[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.

                          ____________________