[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 182 (Thursday, November 14, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6586-S6596]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE TO MAKE A CORRECTION IN THE ENROLLMENT
OF H.R. 2423
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 72, which was
received from the House.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the concurrent
resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 72) directing the
Clerk of the House to make a correction in the enrollment of
H.R. 2423.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to proceeding to the
measure?
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
concurrent resolution.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered
made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 72) was agreed to.
Violence Against Women Act
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, unfortunately, this Congress has been
defined by previously unprecedented political antics. Things that used
to be far above the political fray are now getting roiled in
controversy.
One example is yesterday, when the minority leader blocked the
bipartisan bill that I introduced to reduce drug prices--a bill that
received unanimous support in the Judiciary Committee. I recognize my
friend from Connecticut Senator Blumenthal, who is the chief Democratic
cosponsor of that bill.
I think the most egregious example of politicalization of things that
used to be nonpartisan has to be the politicalization of the Violence
Against Women Act, or VAWA. For 25 years, this program has supported
survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault through a range of
critical programs and resources.
As a longtime victims' rights advocate myself, I am a proud supporter
of the Violence Against Women Act, and I have consistently fought not
only to continue it but to strengthen it as well.
I think there is more we can and should do to support victims, and I
know folks on the other side of the aisle feel the same way. It is safe
to say, though, that we have had our fair share of disagreements on how
exactly to accomplish that.
Earlier this year, our Democratic colleagues allowed VAWA to get
caught in the crosshairs of a funding debate when they insisted we
should not fund this vital program because it is overdue for updates.
This is a rash move, to be sure. It lines up with the ``my way or the
highway'' legislative strategy sometimes deployed by our friends on the
other side, but that hasn't stopped my Republican colleagues, led by
Senator Joni Ernst from Iowa, from pursuing a compromise.
For many months now, Senator Ernst has been working with Dianne
Feinstein, the Senator from California, to find ways to make
improvements that both sides can agree on. That is the way things get
done around here: You try to build consensus, and maybe you don't get
everything you want, but if you can get 80 percent of what you want,
you ought to take it and run.
Last week, unfortunately, Democrats walked away from the negotiating
table when it came to the Violence Against Women Act. Rather than
continuing the discussions with people of opposing views, they took the
easy way out and simply walked away and introduced their own partisan
reauthorization--one they know has no chance of passing.
Just like the version that passed the House earlier this year, this
is a messaging document, worth no more than the paper it is written on.
It is not going to reauthorize VAWA or make the program better, and it
is not going to support victims because it stands no chance of becoming
law.
I am truly disappointed that our Democratic colleagues, once again,
have chosen to play politics rather than deliver real results, this
time for the victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.
Despite the games being played here, my Republican colleagues and I
are working to put in the hard work it takes to actually accomplish
something and legislate.
Senator Ernst said she will soon be introducing a good-faith proposal
that actually has the chance to become law. It is not a partisan
document. It really is a return to where we used to be, where the
Violence Against Women Act enjoyed broad support on both sides of the
aisle and was truly not just bipartisan but nonpartisan. It is a shame
that something as urgent and undeniably important as combating domestic
violence and sexual assault has somehow fallen prey to Washington, DC,
politics.
I hope our colleagues will reconsider and return to the negotiating
table so we can reach a compromise and finally reauthorize the Violence
Against Women Act.
E-Cigarettes
Mr. President, on another matter, in recent months, there has been a
lot of coverage in the news and in social media about the health
consequences of e-cigarette use. The ``e'' stands for electronic--
electronic cigarette use.
We have seen alarming headlines about vaping-related illnesses that
have led to severe health consequences and dozens of deaths. I find it
particularly concerning that an increased number of children in middle
school and in high school are using these products, even though it is
inconsistent with the law. It is against the law.
The National Youth Tobacco Survey estimates that more than 5 million
middle and high school students currently use e-cigarettes, up from 3.6
million last year. Five million middle and high school children are
using this product that the law says they should not be using.
Folks at home are certainly dealing with the fallout. Last year, 19
percent of Texas high school students had used an e-cigarette in the
last 30 days, and news reports lead me to believe the number has done
nothing but go up.
Certainly, there are negative health consequences associated with it.
A teen in Michigan was recently hospitalized, as my colleague from
Michigan well knows. He was recently hospitalized after vaping and then
had to have an incredibly rare double lung transplant because of the
damage done to the lungs.
This is causing alarm for parents, for educators, for health
professionals, and just about everybody else who has heard about it. It
certainly caught my attention.
Yesterday the HELP Committee--the Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions Committee--in the Senate held a hearing to look into the
government's lackluster response to these public health concerns. I am
seriously concerned with how, compared to traditional cigarettes, this
industry is able to evade countless government regulations, especially
through online sales.
Consumers are able to purchase traditional cigarettes online, but
there are clear guardrails in place to prevent minors from using online
purchases to skirt the age restrictions.
At the time of delivery, if you buy cigarettes online, you have to
sign and show an ID proving your age. That just
[[Page S6587]]
makes sense to me. You have to show ID when you purchase cigarettes at
a gas station or convenience store, and buying them online should be no
different, but in the case of e-cigarettes, it is different. Anyone, no
matter how old or how young, could go online and buy e-cigarettes and
have them delivered to your front door, no questions asked.
You better believe underage kids are taking advantage of that
loophole. A recent survey found that about one-third of underage e-
cigarette users bought them online.
What people need to understand is that e-cigarettes are essentially a
nicotine delivery device. Nicotine, of course, is an addictive drug, so
it is not as if there aren't negative health consequences. Even if they
are not smoking tobacco, if they use e-cigarettes, there are true risks
to the health of these young people.
Now, while an adult, I believe, ought to be able to do things that
maybe negatively impact their health, I think we have an obligation to
protect children, particularly those who are making bad decisions,
before they are prepared to understand what the consequences really
are.
So while it is important for us to understand the health impact of
these devices and have serious conversations with our own children
about the risks, we should do something to prevent children from
getting their hands on e-cigarettes in the first place.
I have introduced a bill with Senator Feinstein and Senator Van
Hollen that prevents the online sale of e-cigarettes to minors using
the same safeguards that stop them from being able to use regular
cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products on the internet. The law is
the same with regard to who can legally purchase them, so we ought to
have the procedures in place that prevent underage smokers from buying
cigarettes online without a signature and without an identification
card proving their age. We ought to have the same procedures in place
for e-cigarettes.
This bill, thankfully, has broad bipartisan support, with one-quarter
of all Senators serving as cosponsors, and it has recently passed the
House by a voice vote.
When we talk about passing consensus legislation in the Senate, this
is about as easy as it comes. I hope we can bring this legislation to
the Senate floor soon so we can prevent the next generation from using
legal loopholes to get their hands on e-cigarettes.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
VA Mission Act
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this week, America is paying tribute to
more than 19 million people in our country and a half million people in
Michigan who show us every day what service is all about.
America's veterans have served in many ways and on many different
fronts. However, I think they all have a couple of things in common.
The first is that they love our Nation so much that they are willing
to put their lives on the line for our Constitution, our democracy, our
values, and our ideals for our country. The second is that they
understand that patriotism is a lot more than a feeling of pride.
Instead, it is a way of life.
Veterans don't finish their military service, hang up their uniforms,
go home, never to be heard from again. Instead, these are the people
around us who take a good look at their community, their State, our
country, see what needs to be done, and step up.
Not all of us have what it takes to serve in our Armed Forces. Yet
all of us do have the ability to follow the example of those who have
served us, see a need, and raise our hands. Imagine how much better off
our Nation would be if we all had that same dedication to give
something back.
