nation. The rise of 
ISIS proved that radical terrorist ideologies remain dangerous. Despite 
the elimination of its leader, groups like ISIS will continue to remain 
a serious challenge across the globe.
  We have also seen the emergence of a great power competition with 
China and Russia. They are investing massive amounts of resources to 
erode the international order that the United States and our allies 
have worked so hard to create and protect. Leaders of these nations 
don't want societies based on liberty and free enterprise; instead, 
they are focused on promoting the iron precepts of authoritarianism and 
autocracy. Without American engagement and a strong investment in the 
Nation's military, our children could live in a world transformed by 
these malign forces. We cannot allow that to happen.
  Clearly, the threats we face abroad are increasing. On that fact, we 
have bipartisan support. These past few weeks, many of my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle have spoken about the situation in Syria 
and the danger that an expansionist Russia poses to nations like 
Ukraine. We agree about the need for the United States to address these 
challenges, but I am not convinced that my Democratic colleagues are 
truly serious about sustaining American leadership and retaining our 
position in the world. If they are, it is time to show it by advancing 
the defense funding legislation.
  Funding the military in a timely, predictable fashion is one of the 
most important things we can do in Congress. A failure to do so awards 
China and Russia with an advantage at a time when we can least afford 
it. We need to work together to pass our Defense appropriations bill 
for the coming fiscal year and to focus on implementing the National 
Defense Strategy to effectively confront these threats.
  It is also worth highlighting how many provisions contained in this 
bill are absolutely critical to our military. This legislation provides 
significant investments in both basic research and future technologies 
to allow for continued innovation within DOD. It includes

[[Page S6290]]

areas pivotal to implementing the goals of the NDS, including 
hypersonics, 5G, artificial intelligence, missile defense, and cyber 
security.
  Importantly, it provides robust funding for all three legs of the 
triad and appropriates funding to enable the modernization of our 
Nation's nuclear deterrent. There is no question that this is a top 
priority of mine as chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of 
the Senate Armed Services Committee.
  In addition, we cannot forget that the Department of Defense still 
has not recovered from the impacts of several natural disasters that 
affected multiple installations across the country. This includes 
Offutt Air Force Base and Camp Ashland in my own State of Nebraska, as 
well as several others. Without the relief funding in the Defense 
appropriations bill, these bases and their tenant units will not be 
able to fully recover from these disasters. That poses a major threat 
not just to the bases themselves but to all of the missions we rely 
upon them to support. For that reason, it is critical that we move 
forward with the defense funding process to allow full recovery to take 
place at these bases.
  All of us here also recognize that our military is about more than 
hardware; it is our men and women in uniform and their families who 
make our Armed Forces strong. That is why it is so essential that we 
provide the pay and benefits that are critical for our servicemembers 
and their families. The Defense appropriations bill delivers a military 
pay increase of 3.1 percent. That is the largest in a decade.
  If we are truly serious about supporting our warfighters, if we mean 
what we say when we talk about supporting the troops, then step up. We 
must move forward with the Defense appropriations bill. Now is the not 
the time to put political grandstanding ahead of serious legislating.
  I hope we can look back at the Senate's bipartisan tradition of 
uniting behind the common defense as inspiration. Let's take up and 
pass the Defense appropriations bill. In doing so, we honor our 
commitment to America's warfighters.
  We have seen over the past week how the bravery and commitment of our 
servicemembers can deliver the world's most-wanted terrorist to 
justice. We must honor their service and the service of all our men and 
women in uniform by moving this process forward.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise to sound the alarm on the Trump 
administration's expected announcement of its withdrawal of the United 
States from the Paris Agreement within the United Nations Framework 
Convention on Climate Change to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions 
in an effort to limit global temperature increase in this century to 2 
degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, while pursuing means to 
limit it even further to 1.5 degrees.
  Article 28 of the Paris Agreement that was entered into in COP 21 
2015 specifies that after joining, no country can withdraw for 3 years, 
after which a 1-year waiting period must occur before the withdrawal 
takes effect. The United States entered into this historic agreement on 
November 4, 2016; thus, the earliest date the United States can 
initiate withdrawal is November 4, 2019. After the U.S. files 
withdrawal documents, the 1-year waiting period begins, making November 
4, 2020, the earliest possible date the United States can fully--and I 
might add, recklessly--get out of this agreement.

