[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 187 (Thursday, November 21, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6739-S6747]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CLOTURE MOTION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of Dan R. Brouillette, of Texas, to be Secretary of Energy.
         Mitch McConnell, John Boozman, Richard Burr, Shelley 
           Moore Capito, John Cornyn, Mike Crapo, John Barrasso, 
           Roy Blunt, John Thune, Steve Daines, Thom Tillis, Kevin 
           Cramer, Chuck Grassley, Tom Cotton, Rick Scott, Roger 
           F. Wicker, Cindy Hyde-Smith.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Dan R. Brouillette, of Texas, to be Secretary of Energy, 
shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), 
and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 
the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), 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 yeas and nays resulted--yeas 74, nays 18, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 366 Ex.]

                                YEAS--74

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Warner
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--18

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Brown
     Cortez Masto
     Gillibrand
     Hirono
     Leahy
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Reed
     Rosen
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Van Hollen
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Booker
     Cassidy
     Harris
     Isakson
     Klobuchar
     Moran
     Sanders
     Warren
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 74, the nays are 
18.
  The motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from Ohio.


                        NASA Plum Brook Station

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I would like to talk about a couple of 
topics.
  First, I thank my colleagues on the Senate Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation Committee for very recently approving legislation to 
rename the NASA Plum Brook Station in Sandusky, OH, after Ohio's own 
and a true American hero--the late Neil Armstrong. I now, of course, 
urge that this legislation be taken up by the full Senate and that we 
get it passed. There is an identical bill in the House. We hope to join 
both bills so that it may be sent to the President for his signature 
very soon.
  The NASA Plum Brook Station is a state-of-the-art testing facility. 
It is near Sandusky, OH, and is a terrific facility that is doing a lot 
of the testing right now for both NASA and some private sector 
companies. It is part of the NASA Glenn complex that is headquartered 
in Cleveland, OH.
  It is an impressive operation for a lot of reasons, but the one that 
is most exciting right now is their work on the Artemis Project. This 
is, of course, NASA's plan to put astronauts back on the Moon by 2024, 
including having the first woman go to the Moon. This mission will also 
lay the groundwork for future expeditions to the next great leap in 
spaceflight--that, of course, being a manned mission to Mars. It is 
exciting stuff.
  At Plum Brook, they are already testing critical components of the 
rocket engines that are scheduled to carry Artemis astronauts into 
space starting next year. Very soon, they are going to be testing the 
spacecraft itself. We hope it will arrive at Plum Brook within the next 
few weeks where it will undergo about 4 months of testing.
  This past summer, I and my colleague, Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, 
introduced this legislation to rename the facility after Neil 
Armstrong, and we did so on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the 
Apollo 11 Moon landing, from which, of course, Neil Armstrong became 
world famous for being the first person to walk on the surface of the 
Moon.
  Ultimately, Neil Armstrong was a test pilot. We think of him as an 
astronaut. Some know that he was also a fighter pilot and that he was a 
veteran of the Korean conflict. He was just an amazing individual--
humble, smart. He was a very patriotic individual. How appropriate and 
perfect that as a test pilot, which he was during his whole post-
fighter pilot career until his time as an astronaut, Plum Brook be 
named after him.
  By the way, Neil's family agrees with that, as does NASA, and as do 
others we have talked to. So we are hoping that this will be a fitting 
way to honor a man who, for all of his accomplishments, saw himself, 
first and foremost, as a patriot who pushed the boundaries of flight. 
Therefore, the test facility is very dear to them.
  I talked to him about this test facility. After one of my visits 
there, I went to see him at his home and told him about the progress 
they were making. At that time, they were trying to revamp some of the 
facilities there. He was really excited about it. He was a very modest 
man and did not want things named after him. He viewed his service to 
his country as the reward. That is all he ever wanted in life. That 
makes it all the more fitting that we, in fact, do name this after him. 
It is a great model for young people and, certainly, for those who are 
interested in avionics and spacecraft and in being astronauts. His 
example is one we should all look up to.

[[Page S6740]]

  When this comes to the Senate floor for a vote, I hope all of my 
colleagues will support it, and I hope that it will happen very soon.