As we have been celebrating Veterans Day this week, we should all
remember that when American men and women sign up to serve in our armed
services, they really sign a blank check to our country--a check that
could include everything, including losing their life. When our Nation
accepts that check, we need to make sure we are holding up our end of
the bargain.
Unfortunately, the Trump administration is failing to provide
veterans with the benefits they have earned, especially when it comes
to healthcare.
Congress passed the VA MISSION Act last year to improve veterans'
access to healthcare and to expand benefits to caregivers, which is so
important. Yet the VA missed the October deadline--missed the October
deadline--to include Vietnam and Korean war veterans in the expansion.
The VA has kicked eligible veterans out of the caregiver program
without explaining why. Meanwhile, more than 60,000 veterans who
received emergency care at non-VA facilities in 2017 are still waiting
for the VA to pay their medical bills.
Perhaps worst of all, this administration turned their backs on more
than 80,000 Vietnam-era veterans who developed illnesses because of
toxic exposure to Agent Orange. We have known for a long time that
Agent Orange exposure has caused many serious health issues.
In fact, I first started working on this issue regarding Agent Orange
and fighting for our veterans when I was in the Michigan State
legislature, trying to get the Federal Government to recognize and
provide VA health coverage for these illnesses. Over the years, some
things have changed and improved, but it has been way, way too slow.
Veterans who have been suffering for years were offered hope in 2017
when then-Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin added bladder
cancer, underactive thyroid, high blood pressure, and Parkinson's-like
symptoms to the list of diseases eligible for Agent Orange benefits
without going through a lot of bureaucracy in order to get their
healthcare coverage. He did so at the urging of the National Academy of
Medicine based on the science--medical science--of the connection.
Unfortunately, veterans with these conditions are still waiting. This
was back in 2017. They are still waiting to get that healthcare, and
that is because the Office of Management and Budget Director, Mick
Mulvaney, quietly ignored the science and rejected the coverage
expansion. Why? We now know, through emails that have been made public,
that he thought it was too costly.
Really? Let me remind you that these veterans each signed a blank
check to our Nation. For veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange, the
check they signed is in the amount of their health and well-being.
A number of colleagues in this Chamber, led by Senator Tester and
Senator Brown, whom I see on the floor, have repeatedly asked the VA to
explain the delay in coverage. Their questions, over and over again,
have gone unanswered.
We only now know what really happened when a veteran trying to get
help, trying to get treatment, finally filed a FOIA request--Freedom of
Information Act request--to get information about who was holding it up
and what was going on. Just recently, we have found out that the Office
of Management and Budget--that Mick Mulvaney blocked the care because
he thought it was going to cost too much.
It is now November of 2019, and Vietnam veterans are still not
getting treatment for these diseases. Yesterday, my friend Senator
Brown from Ohio requested unanimous consent on his resolution, which I
am pleased to be a cosponsor of, that expands the diseases covered by
the VA for Agent Orange exposure. It would fix this and say to the OMB
Director: We want to make sure we are keeping our end of the bargain
for our Vietnam vets who were exposed to Agent Orange.
Once again, Leader McConnell and Republicans chose to stand with the
Trump administration and Mick Mulvaney to stop veterans from getting
this critical healthcare coverage. I was amazed to actually hear the
objection include the words, ``It costs too much.''
It is not enough to praise our veterans with words. We do that all
the time, especially around the 11th of November. Praise doesn't pay
the medical bills. Praise doesn't give a veteran a healthy life, a job,
a home, or opportunities.
This administration, Congress, and our country must keep each and
every promise our country has made to those who have served, period.
Each and every one of them signed that blank check to our country.
Leader McConnell, it is time to hold up our country's end of the
bargain.
I yield the floor.
[[Page S6588]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Stabenow. She is exactly
right. A couple of times, she used the term ``blank check.'' When
people join the Army, people become marines, people go off to a service
academy, and people enlist in the National Guard, essentially they sign
a blank check cashed by all of us who care so much about protecting our
country.
Senator Stabenow has been, with Senator Tester, one of the real
leaders on this. You know, it used to be, many years ago, when it
became clearer that veteran after veteran after veteran--young veterans
in those days, 20 years ago, not that far removed from Vietnam--were
coming down with these illnesses, Congress decided bipartisanly, almost
unanimously, that rather than make every single veteran, every soldier,
every marine, and every sailor prove to the government, prove to the VA
that they should be eligible for healthcare coverage based on the
illness they got because of Agent Orange--Congress decided that we
shouldn't make every single person go through proving this--through
that process. So what did we do? We made a list of illnesses that
typically come from exposure to Agent Orange, and any veteran who was
sick from one of these illnesses, no questions asked, got healthcare.
That is what we did. That was then.
Today, in this time when I hear my colleagues who sit over here--I
don't want to make this partisan, but it has become that because it is
President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Senator McConnell who say no
to this. We have the Secretary of the VA, appointed by the President of
the United States, President Trump--the Secretary of the VA came up
with these four additional illnesses around which there is scientific
consensus saying that these illnesses are caused by Agent Orange, and
individual veterans shouldn't have to, one at a time, prove that they
got sick, that they got this kind of Parkinson's or they had bladder
cancer based on Agent Orange. We ought to just accept that. That is how
we serve those who served us.
But do you know what Senator McConnell does? You know, his office is
down the hall, as my colleagues know. Senator McConnell apparently says
that we should do tax cuts for rich people, but we can't afford to
spend a few billion dollars. It is a lot of money, but these are our
people, and these are people who served in Southeast Asia mostly in the
1960s and 1970s.
Senator McConnell wants to turn his back on them. President Trump
turns his back on them. The new Secretary of the VA, appointed by
President Trump, turns his back on these soldiers. There are 80,000 of
them. Does President Trump just want to wait till all 80,000 are dead,
and then we will not have to worry about this anymore? Or do we serve
those who served us?
Every time I think about this, I just can't believe that the
President of the United States, who didn't serve--I didn't either. I
understand that. But you know, because I didn't serve in Vietnam and I
am just slightly on the young side of this generation, because I didn't
serve, maybe I should work a little harder, as a member of the
Veterans' Committee, to make sure the people who did serve are taken
care of.
This President, who didn't serve--I don't judge him for that. No
matter what he said, I don't judge him for that. But maybe he ought to
work a little harder, not just making speeches about how much he loves
veterans but actually coming to the table and telling Senator
McConnell: Quit blocking our attempts to take care of these 80,000
veterans. It is just outrageous.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of my remarks be placed at a different point in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Honoring Detective Jorge ``George'' Del Rio
Mr. President, I rise to honor a dedicated Ohio public servant,
Detective George Del Rio. For three decades, Detective Del Rio served
his community in Dayton with honor and integrity.
On November 4, a few days ago, he was working as part of a local DEA
drug task force, and he made the ultimate sacrifice to keep his fellow
Ohioans safe. He laid down his life while doing his job. He was working
with fellow Dayton officers to protect the people he was sworn to serve
in Miami Valley.
In the days since his passing, we have heard story after story after
story of Detective Del Rio's service to his community and to his
family.
As he was hospitalized, officers from around Miami Valley packed the
hospital hallways and parking lots to show their support and their
respect for Detective Del Rio and his wife Kathy and their children and
grandchildren.
Detective Del Rio was beloved by friends and colleagues. He was
devoted to his family. He was kind. He was funny. He was fair. He was a
good cop even while spending his days undertaking dangerous work, often
undercover.
Detective Del Rio's career is a reminder of the contributions that
immigrants make to our great country and to my State. He came to this
country as a child from Mexico. His decades of teamwork as part of the
Dayton Police Department and the DEA saved lives and changed lives. He
embodied the Dayton PD's motto of ``Honor through service and service
with honor.''