  I urge my colleagues to support a Senate resolution that I certainly 
will be filing expressing our need for U.S. climate diplomacy. 
Withdrawal is terrible. The cost of inaction is high.
  For example, in my State of Maryland, by the year 2100, climate 
change could force the Navy to relocate the U.S. Naval Academy from 
where it has made its home in Annapolis, MD, since 1845.
  Surrounded by water on three sides, the Naval Academy is especially 
vulnerable to sea rise. The Severn River runs along the east, Spa Creek 
extends to the south, and College Creek runs along the north. Parts of 
the academy adjacent to the water stand 3 feet above the waterline. Sea 
levels around Annapolis have risen about 1 foot over the past 100 
years. The Naval Academy is only one of scores of U.S. military bases 
that may be inundated by rising seas.
  Unlike this administration, the academy is taking action. In 2015, 
the Sea Level Rise Advisory Council formed to create an adaptation plan 
and make decisions about flood-related matters. Staff are installing 
door dams and flood barriers on doorways, repairing seawalls, and 
installing backflow preventers in storm drain systems to reduce 
funding. Newly constructed buildings will have elevated entrances and 
limited first-floor openings to keep rising water out. But these 
actions have high costs that are compounded by inaction.
  On October 12 of this year, a combination of seasonal high tides, a 
full Moon, and a tropical storm stalled off the eastern seaboard caused 
a ``nuisance flood'' in downtown Annapolis, disrupting the festivities 
at the annual Annapolis Boat Show, flooding booths at the city dock and 
closing streets.
  One week later, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation--the key nonprofit 
partner in the restoration effort--announced that it will close the Fox 
Island Education Center due to subsidence and rising sea levels--a 
casualty of our failure to address climate change. For the past 40 
years, the Fox Center has helped educate students on the importance of 
a healthy Chesapeake Bay watershed. Environmental literacy is an 
essential goal of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, and 
institutions like the Fox Island Center serve a key role.
  The marshes and wetlands the foundation is dedicated to protecting 
are among Maryland's best natural defenses in mitigating the effects of 
climate-related impacts like more frequent storms and rising sea 
levels. The untimely closure is a reminder of the very real presence of 
changes to the bay in our communities and the urgent need to prepare.
  On October 17, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco released a 
report. The collection of 18 papers by outside experts amounts to one 
of the most specific and dire accountings of the dangers posed to 
businesses and communities in the United States--a threat so 
significant that the Nation's central banks are increasingly compelled 
to act.
  Climate change has begun to affect the real estate market, according 
to a paper by Asaf Bernstein, an economist at the University of 
Colorado in Boulder. His research shows that properties likely to be 
underwater if the seas rise 1 foot now sell for 15 percent less than 
comparable properties with no flood threat.
  Our failure to act on climate change has a real economic impact on 
American families. Coastal cities are already unable to pay for the 
types of projects that could prevent them from the growing effects of 
climate change.
  On October 23, in a briefing for the Maryland Senate Education, 
Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee, NOAA oceanographer Will 
Sweet said that Annapolis is on pace for another record-breaking year 
in 2019, with 10 high-tide flood days so far.
  By 2030, there could be between 15 and 25 high-tide flood days a 
year. By 2050, that number could rise to between 50 and 170. That 
compares to how it was at the turn of the century when we only had two 
such events in a year.
  This is not only a coastal issue. In addition to an update from NOAA, 
the committee heard from officials in Howard County--Howard County, I 
would state, is a landlocked county in Maryland--about their plan to 
mitigate flooding in Ellicott City, 35 miles inland from Annapolis, 
where flash-flooding has claimed the lives of three people since 2016. 
Officials discussed their $140 million plan, which includes demolishing 
some buildings and constructing a tunnel 15 feet in diameter, 80 to 100 
feet deep, and 1,600 feet long on the north side of the city's Main 
Street. The tunnel would divert about two-thirds of the floodwaters.
  It is an expensive project. Will it keep Ellicott City safe? It will 
keep it safer, but the threat will still be there because of our 
inaction as far as dealing with climate change. That is $140 million we 
would not need to find as fast if we were slowing the rate of sea level 
rise; that is, if we were reducing the use of carbon emissions in 
accordance with the Paris Agreement.