                         Thousand Talents Plan

  Mr. President, there was a very troubling report that was issued this 
week by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. This is a tough 
subject. In this report, it details for the very first time how 
taxpayers' dollars have been used, really, over the past 20 years to 
fund scientific research that has then been misappropriated by one of 
our global competitors--China--to fuel its own economy and its own 
military growth.
  What do I mean by that? What happened?
  Every year, Federal grant-making agencies, like the National 
Institutes of Health--the NIH--or the Department of Energy's National 
Labs or the National Science Foundation, give out taxpayers' dollars 
for research--actually, about $150 billion a year.
  This is a good thing for us as a country. It leads to new 
breakthroughs in science and technology, healthcare, weapons systems, 
and so on. Through research grants, this money goes primarily to 
universities and to other research institutions across the United 
States. This investment has been very helpful in making the United 
States the world leader in scientific innovation. Again, it has 
resulted in some amazing breakthroughs.
  Our U.S. research is built on some principles here in this country. 
One is transparency. Another is collaboration. Others are integrity, 
peer review, and a merit-based system. In fact, the open and 
collaborative nature of the research that is done here in the United 
States is one of the reasons we attract some of the best and brightest 
scientists and researchers from all around the world. That is a good 
thing. Yet, without proper protections, this research is vulnerable to 
theft by other countries, and that is exactly what has happened.
  The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, along 
with Ranking Member Tom Carper, conducted an 8-month investigation into 
how American taxpayer-funded research has been taken by China--
effectively stolen--to assist its own economy and its own military. 
China has been very open about its goals to surpass the United States 
as the world leader in science and technology by the middle of this 
century.
  An important part of this effort is what China calls its talent 
recruitment programs. Through talent recruitment programs, China has 
strategically and systematically acquired knowledge and intellectual 
property from researchers and scientists in the United States in both 
the public and private sectors.
  In the course of our investigation, the FBI shared with us that China 
plans to spend more than $2 trillion between 2008 and 2020 toward 
improving its human capital, which includes recruiting and developing 
researchers and scientists.
  The Thousand Talents Plan, which was the focus of our investigation, 
is now in its 11th year of operation, and it is probably China's most 
prominent talent recruitment program. However, there are about 200 or 
more other talent recruitment programs as well.
  Launched in 2008, China designed the Thousand Talents Plan to recruit 
2,000 high-quality, overseas experts and to get their knowledge and 
their expertise and their research. By 2017, China had exceeded that 
initial goal by recruiting more than 7,000 of what they call ``high-end 
professionals,'' including many from American research institutions.
  Some of the U.S.-based researchers, of course, also receive taxpayer-
funded Federal grant money we talked about earlier to do the same 
research right here in the United States. In exchange for spending part 
of every year working in Chinese institutions, the Thousand Talents 
Plan recruits are rewarded with generous salaries and research budgets, 
sometimes even exceeding their pay at the American research 
institutions where, in practice, they are working. These researchers 
also often get access to what is called a shadow lab in science. In 
other words, they provide them not just with funding, but they also 
say: We will provide you lab space in China.
  At our hearing yesterday, the Department of Energy witness testified 
that China offered some of his researchers hundreds of thousands and 
even millions of dollars to join a talent recruitment program.
  For a researcher here, the Thousand Talents Plan might seem like a 
good opportunity, but it certainly is not a good opportunity for the 
United States, especially because embedded in the language of some of 
these contracts these researchers sign are very troubling provisions 
that prevent these recruits from disclosing their participation in the 
Thousand Talents Plan even though disclosing foreign payments is 
required by U.S. regulations. Not only is this dishonest, but it is 
also a clear violation of the American regulations that require 
researchers who apply for these grants we are talking about--this $150 
billion of taxpayer money--to disclose any funding they are receiving 
from a foreign source. In effect, what is happening with the Thousand 
Talents Plan is that it is incentivizing these program members to lie 
on grant applications to U.S. grant-funding agencies to avoid 
disclosing their funding from Chinese institutions.
  What is worse, in many of these contracts, researchers are often 
required to transfer to China the technological breakthroughs--the 
research--that are being developed in American labs with American grant 
money. There are a lot of examples we found in our 8-month study. Let 
me talk about a couple quickly.
  In one, we learned that a Thousand Talents Plan recruit at the 
Department of Energy's National Labs used the intellectual property 
created during his work in a National Lab to file for a U.S. patent 
under the name of a Chinese company, effectively stealing the federally 
funded research and claiming it for China.
  Another Thousand Talents Plan member illegally downloaded more than 
30,000 files from a National Lab--this is connected with Department of 
Energy funding--without authorization right before returning to China.
  Once China has it, some of this research could be used to threaten 
the national security of the United States. As an example, the State 
Department witness testified at our hearing yesterday that ``the 
Chinese Communist Party has declared the Chinese university system to 
be on the front line of military-civilian fusion efforts for 
technological acquisition for weapons research and the expansion of key 
scientific and engineering talent to drive Chinese innovation.'' That 
is pretty obvious. That is what all of our witnesses, in essence, said.
  This is not a new problem. We found out through our investigation 
that the Federal Government should have known about this issue for 
almost two decades but has yet to do anything substantial to stop it. 
It is unacceptable that we have allowed this to go on as long as we 
have.
  These talent programs are a win-win for China and a lose-lose for the 
United States. First, the Chinese Government and their research 
entities are getting research that is paid for by us. Second, it is not 
used by us. That research is used in China to improve their own 
economic and military status.
  So why is it taking so long for us to do anything about this problem? 
I think there are a couple of reasons.
  First, a lot of the U.S. research community didn't fully understand 
the Thousand Talents Plan and the threat it poses. Even though this one 
program is more than a decade old at this point, it wasn't until last 
year that the FBI began organizing a unified Federal response to the 
threat it has been posing to our universities and research 
institutions. We have been slow to focus on this issue, and therefore 
it has continued.