Chief Richard Biehl--whom I have gotten to know on a number of
occasions because of the tragedies of the shooting and the tornado and
the KKK's attempted rally in Dayton--said that Detective Del Rio had an
impact regionally, nationally, and internationally. His legacy will
live on through the many lives he touched, and, not surprisingly, he
continues to serve through his wishes to be an organ donor.
In times of tragedy, Ohioans always rise to the occasion. We have
witnessed an outpouring of community support in the days since
Detective Del Rio was taken from us. While no gesture, of course, can
ever repay him or Kathy and his children and grandchildren for their
sacrifice, today we honor this hero's memory, and we lift up the entire
Dayton community.
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. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hyde-Smith). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Equal Rights Amendment
Mr. CARDIN. ``Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.'' Most
Americans believe that the Equal Rights Amendment is part of our
Constitution today, but it is not.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated:
Every Constitution written since the end of World War II
includes a provision that men and women are citizens of equal
stature. Ours does not.
The State of Maryland has a provision very similar to that in its
State constitution. Many of our States have acted on the Equal Rights
Amendment, but, as Justice Scalia said, ``Certainly the Constitution
does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is
whether it prohibits it. It doesn't.''
We need to pass the Equal Rights Amendment in the Constitution of the
United States for many reasons. The most basic reason is that it
provides additional protection against discrimination against women. It
has a higher standard to prevent discrimination. It shows America's
leadership globally on human rights.
In 1972, Congress started the process by passing the Equal Rights
Amendment. We passed it in 1972. Now, of course, it requires 38 States
to ratify it before it can become law. To date, 37 States have ratified
the Equal Rights Amendment. We are one short of accomplishing our
objective of putting the Equal Rights Amendment at long last in the
Constitution of the United States. But there is an additional potential
hurdle; that is, when Congress passed the resolution in 1972, it put a
7-year time limit for the States to act. They extended that to 10
years. This is strictly a provision that is discretionary to Congress.
Article V of the Constitution puts no limit on the time for
ratification of a constitutional amendment proposed by Congress for the
States to ratify. In fact, the 27th Amendment was ratified in 1992.
That
[[Page S6589]]
deals with congressional pay raises. It was first proposed in 1789 to
be part of the Bill of Rights, and over 200 years later, it was
ratified. So there is no time limit in the Constitution for the
ratification of a constitutional amendment.
To remove any doubt, Congress should extend the time, as it did once
before. In order to accomplish that, I joined with Senator Murkowski,
the Senator from Alaska, in a bipartisan effort on S. Res. 6 that
removes the deadline, the time limit on the passage of the Equal Rights
Amendment.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record an op-ed piece written by Senator Murkowski and myself in regard
to why we need to get that resolution passed.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Jan. 25, 2019]
It's Time To Finally Pass the Equal Rights Amendment
(By Lisa Murkowski and Ben Cardin)
Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, represents Alaska in the
Senate. Ben Cardin, a Democrat, represents Maryland in the
Senate.
Men and women should be treated equally under the law. It
seems pretty basic, right?
As we approach the 100th anniversary of women's suffrage,
it comes as a shock to so many that the U.S. Constitution
does not guarantee women the same rights and protections as
men.
We come from different ends of the political spectrum, but
we agree that this needs to change. Women compose a majority
of the American population but continue to be
underrepresented in government, elected office, the courts
and business world. A level playing field should not be a
euphemism but rather a reality for women (and men) from
Anchorage to Annapolis and everywhere in between.
``Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or by any State on account of
sex.''
This is the full substance of the Equal Rights Amendment.
It's a little less than a tweet, but it will make a positive
difference in the lives of millions of women.
Why is this still necessary? During a 2011 interview,
Justice Antonin Scalia summed up the need for an Equal Rights
Amendment. He said: ``Certainly the Constitution does not
require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is
whether it prohibits it. It doesn't.''
On the other side of the spectrum, Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg laid out the rationale for the ERA in simple terms:
``Every constitution written since the end of World War II
includes a provision that men and women are citizens of equal
stature. Ours does not.''
Why has it taken this long? Per the Constitution, an
amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states to
be enacted. While most amendments are put forward without a
time limit, this one came with a seven-year deadline. The
original was extended to 10 years, but still, only 35 states
had ratified the ERA by 1982.
While the clock stood frozen at the federal level, today,
nearly half of the states--including Maryland and Alaska--
have a version of the ERA written into their constitutions.
Gender-based equality represents the present-day views of the
vast majority of people across the United States, and is the
spirit that underpins our bipartisan legislation.
The deadline passed in 1982, so isn't this effort futile?
Not at all.
Nationally, momentum began to shift about two years ago, as
women across the country began to raise their voices again in
calls for solidarity and equality. The ERA had never gone
away, but the #MeToo movement gave it a jolt of energy and a
new spotlight for inequalities in U.S. law.
In March 2017, 45 years to the day after Congress
overwhelmingly approved the ERA, Nevada became the 36th state
to ratify the amendment. And then, in May 2018, Illinois
became the 37th.
What had for years been referred to as a three-state plan--
working to have Congress remove the ratification deadline so
that three more states could ratify the ERA, and it would
become enshrined in our constitution--had suddenly become a
one-state plan.
Earlier this month, Virginia started the ratification
process in their state legislature. Alabama, Arizona,
Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri,
North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah could also
become state No. 38. Congress can do its part by explicitly
removing the deadline it once set.
Article V of the Constitution contains no time limits for
ratification of amendments. The states finally ratified the
27th Amendment in 1992 regarding congressional pay raises
more than 200 years after Congress proposed it in 1789 as
part of the Bill of Rights.
The original deadline for ERA ratification was not in the
amendment itself but only in the text of the joint resolution
proposing the amendment. This is to say the amendment itself
has no arbitrary deadline attached.
Whether on purpose or not, Congress handcuffed itself at
the time it passed the ERA. But this Congress can and should
easily amend that language to remove the deadline for
ratification.
We are proud to work together on a bipartisan basis to move
this essential legislation over the finish line and finally
make the ERA part of the Constitution--guaranteeing equality
under the law for women.
Women should not be held back or provided less opportunity,
respect or protections under the law because of their gender.
This is not a partisan issue but one of universal human
rights. Gender equality should be an explicit, basic
principle of our society.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, on November 13, the House Judiciary
Committee took up a very similar resolution, H.J. Res. 79 by
Representative Jackie Speier, and it has now been reported out
favorably. So we now have moving through the House of Representatives a
resolution that would remove this time limit that was imposed in the
1970s on the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.
What I am imploring upon my colleagues is, we are very close to
getting this done. We know there was a change in leadership in
Virginia. Virginia could very well be the 38th State. But let's remove
the ambiguity as to a time limit.
We will celebrate in this Congress the 100th anniversary of the
passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, the women's suffrage
amendment that passed in 1920. Why did it take so long for women to
have the right to vote? Well, people are asking: Why is it taking so
long to put the Equal Rights Amendment into the Constitution of the
United States?
We have a plan to get this done by passing the resolution I talked
about, the 38th State to ratify it, and that at long last, the United
States will provide the leadership on universal human rights by placing
the Equal Rights Amendment in our Constitution.
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. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Healthcare
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, as President Trump and the Senate
Republicans continue to press forward with their relentless attacks on
families' healthcare, the Democrats are going to continue to make clear
just what is at stake by lifting up stories of patients and families
across the country, starting with Natasha from my home State of
Washington.
Because of a diagnosis she received when she was young, Natasha had
long believed she could not conceive, so she and her partner were
particularly surprised last year to get the news that she was pregnant.