[[Page S6291]]

  Many small business owners took out loans in 2016 and 2018 from the 
Department of Housing and Community Development and are struggling to 
repay them. These are not international competitors with an agenda 
being hurt by inaction on climate change; these are local residents, 
constituents, Americans.
  We need to act.
  I am proud to lead bipartisan legislation to help critical water 
infrastructure adapt to natural hazards. We need to do adaptation. I am 
for that, and it is bipartisan in this Chamber, but adaptation 
mitigation must go hand in hand, from the local to the international 
level.
  I led the congressional delegation to COP 21 with nine of our 
colleagues in the U.S. Senate. We had a delegation 10-strong in Paris 
at COP 21 in 2015 when the United States agreed to lower its gas 
emissions 26 to 28 percent below the 2005 levels by 2025. Entering the 
25th conference of the parties, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions rose an 
estimated 3.4 percent in 2018--a spike that comes as reports like the 
Fourth National Climate Assessment and the IPCC special report tell us 
the world needs to be aggressively cutting its emissions to avoid the 
most devastating effects of climate change. The findings, published by 
the independent economic research firm Rhodium Group, mean that our 
Nation now has a diminishing chance of meeting the pledge it made in 
Paris. This is a horrible embarrassment for our country, which was once 
a global leader on climate change. When the United States doesn't lead, 
other countries are going to step in and take over that leadership, as 
we have seen with regard to China stepping forward in regard to climate 
issues. China should be the United States.

  I urge this administration to reassert strong leadership in 
implementing the Paris Agreement. I urge the Senate to act to return 
America's leadership to this critical global challenge.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
up to 20 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am thrilled and delighted to follow 
my outstanding colleague from Maryland coming here to talk about 
climate change. That is the topic that brings me to the floor today as 
well. Those of us who are from coastal States not only have the 
experience of worse flooding in our coastal communities and those 
coastal communities getting new conversations with their municipal bond 
folks about what the flooding risk means for their bond ratings, but we 
are also looking at projections like Maryland is of what happens if we 
don't act, and the very maps of our State will change.
  When historians look back at why the United States failed so badly to 
take on climate change, they will, of course, focus on the political 
efforts of the world's largest oil companies: Exxon, Chevron, BP, and 
Shell. They will note the obstructive role of leading trade 
associations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National 
Association of Manufacturers, and the American Petroleum Institute. 
They will chronicle the network of phony front groups set up by Big 
Oil, Big Coal, and the Koch brothers to sow doubt of the science and 
fear of climate action. Big Oil, the Kochs, the trade associations, the 
front groups all will deserve plenty of blame. Their climate denial 
apparatus and their capture of the modern Republican Party is a direct 
and deliberate cause of America's failure.
  There are other less heralded but equally bad actors. I come to the 
floor today to discuss one of them. Future historians of ``anii 
Trumpi,'' take note of Marathon Petroleum. Marathon Petroleum is the 
largest oil refiner in the United States. It refines oil into gasoline, 
other fuels, and lubricants. It owns pipelines and gas stations. Its 
4,000 Speedway locations and almost 8,000 independent gas stations 
selling Marathon-branded fuels reach across the country. It is No. 31 
on the Fortune 500 list of U.S. companies, and it has almost $100 
billion in annual revenue. This is a big company with a big stake in 
blocking climate action.
  What does Marathon want? Well, its annual report filed with the 
Securities and Exchange Commission makes one thing very clear: Marathon 
sees laws and regulations that reduce carbon pollution as a threat. One 
threat Marathon specifically cites in its annual report is fuel economy 
or CAFE standards. Why? Marathon's 2018 annual report reads: ``Higher 
CAFE standards for cars and light trucks have the potential to reduce 
demand for our transportation fuels.'' It is as simple as that. Fuel-
efficient cars burn less gas, and that is bad for a big refiner.
  Well, in 2012, automakers and the State of California and the 
previous administration got together, and they agreed to significantly 
better fuel economy standards. That was a good deal for almost 
everyone. Consumers were estimated to save more than $1.7 trillion in 
reduced fuel costs--up to $8,000 per vehicle for vehicles purchased in 
2025. The air would be cleaner. Carbon emissions from cars and light 
trucks would be cut in half by 2025, and automakers would have a 
competitive spur to keep pace with new vehicle technologies being 
developed in Europe and China--win, win, win, win.
  Well, in 2017, these automakers came back into the Trump 
administration and asked the Trump administration to revisit the fuel 
economy standards. It looks, from everything I have seen, like the auto 
industry primarily wanted technical changes to make the standards 
easier to meet. I have found no evidence that the auto industry asked 
the administration to totally freeze the standards or that they asked 
the administration then to revoke California's authority to set its own 
standards under the Clean Air Act.
  When automakers asked the administration for these changes, someone 
else was watching. The oil industry sensed opportunity. The standards 
may have been good for consumers, the auto industry, States, our global 
climate, but that $1.7 trillion in reduced fuel costs that consumers 
would save would come directly out of oil industry revenues. So the oil 
industry sprang into action to hijack the rulemaking process.
  The oil industry demanded weakening of the standards to the max; 
i.e., a freeze, and it even demanded revocation of California's 
longstanding authority to set its own standards, leading more than a 
dozen other States, including my home State of Rhode Island. We follow 
the California standard. An administration marbled through with fossil 
fuel lobbyists and attorneys heard the oil industry call. It must have 
been a strange experience for the automakers. One minute they are 
asking for technical changes to a regulation they had agreed to; the 
next minute the whole process has been run off with by a completely 
other industry.
  Marathon was the ring leader. I obtained an electronic draft of a 
letter to the Deputy Administrator of the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration urging her to weaken the fuel economy standards. 
The metadata of the letter was still in the letter because I got it 
electronically. According to the metadata in this document, it was 
written by a Marathon Petroleum inhouse lobbyist. Marathon then shopped 
this letter around to Members of the House of Representatives to 
convince them to send letters backing the weakened standards that they 
wanted.
  We got those House letters, and we ran them through plagiarism 
software against the Marathon lobbyists' draft. Here is what we got. 
When we compared the Marathon letter with the letter sent by Members of 
Pennsylvania's congressional delegation, it was an 80-percent match. 
The red here is all the language that is identical. Members from 
Indiana and West Virginia sent similar letters also with text lifted 
directly from the Marathon lobbyists' draft. If you want to give this 
political stunt a name, you could call it a Pruitt, after Scott Pruitt, 
who distinguished himself for the Trump EPA Administrator's position by 
copying a Devon Energy text onto his own official letterhead as 
attorney general of his State and sending it on as if it were his 
letter.
  Back to Marathon. Pulling a Pruitt with these Congressmen was not 
enough. We know from Marathon's own reports that it directly lobbied on 
the standards, and we know that its trade association, the American 
Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, AFPM,