  I appreciated the FBI's candor at the hearing yesterday, by the way, 
when the FBI Assistant Director testified that he wished the FBI had 
``taken more rapid and comprehensive action in the past.'' I do too.
  Second, I think one reason this hasn't been stopped is that the 
coordination between the grant-making agencies is almost as bad as the 
coordination with the Federal law enforcement folks, meaning that they 
aren't talking to each other about problems they have had, about 
particular instances regarding some of the research that has been 
taken.
  As I said, we are talking about more than $150 billion of taxpayer 
money every year that goes to these agencies,

[[Page S6741]]

but once these funds are in the agencies' hands, we found no evidence 
of a unified and coordinated tracking and monitoring process to ensure 
that the money did not go toward the Thousand Talents Plan participants 
or other programs. The National Science Foundation, for instance, 
doesn't seem to have anyone who handles grant oversight in this regard. 
These research entities need to share information on these issues.
  But other organizations are at fault too. We found that the State 
Department is on the frontlines due to its responsibilities to vet visa 
applications for visiting students and scholars, but it very rarely 
denies visas under that process.
  Quite frankly, the research community here in the United States bears 
some responsibility too. There has been a collective failure by our 
universities and our research institutions to vet researchers for these 
conflicts of interest with other countries. Again, this is made worse 
by the fact that many of these researchers are receiving taxpayer funds 
to conduct their research here.
  It is going to take a comprehensive strategy across the Federal 
Government to better protect our research against this threat. Our 
report makes a number of recommendations that, combined, will go a long 
way toward strengthening the security of our research networks, while 
preserving the shared culture of transparency and fairness.
  Of course we want to continue to be the top place in the world for 
research, and that means that we have to be able to share and have 
transparency and openness, but it also means that we need to do a much 
better job of protecting this information from being misused.
  We, of course, need to do better at getting the word out to 
universities, research institutions, and the general public about this 
threat being posed by the Thousand Talents Plan and other foreign 
talent recruitment plans. This means better coordination between law 
enforcement, the intelligence community, and grant-making agencies so 
that the government is on the same page on this threat.
  We also need to change the research culture to preserve its openness 
and innovative spirit while making sure foreign researchers are 
properly vetted by the sponsoring organizations.
  NIH, NSF, and other grant-making institutions need to standardize how 
they find conflicts of interest in grant applications. They don't do 
that now.
  Members of the research community need to develop best practices for 
American researchers to follow so that they can determine whether 
receiving funds from a foreign country would compromise our principles 
of research integrity and threaten our national security.
  Finally, we need to help the State Department do a better job in its 
visa vetting process for foreign researchers. We need to do a better 
job of determining potential conflicts of interest before individuals 
who may not have the best interests of the United States at heart start 
working at our research institutions and using our taxpayer dollars.
  In the coming months, I will introduce bipartisan legislation that 
will help address some of these challenges. I look forward to working 
with Senator Carper, the ranking member on the subcommittee, and other 
colleagues to get those initiatives to the President's desk.
  Let me conclude by saying that we don't want to exclude China from 
contributing to scientific innovation--not at all. Advancements in the 
fields of robotics, medicine, energy, weapons systems, and more are 
things that are very important, and many of these can benefit the 
entire globe. But we want to have fair and transparent processes in 
place as we conduct this research, and our taxpayers don't want to be 
the ones to pick up the tab as China misappropriates our research to 
build up its own economy and a military designed to rival ours.
  My hope is that this report is the start of a productive dialogue 
with China and here in Congress on how we can better build a more 
secure research system that continues to reward those who come to our 
shores to discover new breakthroughs in science, while keeping China 
and other nation state competitors from taking that research for their 
own purposes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                          Presidential Pardons