With that unexpected news, came all sorts of questions, including
whether they could handle the cost of things like maternity care,
postpartum care, and newborn care. Fortunately, Natasha's family had
coverage through Medicaid, so all of the medical costs she had been so
concerned about were completely covered. Instead of worrying about how
they would pay for the healthcare she needed, she and her partner were
able to focus on getting ready to welcome the newest addition to their
family.
Natasha's story shows why families across the country are so worried
as the Republicans continue down the damaging path they have been on
for years. Since day No. 1 of the Trump administration, the Republicans
have been working to raise families' healthcare costs, take away their
coverage, and make healthcare lower quality.
In the Senate, the Republicans have stood with President Trump as he
has tried to implement draconian caps on Medicaid through his Trumpcare
bill and has proposed budgets that slash funding for Medicaid. They
have also stood by as President Trump has implemented a gag rule on
title X-funded clinics--jeopardizing reproductive healthcare for
millions of patients. The Republicans are also opposing the Democrats'
efforts to lower skyrocketing prescription drug prices by
[[Page S6590]]
allowing Medicare to negotiate on behalf of patients and to reverse
President Trump's steps to promote junk insurance plans that do not
protect patients with preexisting conditions and do increase families'
healthcare costs.
The Republicans are even cheerleading a partisan lawsuit that will be
catastrophic to families across the country. We could get a ruling on
this lawsuit any day now. If the Republicans get their way, protections
for the over 100 million people in this country with preexisting
conditions could be thrown out the window. Millions of families who are
covered through the exchanges and Medicaid expansion could be thrown
off of their healthcare, and young adults could be kicked off of their
parents' plans before they turn 26. Patients could also be stuck paying
tens of thousands of dollars for their care as caps on their out-of-
pocket costs are eliminated, as caps on their lifetime and annual
benefits come back--even for those, by the way, who are covered through
their employers' plans--and as essential benefits that make sure their
coverage includes things like prescription drugs and emergency care go
away.
For patients like Natasha, the Republicans' healthcare agenda would
be a disaster. Not only would it gut Medicaid, which helped her to get
the help she needed, but if the Republicans succeed in this lawsuit,
insurance companies could discriminate against patients like her for
having preexisting conditions, including, by the way, being pregnant,
and insurance companies could choose not to cover essential health
benefits like maternity care.
The junk plans President Trump is already promoting leave patients
facing similar problems today. In fact, as part of their application
process, many of those junk plans ask patients whether they are
pregnant or are planning to become pregnant. That is because these junk
plans are already allowed to deny coverage, exclude benefits, or charge
higher premiums for patients with preexisting conditions.
The Republicans' approach to patients' healthcare--making it more
expensive, harder to get, and lower quality--is clearly designed to
work for big insurance companies, not for people like Natasha. Her
story is one of many. In fact, it is one of tens of millions. There are
so many other families across the country who are seeing their well-
being being put at risk by the Republicans' harmful healthcare agenda.
Yet we have seen before what can happen when people share their
stories, when we lift those stories up, and when we put faces or names
to the people the Republicans could hurt with their policies. When the
Republicans tried to jam through their Trumpcare bill, we stopped it
because people across the country fought back, and they spoke up.
As President Trump and the Republicans continue using every tool they
can to try and undermine families' healthcare, the Democrats are going
to be here to continue to remind our colleagues on the other side of
the aisle that everything we do and don't do in the Capitol has real
consequences for real families, especially when it comes to issues like
healthcare, which every family has to deal with.
Whether it is losing coverage right as you finally have the chance to
start a family or whether it is being rejected because you have a
preexisting condition, we are going to continue lifting up those voices
who aren't on the Senate floor, and we are going to continue making
clear what the GOP's healthcare plan would actually mean to people's
lives. This isn't a matter of politics for families; it is a matter of
life and death, and we aren't going to let the Republicans forget it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Nomination of Steven J. Menashi
Mr. REED. Madam President, I have serious philosophical disagreements
with many of the judicial nominees put forth by this administration,
but I believe Mr. Menashi is especially unfit to serve on the Federal
bench. His record indicates an inability to serve as a fair and
impartial judge. And so I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to reject his nomination to a lifetime appointment on the bench.
Steven Menashi's public record demonstrates a deep contempt for a
wide spectrum of Americans, and particularly some of the most
vulnerable amongst us. In his own writings and as editor in chief of
the Dartmouth Review, he has directly expressed or condoned disturbing
views on issues such as LGBT rights, racism, and student aid.
Even if we were to cast these sentiments aside, Mr. Menashi's recent
work in the Trump administration provides ample evidence that he is
unfit for a lifetime appointment to the bench. Consider his performance
as acting general counsel at the Department of Education. Mr. Menashi
oversaw the rollback of regulations designed to protect students and
taxpayers from predatory for-profit institutions of higher education.
More egregiously, Mr. Menashi wrote the memo outlining the
administration's scheme to provide only partial debt relief to students
defrauded by for-profit colleges--a scheme that a Federal judge ruled
violated Federal privacy laws. Under this scheme, the Department of
Education used data that was collected to hold institutions accountable
for providing education leading to gainful employment to further punish
their victims. The Department has still failed to comply with the
court's orders, resulting in the Secretary of Education being held in
contempt.
Mr. Menashi supervised the legal work on the administration's
proposal to rewrite the rules dealing with sexual assault and sexual
harassment on college campuses. The administration's own analysis
concluded that the new rules would dramatically reduce the number of
sexual assault investigations.
Mr. Menashi worked on the rule rolling back efforts to address
disparities in the discipline of students of color and those with
disabilities. In March, a Federal court ruled that the Department had
engaged in an illegal delay and had acted arbitrarily and capriciously.
During Mr. Menashi's time at the Department of Education, the
administration argued that it was appropriate to use Federal education
funds to purchase guns for schools.
Also consider Mr. Menashi's time as a White House counsel where he
helped Stephen Miller in crafting some of the administration's most
draconian immigration policies. While he was an advisor, the White
House cut refugee admissions to a historic low, effectively banned
asylum for refugees traveling through Mexico, and threatened to end
birthright citizenship.
His views and work experience call into question how his personal
biases would color his rulings, and whether he has the judicial
temperament and political independence necessary to serve on the
Federal bench. This is not the kind of legal judgment that deserves a
lifetime appointment to the Federal judiciary.
Senate Legislative Agenda
While the Senate has spent considerable time and hours on Mr.
Menashi's nomination, one can't help but notice the fact that the
majority leader seems to scrupulously avoid calling up votes on
legislation that would help working Americans and working families.
I hear from my Rhode Island constituents every day about countless
pressing issues that the Senate should be debating and voting on. We
could be considering an infrastructure bill that would provide robust
investment to enable the rebuilding of our crumbling roads, bridges,
schools, and other critical infrastructure. We could be working to
increase Pell grants and lower the cost of college.
I think every Member of this body would agree that another vital
issue that we hear often from our constituents about is the need to
address skyrocketing prescription drug costs. According to Families
USA, nearly 3 in 10 American adults--nearly 80 million people--have not
taken required medicine due to its costs. In fact, addressing
prescription drug costs alone would go a long way toward bringing down
healthcare costs overall.
There are dozens of proposals from Senators on both sides of the
aisle that would help to address this issue. Yet Republican leadership
has refused to allow any debate on prescription drug prices or on
healthcare costs more broadly this year. Something I, and many of my
colleagues, have proposed numerous times would be to require Medicare
to negotiate drug prices with
[[Page S6591]]
the drug companies to ensure seniors and taxpayers get the best price.
The Department of Veterans Affairs already does this. While there is no
silver bullet in solving rising drug costs, this would be a commonsense
first step in the right direction.