[[Page S6292]]

also lobbied on the standards. We know AFPM also launched a campaign on 
social media urging people to support a freeze.
  Marathon is a member of a front group that is called the American 
Legislative Exchange Council, also known as ALEC. This front group 
pushes the agenda of the Koch brothers' apparatus in State 
legislatures. It is the tool for the Koch brothers to try to work their 
will in State legislatures. ALEC passed a resolution in favor of 
weakening the standards and revoking California's State authority. We 
know that senior executives from Marathon met personally with EPA 
leadership and with senior officials in the White House to push for 
weakening the standards and revoking California's authority.
  There is a lot we don't know. We don't know which front groups 
Marathon and other oil companies fund because neither of them disclose 
their donations or their donors. We don't know how many other groups 
were deployed in this effort. We don't know the extent to which 
Marathon coordinated its campaign with the trade association and the 
front groups, so we can't assess whether this lobbying effort violated 
the front groups' 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. We don't know what role 
Marathon or its front groups had in the mysterious antitrust letter 
that came popping out of DOJ shortly after the automakers negotiated 
separately with California.
  When the automakers realized that their negotiations--the process 
they were involved with--had been hijacked by Marathon and that they 
were just passengers on the Marathon train at this point, they bailed. 
When they knew the conversation was bogus, they bailed. They negotiated 
directly with California, and they came up with their own deal with 
California. That, obviously, really ticked off the oil guys who thought 
they had this thing all scoped. Apparently, it even ticked off the 
President--all the way up to President Trump.
  The next thing you know comes this truly bizarre letter out of DOJ 
that appears to ignore basic tenets of antitrust law, like when you are 
negotiating with a State government, it is not an antitrust violation. 
It appears also to violate DOJ's own very elaborate antitrust 
investigation procedures.
  So who pulled those strings? We don't know. More broadly, if Marathon 
and other fossil fuel companies are purposefully paying a web of phony 
front groups and trade associations to spread deliberate, known 
disinformation about climate change in order to obstruct climate action 
in Congress, does that not warrant congressional investigation? Might 
it not, in fact, be fraud? It was fraud when the tobacco industry did 
it.
  Over the past 2 weeks, two different subcommittees of the House 
Committee on Oversight and Reform held hearings that examined how the 
fossil fuel industry deploys front groups and trade associations to 
spread disinformation about climate change and block legislative 
action.
  Yesterday the Senate Democrats' Special Committee on the Climate 
Crisis held our hearing on how dark money front groups hide the 
industry's role in climate denial and legislative obstruction. Fat 
chance we will have Senate committees investigate this masquerade in a 
Chamber under Republican control, but for our friends in the House, the 
time is ripe for congressional oversight. Follow the money and the 
facts wherever they lead. Let the subpoenas fly.
  Congressmen Henry Waxman led a successful investigation of lies and 
deceit from a corrupting industry, Big Tobacco, and that precedent 
served our country well. It served the American public well. It ended 
up likely saving lives.