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, before I start my remarks, I want to 
underscore how valuable the Department of Defense fellows program is to 
our individual offices. I can tell you firsthand that Captain Ng's 
presence in my office has given me capacity to deal with issues 
concerning appointments that I have or issues that are pending in 
Congress of a military nature.
  For those of us who have never served in the military service, having 
someone like Captain Ng in our office is incredibly important. I really 
want to underscore that and thank all of our Defense fellows for the 
services they are performing for our country.
  Mr. President, on May 22 of this year, I stood before this body and 
expressed my deep concerns about the media reports that President Trump 
was considering granting pardons to certain U.S. military personnel who 
had been convicted of committing war crimes in both Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  Now 6 months later, President Trump has followed through with setting 
a very dangerous precedent, pardoning three military personnel of war 
crimes, two who were found guilty under the U.S. military's Uniform 
Code of Military Justice and one whose trial never concluded.
  President Trump's pardons significantly disrupt the foundations of 
our own institutions, particularly the U.S. military.
  First, President Trump's pardons cause confusion for our military 
servicemembers on what actions are acceptable on the battlefield--an 
already difficult task given the complexity of war. Second, he 
undermines the military justice system. Finally, these pardons degrade 
America's global standing and influence.
  Stephen Preston, a former General Counsel at the Department of 
Defense, wrote the following in the Department of Defense Law of War 
Manual in June of 2015:

       The law of war is part of who we are. . . . [T]he laws of 
     war have shaped the U.S. Armed Forces as much as they have 
     shaped any other armed force in the world. The law of war is 
     part of our military heritage, and obeying it is the right 
     thing to do. . . . [T]he self-control needed to refrain from 
     violations of the law of war under stresses of combat is the 
     same good order and discipline necessary to operate 
     cohesively and victoriously in battle.

  The Law of War Manual goes on to outline the five interdependent 
principles that serve as the foundation of the law of war: One, 
military necessity; two, humanity; three, proportionality; four, 
distinction; and five, honor.
  These principles are pillars of American values and the guideposts we 
expect America's sons and daughters to operate within so they remain 
trusted and respected by all citizens of the world. President Trump's 
ill-advised pardons have placed those pillars on shaky ground. He has 
blurred the lines of morality for our troops and has disregarded the 
constitutional values the Founding Fathers set forth.
  By virtue of their oath and training, members of the U.S. military 
are accountable for their individual and collective actions through the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice.
  Department of Defense policy states:

       Each member of the armed services has a duty to: (1) comply 
     with the laws of war in good faith; and (2) refuse to comply 
     with clearly illegal orders to commit violations of the law 
     of war.

  Two of these military personnel President Trump pardoned were found 
guilty of violating the law of war through the prescribed Department of 
Defense investigative and judicial processes. They violated 
international and domestic law, and they failed to uphold their 
constitutional oath. President Trump's pardons of war crimes erode the 
trust, confidence, and the legal and moral authority of the military 
justice system. He never gave the military justice system a chance to 
work and determine all the facts surrounding the third individual whom 
he pardoned.
  Our own Commander in Chief has now compromised and degraded the 
integrity of the U.S. military judicial system--a system America relies 
on to maintain good order and discipline within the ranks of our 
millions of uniformed servicemembers.

[[Page S6742]]