There are also more than 250 bills passed by the House that Majority
Leader McConnell refuses to bring up and that have been left in the
legislative graveyard. Let me repeat that. More than 250 bills are
awaiting action here in the Senate. The House is doing its part to look
out for the people's business, and the Senate should follow suit.
These include the Enhanced Background Checks Act, which would expand
the national firearms background check system to include virtually all
gun transfers, and block the illegal sales that currently happen
through gun shows and private transfers. They include the
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which is the primary
law to provide services for victims of domestic violence, sexual
assault, and stalking. They include the American Dream and Promise Act,
which would provide a pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients, TPS
holders, and those with DED. That's Deferred Enforced Departure.
Furthermore, Republicans continue to block Democratic-led efforts to
pass commonsense election security legislation. This is despite warning
after warning from our intelligence and national security agencies that
Russia undertook an unprecedented effort to interfere in our 2016
elections and that the Russians are actively working to do it again in
2020.
Instead of elevating someone with an extreme record like Mr. Menashi
to one of the highest courts in the land, we should be debating and
voting on legislation that will protect healthcare, expand educational
opportunity, secure our elections, fully fund the census, and prevent
gun and domestic violence--in addition to many, many other important
priorities.
The majority has refused to allow the Senate to vote on and address
the pressing issues that Americans care about. And this body is failing
to get its appropriations work done on time. So I urge the majority
leader to end this partisan paralysis and let the Senate get to work on
issues that can improve the lives of Rhode Islanders and all Americans.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam 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 Request--S. 1573
Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee be
discharged from further consideration of S. 1573 and the Senate proceed
to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be
considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be
considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or
debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, while we
very much appreciate what Senator Duckworth is trying to accomplish, I
must object to the request for unanimous consent.
The bill has only one cosponsor and has not gone through regular
order, the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee has not considered the
policy implications of the legislation, and the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs that I chair has not been given an
opportunity to understand the budgetary impacts the bill would have.
This legislation would be a significant policy change for VA and
would reduce revenue to VA medical centers by eliminating certain
copayments. Policy changes such as this should be thoughtfully
considered through full committees before being considered by the full
Senate.
I look forward to working with Senator Duckworth to see if we can get
this resolved, but based on these facts, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Illinois.
Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam President, I am disappointed that the majority
has objected to passing our bipartisan legislation.
Every Senator should support a simple fix to assure veterans enrolled
in the VA system can obtain preventive medications without out-of-
pocket costs.
All Americans deserve access to the best healthcare possible,
especially the veterans who signed up to defend our Nation. Yet,
because of this objection, our veterans will continue to pay more for
essential preventive medications compared to every other insured
American.
One of the Affordable Care Act's critical patient protections was
prohibiting insurance companies and other health systems, including the
Department of Defense's own TRICARE, from charging copayments for drugs
that are designated as preventive by the U.S. Preventive Services Task
Force.
The ACA recognized that preventing serious illness, such as heart
disease and breast cancer, may help avoid complex and costly medical
treatments down the line.
Most importantly, preventive medicine may also increase patient
survival odds. That is why the ACA required every insurer to cover
preventive medications at no additional cost to enrollees.
The time has come to expand this vital patient protection to cover
veterans enrolled in VA healthcare. Congress has the power to stop
veterans from being the only ensured Americans who are charged copays
and out-of-pocket fees for essential drugs and potentially lifesaving
preventive health medication. This includes everything from critical
vaccinations to common medications such as aspirin to lower the risk of
heart disease and more advanced drugs such as tamoxifen inhibitors to
lower the risk of breast cancer.
The question is simply, Does the Senate majority in this Congress
have the will to exercise this power to swiftly fix the problem?
Unfortunately, today's objection provided a disappointing answer. I
hope the majority will reconsider its opposition to passing the
bipartisan Veterans Preventive Health Coverage Fairness Act by
unanimous consent.
I am confident that a Democratic House majority would act swiftly to
pass S. 1573 if we can get this commonsense bill to that Chamber. After
all, I am confident that if asked, the majority of Americans--if not
all Americans--would agree it is simply wrong to force veterans to pay
more for essential preventive medications that are critically important
to heart disease and building bone density.
This should not be controversial. It is certainly viewed as a
commonsense legislative update by the veterans community.
That is why my bipartisan bill has been endorsed by the Veterans of
Foreign Wars of the United States, the American Legion, the Disabled
American Veterans, and the Paralyzed Veterans of America.
Making sure veterans enrolled in the VA system can obtain preventive
medications without paying out of pocket should be something every
Senator can agree on.
Senate Democrats certainly share this conviction. That is why every
Member of the Democratic caucus agreed to pass the bipartisan Veterans
Preventive Health Coverage Fairness Act right now.
Unfortunately, today's objection proves that not every Member of the
Republican conference shares this conviction.
With deep disappointment, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. GARDNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Veterans Day
Mr. GARDNER. Madam President, this week across this country, we
celebrated Veterans Day. Veterans Day in
[[Page S6592]]
Colorado and across the country means a lot of different things to so
many people across our Nation, but one thing it has always stood for is
a day of thanks to share and celebrate the men and women in our
families and our communities who have done so much for our country so
that it continues to be the greatest Nation on the face of this Earth.
In Colorado, we celebrated with parades, parties, charity
fundraisers, races and marathons, and events all over the Centennial
State to recognize the work of our veterans and the sacrifice of our
veterans and their families. Admission to all of our State parks was
free so veterans and their families could enjoy the land they have
defended.
In Colorado Springs, where we have a number of veterans and Active-
Duty military members, three of the largest school districts didn't
take the day off for Veterans Day but, instead, they held veteran
appreciation events, breakfasts and lunches with local veterans,
invited special speakers, wrote letters to men and women who have
served, and had other opportunities for students to learn about the
sacrifices our veterans have made for our country.
We in Colorado--we in this country take great pride in our veterans
and our veteran community. In Colorado, our six military bases,
including the U.S. Air Force Academy, all play a critical role in
defending our Nation and keeping the world a safer place. Colorado is
home to more than 400,000 veterans who have bravely served our country.
Earlier this year, I was fortunate enough to meet more than 100
Colorado heroes as part of the High Plains Honor Flight, a tradition
that has been carried on for a number of years. It is an incredible
tradition every year--bringing Colorado veterans to our Nation's
Capital, touring the war memorials, and taking the opportunity to meet
these veterans, look them in the eye, shake their hands, and say thank
you.
I could spend all week talking on the floor about Colorado's veterans
and their incredible acts of service, but if you get the chance, I hope
you will visit Pueblo, CO. The Home of Heroes Medal of Honor Memorial
is in Pueblo, CO. The memorial pays tribute to more than 3,400 people
who have received our country's highest award for military valor.
Outside the memorial, there are four statues, one for each of
Pueblo's Medal of Honor recipients.
One of these men, Lt. Raymond G. Murphy, was a U.S. marine who was
serving in Korea in 1953. After a failed raid with heavy casualties,
Lieutenant Murphy organized and led his platoon in a heroic rescue
effort to save his fellow marines. Providing cover and driving back the
enemy, he rescued his fellow men who were under intense enemy fire. He
sustained numerous wounds but refused treatment until everyone else had
been treated. Lieutenant Murphy stayed on the battlefield until every
marine was accounted for.
When President Eisenhower presented Murphy with the Medal of Honor,
he was quoted as saying:
``What is it about the water out there in Pueblo? All you
guys turn out to be heroes!''
That is our Pueblo, CO. Whatever it is, there must be a lot of it in
Colorado's water.