  So we go back to Marathon again. Marathon's shareholders are 
interesting, too, in all of this.
  Last month, 200 major investors who had $6.5 trillion in assets under 
management, sent a letter to 47 U.S. companies, including Marathon, 
urging that the companies' lobbying align with the Paris Agreement's 
goal of global average temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius and 
warning the companies that lobbying against that goal is an investment 
risk.
  The letter went to Marathon, but, interestingly, none of Marathon's 
biggest investors--BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, and J.P. Morgan 
Asset Management--signed the letter. Collectively, these four investors 
own, roughly, 25 percent of Marathon. BlackRock lists climate risk as 
one of its engagement priorities in 2019, so it says. BlackRock 
published a report this year that by 2060, 58 percent of U.S. metro 
areas will see annual average climate-related losses of at least 1 
percent of GDP, with some projected to lose a staggering 15 percent of 
GDP.
  JPMorgan's CEO, Jamie Dimon, has said: ``Business must play a 
leadership role in creating solutions that protect the environment and 
grow the economy.''
  So it was interesting yesterday, in our Senate select committee 
hearing, to have a witness put up this slide. This slide shows the 
positions on climate change, regulation, and the legislation of a 
number of companies. It is a spectrum. Green is supporting climate 
regulation and legislation. Opposition is red.
  We were talking about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has been 
identified as one of the two worst climate obstructors in America as a 
trade association. The U.S. Chamber and the National Association of 
Manufacturers take the prize. We were looking at how strange that is 
because their memberships don't have the positions they take. So we are 
going to continue to explore why it is that the board members of the 
National Association of Manufacturers and the board members of the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce appear to have let their organizations be run away 
with by the fossil fuel industry as well.
  Here is what was notable. On this graph, this is where the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce is--one of the worst climate obstructors. Yet look 
who is worse. In fact, look at who is the worst of all of them--
Marathon. What do you know? You have these four investors who own 25 
percent of this company that is on the worst side of this spectrum. 
They claim to care about solving the climate problem. Yet they are 25-
percent owners in the most opposed of all of these entities to the 
solution to the climate crisis they claim to seek.
  They have to get their act together. It is not fair to be JPMorgan 
CEO Jamie Dimon and say that business must play a leadership role in 
creating solutions that protect the environment and grow the economy 
and then to be part of the 25-percent largest shareholders of the 
company that is the worst of this.
  You have to line this up, guys. You can't say one thing to the public 
and then do the opposite through the companies you own.
  The stakes here are high. There are credible warnings of a carbon 
asset bubble and of crashes in coastal property values, but BlackRock 
hasn't introduced a single climate-related shareholder resolution since 
2001. In 2018, BlackRock and Vanguard--two of these big Marathon 
owners--voted in favor of only 10 and 12 percent of climate-related 
shareholder resolutions. They say they are good at this--BlackRock 10 
percent, Vanguard 12 percent. The other ones, they didn't support. In 
2017, at Marathon--the worst--BlackRock voted against a shareholder 
proposal for Marathon to test its business operations against the 2-
degree Celsius threshold that BlackRock claimed to target and support. 
By the way, if BlackRock had voted its shares for this proposal, it 
would have passed.
  Just this month, Marathon finally published a report that examines 
its own prospects in a carbon-contained world. In one scenario, demand 
for petroleum-based liquids plummets 26 percent by 2040. With the 
demand for vehicle fuels--Marathon's primary market--it falls even more 
steeply. If Marathon estimates the market for its main product could 
shrink by one-third or more, first, you can understand why it got in 
there to manipulate the auto fuel efficiency standard process. You can 
also understand why it is that economists and sovereign banks are 
issuing these warnings about a carbon bubble.
  We will get serious about climate change. We must. We have no choice. 
The costs of inaction are, as Donald Trump once said, catastrophic.
  Eventually, all of the fossil fuel money and bullying in the world 
will not stave off action in the face of mounting climate calamities. 
This