  Perhaps most important and most damaging, President Trump's actions 
have eroded America's moral standing and global influence.
  That erosion emboldens our adversaries to cite our actions in 
committing and justifying their own war crimes. Have we become a 
country that now justifies and embraces the type of acts that occurred 
at My Lai during Vietnam or Abu Ghraib in Iraq? Will we continue to 
allow horrific acts committed by rogue actors who strategically 
diminish America's global standing?
  Moving forward, how will other nations trust the United States to 
implement and enforce the law of war, as required by our own domestic 
laws, policy, regulations, and orders, and by the multiple treaty 
obligations with other countries?
  Our Nation cannot tolerate crimes committed by rogue actors who 
violate their oaths and who turn their backs on American laws and 
values. If our government does not hold those individuals accountable 
for their actions, the United States will never recover from the 
strategic losses they incur. Under no circumstance is adopting the 
behavior of our worst adversaries ever justified, ever.
  Just as we seek to hold foreign actors accountable for war crimes, we 
also have an obligation to hold ourselves accountable. We cannot 
willfully allow our institutions or the individuals who serve them to 
deviate from the laws and standards of conduct that underpin our great 
Nation, but that is precisely what President Trump has done. Our former 
colleague, Senator John McCain, suffered many years of torture at the 
hands of the North Vietnamese captors. Nonetheless, he stood in this 
Chamber to decry our use of the same tactics. He said: ``This question 
isn't about our enemies. It is about us. It is about who we were, who 
we are, and who we aspire to be. It is about how we represent ourselves 
to the world. Our enemies act without conscience. We must not.''
  Senator McCain was correct. Great power competition with our 
adversaries is not just about who wins on a battlefield; ultimately, it 
is about preserving international recognized norms and values that 
uphold the rule of law, individual freedoms, and human dignity. If the 
U.S. fails to be the global champion of current international norms and 
democratic values, then our adversaries will replace those values with 
their own ideology predicated on intimidation, fear, and violent 
oppression.
  The United States must not willfully commit or condone war crimes. We 
must bring those who commit them to justice, regardless of citizenship, 
affiliation, or background. Even in the fog of war--especially in the 
fog of war--we must so act. We must always endeavor to act with moral 
clarity and preserve the international norms and values that took so 
long and have cost so many American lives to establish.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Braun). The Senator from Texas.


                       Senate Legislative Agenda

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the last few months, our friend and 
colleague, the minority leader, has railed about the lack of 
legislative progress here in the Senate. He believes the Senate should 
spend time taking up ultrapartisan bills that have passed the House of 
Representatives, but the truth is, we respectfully decline to take up 
those bills, which, in some instances, would infringe Americans' 
Constitutional rights, send taxpayer dollars to political candidates, 
and move us closer and closer to socialized medicine.
  Now, our colleague likes to call these dead-on-arrival partisan bills 
part of the legislative graveyard, but our colleague from New York has 
opened up a graveyard of his own, only his isn't full of partisan 
legislation that could never pass the Senate, let alone become the law. 
No. Our friend--the Democratic leader's legislative graveyard 
exclusively caters to bipartisan bills.

  Now, it is full of commonsense and critically important legislation 
that would actually make the lives of the American people better if 
only our friend from New York would stand down. Today, we had a chance 
to kick the can down the road once more when it comes to Federal 
funding because our colleagues across the aisle have put government 
funding bills 6 feet under.
  Over the summer, as you will recall, we came to a bipartisan 
agreement on spending caps, a bicameral agreement to guide the 
appropriations process. We had a deal. It provided a roadmap for 
negotiations this fall, and we all promised to work hard and in good 
faith and stay away from poison pill policy riders. But, unfortunately, 
that promise was not kept, and our colleagues can't seem to put 
politics aside long enough to even fund the government.
  And why? Because of a disagreement over .3 percent of Federal 
spending--0.3 percent. They have twice blocked vital funding for our 
military. They have blocked funding for mental health programs, for 
border security, for grant programs for schools--all over these petty 
disputes. So here we are, almost 2 months into the fiscal year, and we 
haven't sent a single appropriations bill to the President's desk, not 
one.
  Well, with the government set to shut down at midnight tonight, at 
least we passed a bill to keep the trains running for 1 more month. 
Maybe this was the least bad choice we had in light of these broken 
promises. The stopgap funding bill carries through December 20 and 
provides another opportunity for our colleagues across the aisle to 
make good on their August commitments to fund the government through 
the end of the fiscal year, using the normal appropriations process.
  I hope that good faith negotiations can resume and we can fund the 
remainder of the fiscal year by Christmas because the last stocking 
stuffer we want to give the American people is another government 
shutdown. And it is particularly important for us to fund our military 
in an increasingly dangerous world where weakness is indeed a 
provocation for the bullies and authoritarians who want to take 
advantage of the lack of American leadership, in this case because 
Congress simply refuses to do its job to fund the military.
  Well, I would be wrong to say it is all bad news. I am an optimist by 
nature. It reminds me of the story of the little boy who comes down 
Christmas morning and finds a pile of manure under the Christmas tree. 
He asked, ``Where is the pony?'' I am an optimist by nature. Yesterday, 
we did manage to make some small progress when we unanimously passed a 
bipartisan bill that I introduced with Mr. Merkley, the Senator from 
Oregon, to ban the sale of riot control material to the Hong Kong 
police force.
  As freedom-seeking protesters on the other side of the globe risked 
life and limb for the freedoms we too often take for granted, we cannot 
condone police brutality. Admittedly, this is a small but important 
step to show we stand with the people of Hong Kong, but I find this 
ironic. The minority leader is fine with passing incremental bills to 
support the people of Hong Kong, but when it comes to passing 
incremental bills to support the American people, he objects.
  I think the best example is the legislation that I have introduced to 
bring down prescription drug prices. Last week, I came to the Senate 
floor with my friend, colleague, and cosponsor, Senator Richard 
Blumenthal of Connecticut, to ask that our bill to reduce drug prices 
be passed. No one else had an objection other than the Democratic 
leader.
  The premise of the bill was pretty simple: prevent drugmakers from 
gaming the patent system to monopolize the market. Our bill strikes a 
delicate balance of protecting innovation while encouraging 
competition, and it would be a win for every American who has felt the 
pain or sticker shock at the pharmacy counter. This bill, amazingly, 
passed the Judiciary Committee unanimously. I served on the Judiciary 
Committee my entire time on the Senate, and it is famous for its 
contentiousness, and we passed it unanimously. Every Republican and 
every Democrat voted for it. So you can imagine my optimism, my hope, 
that the bill would sail through the Senate, meet up with welcoming 
arms in the House, and then get to the President for his signature, but 
I guess I should have known better.
  Our Democratic colleagues have continued to throw up roadblocks for 
things as critical as funding the military, so why would they let this 
bill that would bring down prescription costs for consumers, why would 
they