U.S. Army CPT Florent Groberg--another Coloradan--was based out of
Fort Carson. He received the Medal of Honor for his heroic actions in
Afghanistan. In 2012, his patrol was ambushed by an individual wearing
a suicide vest. Captain Groberg rushed to the individual and grabbed
him, driving him away from his fellow troops and down to the ground.
The bomber's vest exploded, severely wounding Captain Groberg. He
miraculously survived the blast, and his heroic actions and
selflessness saved many of his patrol members' lives. His actions were
certainly extraordinary, and they showed the character of the men and
women who serve. They would do anything to protect those they love.
I am also reminded of a Coloradan I have had the honor of working
with and meeting over the last several years. Two years ago, in fact, I
had a Veterans Day experience I will never forget with another veteran
who refused to give up on his fellow brothers and sisters in arms. I
was visiting Donald Stratton, who was a seaman 1st class on the USS
Arizona when the Japanese launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on
December 7, 1941.
Mr. Stratton was one of the last five remaining survivors stationed
on the USS Arizona. Since that time 2 years ago, we have lost Lauren
Bruner. There are even fewer today than there were.
He told me how a young sailor named Joseph George disregarded the
orders to abandon ship in order to save his life and the other sailors.
Joseph George never received a medal for his actions, and Donald
Stratton didn't think that was fair. It didn't sit well. Mr. Stratton
and I and his family worked together to finally convince the Navy to
honor Joe George, to give this hero the recognition he deserves.
Donald Stratton's story sticks with me because he had already fought
one war for his country, and then he had to spend another 16 years
fighting government bureaucracy in order to honor the man who saved his
life and the lives of others. It is a reminder that our veterans need
our help and our support to receive the recognition and the care they
continue to deserve.
All of the stories I have shared and the individuals I have talked
about are extraordinary, but there are so many other--countless acts of
heroism. Every single person in our armed services today is
extraordinary. Every day, they perform heroic acts of service and make
sacrifices that may not make the national news or the front page of
newspapers, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that they sacrifice
for our country every day. They have put their bodies and their minds
through vigorous training, boot camps, and deployments. They have given
up valuable time with their loved ones. They are away from home for
months at a time, if not longer. There are the holidays they will never
get back and the important milestones they have missed with their
families as they placed their civilian lives on hold to serve our
country. And too many people return with wounds of war, both physical
and mental. All of these sacrifices and their willingness to place
their lives on the line for the country they love add up to a debt we
can never repay--never pay back.
I hope that the Veterans Day celebration this week serves as a
reminder that it is our responsibility to take care of those who have
taken care of us. We owe it to our Nation's veterans to ensure that
they can receive the best possible care and that they have the tools
and support necessary to navigate civilian life.
The Senate and the House have taken great steps to improve the lives
of veterans and the care they receive, but we can always do more, and
we must do more. We must do more and never give up. We can do better
than the status quo.
For veterans living in rural areas like the Western Slope or Eastern
Plains of Colorado, long drive times and a shortage of doctors and
nurses at the VA facilities make it difficult to receive the care we
promised. There has never been a fight too dangerous or a task too
difficult for these men and women who have served our country, and that
is the approach we need to take. We have to be in this fight to make
sure we approach veterans' care with the same commitment and find
creative solutions to ease the transition to civilian life, to make
sure they have the care they need, and to make sure we have enough
physicians and nurses and doctors in these places to provide the best
possible care.
Earlier this year, I introduced my VA Readiness Initiative, which is
a comprehensive package of improvements and reforms to ensure we are
following through on every one of these promises to veterans. The VA
Readiness Initiative focuses on four pillars to support veterans:
expanding access to services, encouraging innovation, VA
accountability, and empowering transitioning servicemembers.
It introduces more oversight and more transparency and accountability
at VA facilities to eliminate fraud and increase the quality of care.
In order to ease the transition to civilian life, it enhances
programs that help veterans start small businesses and train for future
careers in the science, technology, engineering, and math fields.
It promotes innovative approaches to suicide prevention, which is a
heartbreaking problem in the veteran community.
[[Page S6593]]
In Colorado, we are losing one of our own nearly every 7 hours to
suicide. In recent years, we have lost more veterans to suicide than we
lost in combat. Think about that. We have lost more veterans to suicide
than we have lost in combat. In Colorado, we lose roughly 200 veterans
a year to suicide.
I am working with my colleague Senator Tammy Baldwin from Wisconsin
to designate 9-8-8 as a national suicide hotline that veterans and
anyone else in crisis can call when they need help. Veterans answered
our call when we needed them; we need to answer their call when they
need us.
When somebody is suffering from a heart attack or a medical
emergency, a crisis, we all know to call 9-1-1, but how many people
know a number to call if they find themselves in a time of mental
health crisis? Is there a 10-digit hotline? Yes, there is. How many
people can know that and know that now off the top of their heads? How
many people can tell a friend in need what that hotline number is?
Let's simplify it. Let's make it a three-digit number like 9-1-1 for
health crisis emergencies. Let's make sure we have 9-8-8 for mental
health needs.
The current suicide hotline number is 10 digits long. This is an
easy-to-remember hotline--9-8-8--to connect people in crisis with
professional help. When a veteran is in need, a phone call is made, and
they will receive specialized care for veterans. Press 1 to be directed
to the veterans support line, where they can receive mental health
support specific to the unique needs of our veterans.
I also hope every veteran in Colorado will look to our offices--my
office in Colorado and my colleagues' offices--Senator Bennet and
others--if there is anything we can do to help. Oftentimes, too many
people don't know about the services that can help them.
Thanks to the outpouring of veterans who contact my office each and
every year, we were able to help open the VA Medical Center in Aurora,
CO, last year. It was long overdue but essential to their care and to
making sure we have the finest medical care for Coloradans.
Senator Johnny Isakson from Georgia, chairman of the Veterans'
Affairs Committee--somebody who is stepping down from this Chamber at
the end of the year, and we will miss him greatly--was instrumental in
making this happen and will be greatly missed when he leaves. Johnny is
a true statesman and a champion for our veterans. We in Colorado are
grateful for his work to make sure that the VA hospital in Aurora is
the crown jewel of our support system in our State for veterans.
November is also Military Family Appreciation Month. I certainly want
to express my gratitude to the military families who share the burden
of service. This is not just an individual effort; it is indeed a
family effort. When one member of the family serves, the entire family
serves.
We all know this can be a difficult time of the year. The holidays
are coming up for troops and their families. As all of us celebrate
Thanksgiving, Christmas, Hanukkah, and other traditions in our
families, I hope each one of our prayers will go to a military family
in need, heroes who are placing their dreams on hold to protect the
American dream.
To everyone who has served this country, thank you for the sacrifice
you have all made, and know that our Nation is grateful. It is because
of the commitment you bring that we can continue to live in a nation
with unlimited opportunities, a nation founded in liberty and rooted in
the principles that inspire hope and optimism around the world.
To every veteran, thank you from the bottom of my heart for
everything you have done in service to our beloved country. May God
bless you, and may God bless this great United States of America as you
continue to serve and as we continue to serve you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Young). The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, Monday was Veterans Day, and it gave us
all the opportunity to come together as Republicans and Democrats and
Independents alike to express our immense gratitude to our veterans for
putting on the uniform of the United States on behalf of our great
country and on behalf of all of us.
I just listened to my colleague from Colorado talk about our
cherished veterans and their service. He is a champion for our
veterans. He is absolutely right--our veterans need to be at the front
of the line for healthcare and getting access to the best care
possible. That hasn't always been the case. We have made some
improvements in the last few years, and those are now being
implemented. They are not perfect, but thankfully it is much better. I
heard that over Veterans Day.