[[Page S6293]]

should be obvious to everyone and certainly to sophisticated investors 
with supposedly good climate policies like BlackRock and JPMorgan. So 
why aren't they pushing Marathon to adapt to a low-carbon economy? Why 
are they happy to own 25 percent of that--of the worst? That is what 
they want to own?
  It doesn't have to be this way. Look at DSM, a Dutch multinational, 
with roughly $10 billion in revenues and over 23,000 employees around 
the world, including many here in the United States. DSM began as a 
coal mining company over a century ago. Its leaders realized coal 
mining in the Netherlands would someday end, so they reinvented the 
company. When the last mine closed in the 1970s, DSM had diversified. 
It is, today, a vibrant producer of nutritional additives for food, of 
pharmaceuticals, and of high-tech materials for electronics, 
automobiles, and construction. By contrast, Murray Coal, which is an 
American coal mining company that did not diversify, filed for 
bankruptcy this week.
  To the fossil fuel industry, I say that you ought to begin adapting 
now. You can't ignore what is coming at you. You owe it to your 
shareholders, and you owe it to your employees. By God, you owe it to 
your children.
  To BlackRock and the other big investors, this means you have to pay 
attention too. You say you are for climate action. Show that you mean 
it. Demand change at Marathon and at other fossil fuel companies that 
you own. Start with mandating that these companies disclose their 
climate obstruction funding. There is no excuse for that to be secret.
  If they will not do it, Congress, let's investigate. We have slept 
through this mess long enough--in a state of induced narcolepsy. We 
have sleepwalked for far too long. It is time we woke up.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded and I be permitted to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Remembering Kay Hagan

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the passing of former Senator Kay Hagan 
was sad news to all of us who were privileged to serve with her and 
counted her as a friend.
  In her final address to the Senate 5 years ago, Senator Kay Hagan 
reminded us of our obligation to work together on behalf of the 
American people with these words: ``To whom much is given, much is 
expected.''
  Kay Hagan was given much. She had the energy, intelligence, 
dedication, and compassion, and she gave back to her home State over 
many years of public service. As a person of deep faith, she fully 
understood the New Testament ``Parable of the Talents.'' Its message 
that gifts must be put to use in service of others guided her life.
  In this time of sorrow, I offer my deep condolences to Kay's family. 
I hope that they will find comfort in knowing that Kay left an 
inspiring legacy. She left the world a better place for her service. 
The loss felt by the people of North Carolina and by her family, in 
particular, is felt by people throughout America.
  I was privileged to serve with Kay for 6 years. We served together on 
the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I always appreciated her focus 
on solutions rather than partisan advantage. She was passionate about 
many issues, particularly those affecting children.
  In 2011, Kay and I introduced legislation to commemorate the work at 
the March of Dimes by minting a coin to celebrate the 75th anniversary 
of this organization and directing the proceeds to the March of Dimes 
Prematurity Campaign. As the author of the Newborn Screening Saves 
Lives Reauthorization Act, Kay reaffirmed her belief that we in 
Congress must always remember whom we are advocating for.
  When Kay took office in 2009, she was very proud to be one of 17 
Senators who were female. It is significant that her very first speech 
on the Senate floor that January was in support of the Lilly Ledbetter 
Fair Pay Act to strengthen protections for women against wage 
discrimination.
  It was so refreshing to hear her assert that neither party had a 
monopoly on good ideas. Throughout her time in this Chamber, she proved 
the truth of that maxim.
  In the ``Parable of the Talents,'' the master leaves on a journey and 
entrusts a servant with a portion of his treasure. Upon his return, the 
master is delighted to find that his wealth has been wisely invested 
and multiplied.
  Kay Hagan was entrusted with the great treasure of principles, 
determination, and spirit. She invested that treasure wisely and 
multiplied its benefits for all. Like the master in the Parable, to Kay 
Hagan we say: ``Well done, good and faithful servant.''
  May God bless her and her family and may we all keep her memory in 
our hearts.
  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.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am about to offer the managers' package 
for the four appropriations bills currently before us: Commerce, 
Justice, Science, Agriculture, Interior and the Transportation, 
Housing, and Urban Development bill. This managers' package includes 45 
amendments, many of which--indeed, most of which--have been offered on 
a bipartisan basis. They have been cleared by both sides.
  The Appropriations Committee has worked very hard with Members to 
accommodate as many amendments as possible. For the T-HUD 
appropriations bill, for example, both Senator Jack Reed and I worked 
to review, approve, and clear managers' amendments in our part of the 
bill.
  This package reflects a positive step forward as we move toward final 
passage of this appropriations bill. It is imperative that we move 
these bills and go to conference with the House. Therefore, I urge all 
Members to support this managers' package.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to offer 
the following amendments: Lee amendment No. 1209 and Jones amendment 
No. 1141, as modified. I further ask unanimous consent that no second-
degree amendments be in order to these amendments prior to the votes, 
and that at 11:30 a.m. on Thursday, October 31, the Senate vote in 
relation to these amendments in the order listed.
  Finally, I ask unanimous consent that upon resumption of the bill on 
Thursday, October 31, the following amendments be called up and agreed 
to en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table: Tester amendment No. 953; Smith amendment No. 1023; 
Hirono amendment No. 1037; Brown amendment No. 1088, as modified; 
Baldwin amendment No. 1099; Whitehouse amendment No. 1121; Thune 
amendment No. 1133; Jones amendment No. 1143; Smith amendment No. 1149; 
Rosen