[[Page S6743]]

let it pass? So right on cue, the Democratic leader came to the floor 
and he objected. He was the only person out of 100 Senators to object. 
He did not object because of the substance.
  As a matter of fact, he called it a well-intentioned and good bill, 
but he objected. He certainly did not object because it was a partisan 
bill. The bill has six Democratic cosponsors, including the minority 
whip, the Senator from Illinois, and the ranking member of the Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senator Murray from 
Washington State.

  So the only reason I can think of that he would object is because he 
doesn't want to see anyone whose name happened to be on the ballot in 
2020 score a win. Well, how unworthy of the U.S. Senate is that sort of 
thinking? We should not be thinking in terms of who is going to win or 
lose politically if we pass good legislation. We ought to be doing the 
Nation's work and working together in a bipartisan basis, not trying to 
bring the 2020 election here to the Senate floor.
  But this bill isn't the only one that is subject to these kinds of 
politics, unfortunately. Critical legislation to support victims of 
domestic violence and sexual assault have also gotten caught up in this 
way of thinking. After months of bipartisan negotiations to reauthorize 
the Violence Against Women Act, our Democratic colleagues simply walked 
away from the negotiating table. Rather than reaching a compromise, 
building consensus on a bill that could pass both Chambers and become 
law, once again, our Democratic colleagues chose the partisan path and 
walked away from the table. They have introduced a near replica of the 
partisan House-passed bill for VAWA, the Violence Against Women Act, 
which they know doesn't stand a chance of passing here in the Senate 
because it is not a consensus product.
  That is not news to our friends on the other side of the aisle. They 
understand that this is more about the issue than it is solving the 
problem, the political issue. I think they turned their back on 
bipartisan talks, not because they had a better solution, which is what 
we ought to be about, but because our friend and Democratic leader 
doesn't want to give any Republican colleagues who are leading the 
negotiations, like the Senator from Iowa, Ms. Ernst, allow her to get a 
win.
  This is really, again, unworthy of the Senate to think in those petty 
sorts of terms. I think we should concentrate on who would win if we 
passed the Violence Against Women Act, which would be the many victims 
of domestic violence and sexual assault. We ought to be thinking about 
them and whether they would win if we passed bipartisan legislation.
  Now, I believe the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, wants to 
come back to the negotiating table. She told me that herself yesterday, 
but I also believe the Democratic leader probably isn't going to let 
that happen. Like me, Senator Ernst is on the ballot next year.
  Again, the minority leader has demonstrated his focus on politics 
rather than substance and doing what actually will help the American 
people: no bills to lower drug prices, no bills to support victims of 
domestic violence, nada. He can't afford to let any Republican bills 
pass because it might just hurt his chances of becoming the majority 
leader after the 2020 election.
  I think it is a shame that the partisanship in the House has now 
infected the Senate and prevented us from passing bills that would make 
the American people's lives better. I hope our friends on the other 
side of the aisle have a great Thanksgiving break, and I hope that he 
will use that time to reconsider why it is they are here in the first 
place, why we are all here.
  We are all here to make the Senate work for the benefit of the 
American people and not to engage in these unworthy petty political 
games leading up to the 2020 election.