He also talked about our families. The families of veterans also make
sacrifices, and sometimes we forget that. In the last several years, as
the up-tempo has been a little higher and families have had to
sacrifice even more, we are particularly grateful for those families.
The Presiding Officer today is one of our veterans in the Chamber. As
a marine, he has served our country with distinction, and we appreciate
him and all the other veterans here in the Senate.
In my home State of Ohio, we have 850,000 veterans, roughly. It makes
us a State that is particularly proud. We are a State that has produced
some of the great American fighting men and women heroes, from Ulysses
S. Grant to Neil Armstrong.
When I go to veterans' events, I am just inspired and overwhelmed by
the families and the veterans I get to meet.
On Veterans Day, I was in Blue Ash, OH, at a memorial that has been
set aside for our veterans. It was a wonderful day in Blue Ash, but
every day of the year this memorial park is there, and it is beautiful.
It commemorates veterans from every single war. There are 11 soldiers,
sailors, marines, and airmen who are representing each of the conflicts
America has been engaged in, all the way from the American Revolution
to the heroes of the Global War on Terror. Behind a description of each
of those conflicts is a separate statue of a fighting man or woman.
Most importantly to me, on Monday, on the other side of those statues,
were the veterans. They were there from every conflict--from World War
II and right up to those soldiers who have recently come back from
Afghanistan.
Today, as we are here on the floor talking about our great veterans,
there are soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen on Active Duty in
places all around the world, including in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
After this event in Blue Ash, OH, I then went to Columbus, OH, and
had the opportunity to go to the National Veterans Memorial and Museum.
This is a new, spectacular museum outside of Columbus, OH. It is
something we are very proud of in Ohio. I took the lead in the Senate
to try to be sure that we had the national designation. We have that
now. It is the National Veterans Memorial and Museum. It was funded
almost entirely with private sector dollars. Over $75 million was
raised just from the private sector in the Columbus-Central Ohio area.
President Trump signed the legislation into law last year to designate
it as the national memorial.
It is a beautiful way to pay tribute to our veterans, mostly by
stories. You walk in, and there are story boards about different
veterans' experiences. The facility itself is inspiring--one of the
finest architectural designs, we are told, in the country the year it
was built.
When I went around and thanked veterans at this memorial, I heard the
same thing I heard in Blue Ash and that I hear every time I thank a
veteran, which is more or less this: Thank you for your service. The
response being: I was just doing my job. I was just doing my duty.
Duty. I am the son of a World War II veteran and the grandson of a
World War I veteran. ``Duty'' is a word I heard a lot growing up and
``service'' and ``honor.'' For our country today, those words are very
important to remember.
Our veterans have played a key role in ensuring we have the freedoms
we too often take for granted, but also there is a culture around
veterans that we need to hear more and more of today, and we need to be
sure more of our young people are hearing, which is this notion that
service beyond self is important; that duty, honor, and sacrifice are
part of the fundamental values of our country.
The fact that we have had such support for our veterans, to me, ought
also
[[Page S6594]]
to be translated into support for those who are on Active Duty, because
when I talk to our veterans about their concerns--yes, they talk about
healthcare or disability and other issues that my office helps veterans
with every day, and we are proud to do that--what they also tell me is
that they want to be sure we are taking care of the troops. They want
to be sure we are honoring our veterans by ensuring that the men and
women in uniform today, who are out on the frontlines for all of us,
are getting the support they need from the U.S. Congress.
Unfortunately, we are letting them down right now, whether it is with
the National Defense Authorization Act--which is still in conference,
which normally is a bipartisan bill that gets done quickly and that
establishes the framework for how we provide readiness and how we
provide the right weapons, being sure our soldiers, marines, airmen,
and sailors have the very best--but, secondly, we are not even
providing the funding bill this year.
We have tried. We have brought it to the floor of the Senate, and we
have asked for a vote on it. We have not been able to get that vote. So
right now we are operating on what is called a continuing resolution,
which is not good for the military.
I was at the Youngstown Air Reserve Station last week, which is a
reserve unit in Ohio that provides airlift capability and a spray
mission for our military. They have about 1,500 airmen support people
and pilots there. They are very worried about the continuing resolution
and its impact. They can't plan for training exercises. They can't plan
for upgrades in their equipment to keep the cutting-edge technology
they want to have for the safety of their pilots and the crews.
I also heard, of course, a lot about the possibility of a government
shutdown and how devastating that would be for our military. Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base is in Ohio. That is their top concern.
Unfortunately, I will tell you that although our highest priority
here in the Senate ought to be ensuring that at a minimum our troops
have what they need, we haven't done that this year.
I would urge my colleagues on both sides: Lets's figure out how to do
what we typically do here, which is, if we can't agree on everything in
the spending bills, let's at least agree on providing this funding for
our troops.
By the way, it is particularly important this year because in that
funding is a pay raise for the troops that they need badly. It is very
important for Ohio.
I said earlier that we are one of those States that is proud of all
the veterans who live there and all of the people from Ohio who have
stood up and served their country, but we are also proud of our
military facilities. Defense spending now accounts for 66,000 direct
jobs in Ohio, more than $4 billion in salaries, and more than $14
billion of positive economic impact spread out over our 88 counties in
Ohio.
We have some great facilities. I mentioned Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base and the Youngstown Air Reserve Station. We also have the Joint
Systems Manufacturing Center in Lima, OH, which is the place where we
make our tanks. During the Obama administration, that facility was
nearly shut down. A bunch of us led the fight, and I led the fight here
in the Senate to keep it open. Thank goodness we did. Today, we need
it. We need to be producing these tanks. We need to push back against
the threats that we see. Our Army wants these vehicles--armored
vehicles--including Strykers and tanks. We are very proud of that
facility in Ohio. We want to be sure that we have the funding for it so
we can move forward. In this appropriations bill there is funding for
new tanks and new Stryker vehicles.
At the spray facility I talked about at the Youngstown Air Reserve
Station, they need new airplanes. They need to have upgrades. Right now
they need to be sure that the funding we have in this appropriations
bill goes through because it actually enables them to construct a gate
for the facility that is safe. The homeland security folks have told
them that their current gate does not protect the base properly. So we
have funding in this legislation to be able to do that.
I remain concerned that we are not coming together, as we do for our
veterans, for our Active Duty.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have repeatedly blocked
these procedural motions to move the bill forward, but their
disagreements seem to be more with broader issues--how we are going to
fund other issues, maybe including the wall on the southwest border--
from what they say. Let's deal with that bill separately, but let's not
take it out on our troops. Let's not make our troops a pawn in these
political fights.
The funding bill we have was drafted on a bipartisan basis. It also
is bicameral, in the sense that the House bill for Defense
appropriations this year is very similar to the Senate bill.
The United States and the defense framework we have built over the
years with our allies is under siege in places like Iran, China, North
Korea, Turkey, and Russia. While we fight over funding our defense this
year, their arsenals--those countries' arsenals--continue to grow.
I have heard from every branch of the military on this. Again, they
all say the same thing: Failing to pass this funding agreement and
defaulting to a continuing resolution--God forbid we go to a government
shutdown, but even a continuing resolution where the funding wouldn't
increase--negatively affects their ability to carry out their missions.
For the Army, by the way, that means delaying procurement of critical
equipment, like their Next Generation Combat Vehicle and land-based
hypersonic missiles. But it also means more than 4,000 military family
and single-soldier dwellings would not be awarded to servicemembers,
and that nearly 300 military housing units in desperate need of repair
will not get the upkeep they need.
For the Navy, they tell me failing to pass the appropriations bill
will mean delaying the start of 3 dozen new critical military
construction projects, and it creates a nearly $2 billion shortfall for
research and development, among other things. By the way, that includes
holding research into artificial intelligence development, or AI
development, which is critical right now. China is making great strides
in that area. We have to be sure we are more than keeping up.