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S6293, October 30, 2019, third column, the following 
appears: Finally, I ask unanimous consent that upon resumption of 
the bill on Thursday, October 31, the following amendments be 
called up and agreed to en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table: Tester amendment No. 953; 
Smith amendment No. 1023; Hirono amendment No. 1037; Brown 
amendment No. 1088, as modified; Baldwin amendment No. 1099; 
Murkowski amendment No. 1121; Thune amendment No. 1133; Capito 
amendment No. 1143; Smith amendment No. 1149; Rosen
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: Finally, I ask 
unanimous consent that upon resumption of the bill on Thursday, 
October 31, the following amendments be called up and agreed to en 
bloc, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table: Tester amendment No. 953; Smith amendment No. 
1023; Hirono amendment No. 1037; Brown amendment No. 1088, as 
modified; Baldwin amendment No. 1099; Whitehouse amendment No. 
1121; Thune amendment No. 1133; Jones amendment No. 1143; Smith 
amendment No. 1149; Rosen


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 
  amendment No. 1161; McSally amendment No. 1163; Reed amendment No. 
 1217; Stabenow amendment No. 1223; Cornyn amendment No. 1224; Warner 
 amendment No. 951; Capito amendment No. 1077; Cantwell amendment No. 
  1094; Toomey amendment No. 1129; Durbin amendment No. 1146; Gardner 
 amendment No. 1150; McSally amendment No. 1234; Sinema amendment No. 
   1025; Ernst amendment No. 1079; Ernst amendment No. 1081; Cornyn 
  amendment No. 1151; Cardin amendment No. 1159; Rosen amendment No. 
   1160; Thune amendment No. 1162; Peters amendment No. 1182; Cornyn 
 amendment No. 1193; Menendez amendment No. 1199; Blunt amendment No. 
 1211; McSally amendment No. 1215; Collins amendment No. 1220; Schumer 
  amendment No. 1227; Hassan amendment No. 956; Collins amendment No. 
  1002; Shaheen amendment No. 1005; Kaine amendment No. 1010; Cortez 
  Masto amendment No. 1061; Cortez Masto amendment No. 1062; Heinrich 
 amendment No. 1114; Shaheen amendment No. 1130; Hoeven amendment No. 
                 1214; and Portman amendment No. 1235.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S6294]]

  

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding rule XXII, following the disposition of the Jones 
amendment, the postcloture time on amendment No. 948 expire, the 
pending McConnell amendment be withdrawn, and amendment No. 948, as 
amended, be agreed to; further, that the cloture motion on H.R. 3055 be 
withdrawn, the bill be read a third time, and there be 2 minutes of 
debate equally divided; and that following the use or yielding back of 
that time, the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, with a 
60-affirmative-vote threshold required for passage. Finally, I ask that 
the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to H.R. 2740 occur at 1:45 
p.m. on Thursday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________