              United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement

  Mr. President, on another matter, before election year politics 
completely halt the work of the Senate, here we are, 1 year before the 
election, one item I am really hoping we can deliver for the American 
people in addition to the ones I mentioned is the USMCA, the U.S.-
Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement.
  This trade agreement, as we know, will replace NAFTA, or the North 
American Free Trade Agreement, and help drive our trade relationship 
with Mexico and Canada into the 21st century. When you consider the 
number of American jobs that depend on trade with Mexico and Canada, 
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce cites a figure of 13 million jobs--13 
million jobs that depend on that trade with Mexico and Canada.
  When you consider actions being taken by China to counter our 
interests all around the world, our reliance on North American partners 
is becoming increasingly important. The USMCA is not only an 
opportunity to strengthen North America's position on the global stage, 
but it is important, as I suggested, to our economy right here in the 
United States.
  Earlier this year, the International Trade Commission provided some 
insight into what we can expect to see if this trade agreement is 
ratified, as it should be. The USMCA is expected to have a positive 
impact on every sector of the U.S. economy. Within 6 years, we are 
looking at 176,000 new American jobs and an increase in American gross 
domestic product of more than $68 billion. That is bigger than the 
proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement.
  We can also look forward to more than a $33 billion increase in 
exports and more than $31 billion in imports. We know that many of 
those exports and imports travel across the border in Texas because we 
share 1,200 miles of common border with Mexico, and we have many ports 
of entry in our State.
  In 2018 alone, Texas exported nearly $110 billion in goods to Mexico 
and imported more than $107 billion from Mexico. With the increased 
trade and travel we expect to see once the USMCA is ratified, we need 
to make sure that our ports of entry, through which these goods flow, 
are prepared. We have been working with the administration on this, and 
I have requested funding to prioritize Texas's ports and make sure they 
are safe and efficient.
  I am also hoping the USMCA will include provisions from a bill I 
introduced earlier with another border State Senator, our friend 
Senator Feinstein from California. This would improve the North 
American Development Bank, sometimes called the NAD Bank, which invests 
in our border communities and particularly in the infrastructure.
  For every one NAD Bank dollar that has been invested in a project, 
that successfully leveraged $20 in total infrastructure investment 
using public and private sector dollars.
  Throughout NAD Bank's 25-year history, they have taken on projects 
that have improved air and water quality, updated infrastructure, and 
increased cross-border trade. NAD Bank brings Mexico and the United 
States together to finance these projects to improve trade and travel 
and quality of life on both sides of the border.
  This legislation that Senator Feinstein and I have introduced would 
authorize the Treasury Department to increase its capital and provide 
additional authority to fund critical projects. I have been working 
with my friend and Democratic colleague from Laredo, TX, Congressman 
Cuellar, to make sure that these provisions are included in the final 
text of the USMCA. My hope is we will be able to take those provisions 
up as well as the entire agreement and ratify it soon, but it depends 
on Speaker Pelosi. Everybody is waiting for her to show the green light 
and for the House to act. I am concerned that as we get closer and 
closer into an election season, it is going to be harder and harder for 
the House to even pass this bipartisan trade deal.
  I read today that she is not predicting they will even be able to get 
it done before the end of the year. I note that she made that comment 
roughly on the same day the House adjourned for 10 days. The House does 
not appear to be in any hurry, to be sure. In fact, they have dragged 
their feet for many months on something that is vitally important to 
our economy and job creation right here in the U.S.A.
  Texans enjoy a strong trading relationship with our southern 
neighbor, and I am confident the USMCA will continue to propel that 
relationship forward as well as continue to grow our economy and create 
jobs and more opportunity for the American people.

[[Page S6744]]