For the Air Force, they tell me this funding is necessary to field
the new F-15EX fighter plane, to maintain and improve, of course, the
F-35 fleet, and to help recruit and train new pilots to operate these
state-of-the-art aircraft.
In Ohio, a CR would negatively impact our operations at Wright-
Patterson and the critical work we do for our Nation at NASIC, which is
a counterintelligence operation, among other things.
Again, failing to pass the agreement will also keep us from moving
forward with the across-the-board 3.1-percent pay increase for our
troops, which is key to ensuring they are fairly compensated for their
hard work and the sacrifices we have talked about today. It would be
the largest pay raise in a decade, and they shouldn't be prevented from
getting it because of our political differences here on other issues.
Anyone who has read the Constitution will tell you that the very
first stated purpose of the Federal Government is to ``provide for the
common defense.'' That is our fundamental responsibility here. If we
can't put aside these partisan disagreements and reach an agreement to
fund our Armed Forces, we are failing to carry out those duties.
I hope it doesn't come to that. I hope politics can be put aside, and
we can agree soon to give our men and women in uniform the
comprehensive support they need, because when you meet veterans, as I
did on Veterans Day across our State, you can't help but wonder where
they would be if they didn't have the funding they needed when they
were out there putting their lives on the line for all of us.
Again, to honor our veterans, we also have to honor our Active Duty.
It is critical to our men and women in uniform, and it is critical to
our national security.
I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S6595]]
Remembering Kay Hagan
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to recount the life of a
colleague who recently passed away, Senator Kay Hagan from the State of
North Carolina. I wish I didn't have to stand here to talk about her in
the past tense. So many people who have served in the Senate with Kay
Hagan, so many staff people across the Senate--and, in the context of
both Members and staff, I would say both parties--recall serving with
her fondly and also were very saddened by her passing.
It is very difficult to encapsulate someone's personality or their
life in a few short remarks, but you could not have met Kay Hagan even
for a short period of time or worked with her even for a short period
of time without being captivated by her spirit, her energy, and her
optimism, not only about her life but about work. You could also be
captivated by her ability to connect with people and to demonstrate the
kind of uncommon decency that we don't see enough of in politics and
even public service. We are going to miss that energy, that optimism,
and that decency. We are also going to miss her commitment to public
service, even when she was not an elected public official.
My remarks today will not in any way encapsulate her whole life or
her life of service, but I will try to provide some reflections.
One thing you knew about Kay Hagan when she got to the Senate was
that she was very clear about the people she represented in the State
from which she came. If you were in a short conversation with her or a
long conversation--even a 30-second conversation--you were likely to
hear the two words, ``North Carolina,'' if not once in a short
conversation, several times.
She was so proud of her State and so proud of the opportunities she
had to represent the people of North Carolina. She, of course,
understood her work and was faithful to the basic obligation to
represent the Nation as well. She was fiercely loyal to and always
concerned about the people of North Carolina.
She was a fierce advocate for working people in North Carolina and
around the country. She also happened to serve at a time when the
Senate was considering and then, ultimately, took a vote on the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act. At that time, it was a long debate
and a lot of contention, obviously, and there still is on healthcare.
But Kay Hagan was very clear about where she stood.
We happened to serve as members of the Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions Committee, known by the acronym HELP--one of the two
committees in the Senate that considered healthcare. Both the HELP
Committee and the Finance Committee had fierce debate about and then,
ultimately, votes on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Here is what Senator Kay Hagan said when the HELP Committee approved
similar or, I should say, related legislation, which at that time was
called the Affordable Health Choices Act. That was the original
healthcare bill that went through that committee, the HELP Committee.
It ultimately changed when it was considered by the Finance Committee
and then by the whole Senate, and the changes were made in negotiation
and deliberation with the House.
But here is what she said. I guess this would have been sometime in
2009. She talked about this one particular healthcare bill as it stood
at that moment. She said:
Our bill also ensures that a pre-existing condition will
not prevent you from getting coverage. This compromise
package focuses on prevention and wellness, which will keep
our nation healthier and save taxpayers' money in the long
run. I will continue working with my colleagues to get reform
legislation to the President that stabilizes costs, expands
coverage and improves the quality of care for all Americans.
That is what Senator Kay Hagan said at the time. Of course, we are
still wrestling with a lot of those issues. She was predicting, in a
sense, some of our future debates.
Kay Hagan wanted to get things done for the people she represented
and really for the American people. One of the areas where she
demonstrated that commitment to leadership and that commitment to
getting things done was in the area of children's issues. In that same
committee, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, she
was the chair of the Subcommittee on Children and Families. Later, I
was able to follow in her footsteps.
That was so emblematic of Kay Hagan's service not to be concerned
just about what is right in front of us--the issue of the day or the
issue of the moment, as important as those issues are--but always
thinking about what comes next, always focusing on the future, thinking
about the future, and not just in a compassionate way, as it relates to
children, but in a very strategic way. Kay Hagan knew that investing in
our children was essential for building the economy of the future and
having the kind of country we say we want to have.
So Kay Hagan was ahead of her time in that regard, focusing on
America's future, which meant focusing on America's children--whether
it was financial literacy and the curriculum for middle and high school
students or whether it was from her earliest days in the Senate--to
improve the lives of children in any way that she could.
When I think about Kay Hagan, I think of not just a Senator, not just
a colleague and a friend, but a public servant, someone who cared very
deeply about service. I have often quoted the inscription on a building
in which I worked in the State capital of Pennsylvania--Harrisburg. It
is called the Finance Building, and I served in that building for 10
years and worked in that building for 10 years. The inscription on that
building about public service is very simple. It says: ``All public
service is a trust given in faith and accepted in honor.'' That is what
it says in that inscription. It is a great summation of what public
service must be about and what an election must be about, that public
service is a trust that is given to one person, given to a group of
people, and that trust must be honored by the service that you render.
Here is another way of saying it by a predecessor of Kay Hagan, in a
sense, because she was a Member of the Senate and, at the time, a real
pioneer for women in the Senate. Margaret Chase Smith once said:
Public service must be more than doing a job efficiently
and honestly. It must be a complete dedication to the people
and to the nation.
That is what Senator Margaret Chase Smith once said, and I think Kay
Hagan's service was totally consistent with that sentiment, that public
service is more than just doing a job honestly and efficiently, as
Senator Smith said at the time. It must be a complete dedication to the
people in the Nation. Kay Hagan demonstrated that in her life and in
her work.
I have joined so many Members of the Senate in expressing condolence
and also commendation for the good work that she did. I express
condolence, of course, to her family. I speak on behalf of my wife
Terese and many people here in the Senate who served with Kay to offer
condolence to Kay's husband Chip and to her three children--Jeanette,
Tilden, and Carrie--and Kay's five grandchildren. We are thinking of
them today and all these days since her passing, and we pray that she
will rest in peace. I express again how much we will miss Kay Hagan not
only in the Senate but also because of the person she was. God bless
you, Kay.
With that, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that unless
there is objection, the 1:45 p.m. vote be held now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
All postcloture time is expired.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Menashi
nomination?
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The bill clerk will call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
[[Page S6596]]
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet),
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California
(Ms. Harris), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Jones), the Senator from
Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and
the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 41, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 356 Ex.]
YEAS--51
Alexander
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
McConnell
McSally
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young
NAYS--41
Baldwin
Blumenthal
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Kaine
King
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--8
Bennet
Booker
Harris
Jones
Klobuchar
Rounds
Sanders
Warren
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.
The majority leader.
____________________