  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Defense Appropriations

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, right now, as we are gathered here on 
the Senate floor, the Senate and House conferees are in the process of 
trying to negotiate a final agreement on the NDAA. That is the National 
Defense Authorization Act. One of the key issues in the final 
discussions over the NDAA involves a provision designed to protect the 
integrity of American elections against outside interference from 
Russia or any other adversary. It is a provision based on bipartisan 
legislation that Senator Rubio and I introduced over a year ago to 
deter Russian interference in a future American election. The 
legislation is called the DETER Act, the idea being: Let's deter Russia 
from attacking our democracy.
  I believe it would be grossly negligent for the conferees to the 
National Defense Authorization Act to bring back to the House and the 
Senate a measure that does not include a provision to defend our 
democracy from Russian interference. The entire Senate must share that 
sentiment because we unanimously voted on a resolution just a short 
time ago to include such a provision in the National Defense 
Authorization Act.
  I have in my hand a copy of that resolution. It was S. Res. 330. It 
instructs the managers on the part of the Senate on bill S. 1790--that 
is the National Defense Authorization Bill--to require certain measures 
to address Federal election interference by foreign governments.
  It goes on to instruct the Senate conferees to require the 
appropriate official of the executive branch, after each Federal 
election, to promptly submit to Congress a determination as to whether 
the Government of the Russian Federation, or any other foreign 
government, has interfered in such election and a detailed assessment 
of any such interference that identifies, to the maximum extent 
practicable, the individuals responsible for the interference and to 
promptly impose sanctions on any foreign government that has been 
determined to have interfered in a Federal election, including 
specified individuals and entities within the territory of the 
government.
  That is what the U.S. Senate unanimously voted on to instruct our 
conferees to the National Defense Authorization Act negotiations. What 
I just read is the guts of the idea in the bipartisan DETER Act that 
Senator Rubio and I have introduced.
  Here is what we know. We know that Russia interfered in the 2016 
election. How do we know that? It was the unanimous verdict of the 
entire U.S. intelligence community, including the leaders of 
intelligence agencies appointed by this President. It was also the 
bipartisan verdict of the Senate Intelligence Committee--a committee 
that painstakingly documented the fact that election systems in all 50 
States were targeted by Russia in 2016--to different degrees but in all 
50 States. In fact, that Senate Intelligence Committee report was the 
first public--the first public--acknowledgement of how extensive the 
Russian efforts were to interfere in the 2016 elections.
  We know the Russians did this in 2016. We know that Vladimir Putin 
sees interfering in our elections as a way to divide us against one 
another. We know that Vladimir Putin fears democratic forms of 
government and wants to undermine public confidence in those 
democracies.
  How do you undermine public confidence in those democracies? By 
attacking the election process so that people doubt the validity of the 
outcome of an election. When that happens, if the public loses faith in 
the outcome of our elections, then we have really undermined the 
legitimacy and confidence in our democratic system. That was 2016.
  The measure I am talking about doesn't relate to 2016. It relates to 
the future. Here is what our intelligence community just informed the 
country about within the last few weeks. I am holding in my hand a 
statement that was released on November 5, just a few weeks ago. It is 
from Attorney General William Barr, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, 
Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan, Acting Director 
of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire, FBI Director Chris Wray, U.S. 
Cyber Command Commander and NSA Director GEN Paul Nakasone, CISA 
Director Christopher Krebs. Here is what they said 2 weeks ago.

       Our adversaries want to undermine our democratic 
     institutions, influence public sentiment and affect 
     government policies. Russia, China, Iran, and other foreign 
     malicious actors all will seek to interfere in the voting 
     process or influence voter perceptions. This document is not 
     about the past; this document is about the future, about 
     our future elections, including the 2020 election, which 
     is now less than a year away.

  We know in 2016 the Russians attacked our electoral process. We now 
have all of the leaders of Federal Government intelligence agencies and 
law enforcement telling us they predict Russia will do it again in 
2020.
  We have a Russian missile headed for our democracy, and the question 
for all of us is, What are we going to do about it? What are we going 
to do to protect our democracy and the legitimacy of our electoral 
system?
  First of all, we should harden our election system. We should make it 
more difficult for Russia to break into our voter registration files. 
Certainly, we should make it more difficult for them to break into 
voting machines. We should also make sure we build more defenses to 
prevent the Government of Russia from using social media to mislead and 
confuse voters. We should do all those things to better defend our 
election system, but I am of the view--and a lot of folks who have 
followed Russia and Vladimir Putin for a long time--that the best 
defense is a good offense. We can harden our systems here, but that 
doesn't stop Russia and Vladimir Putin from trying to break into our 
election systems. It doesn't prevent Russia and Putin from trying to 
use our social media to influence our voters. The only way to prevent 
them from trying is to let them know in advance that there is a big 
price to pay if they get caught.
  Right now it is cost-free for Russia to interfere in our elections. 
In fact, it is a net benefit because Putin divides us. Putin leads 
voters and citizens to question the legitimacy of our democracy. He is 
winning in this current calculus. We need to change his calculus. We 
need to make it clear that the cost of interfering in our elections far 
outweighs these benefits that he is gaining.
  That is what the DETER Act is all about. What the DETER Act does is 
set up a process whereby, if we catch Russia interfering in our future 
elections, including the 2020 elections, there will be automatic, 
swift, and very stiff economic penalties--not penalties on a couple of 
oligarchs but penalties that will hurt his economy, penalties on his 
banking sector, and penalties on part of his energy sector. If we adopt 
this provision, then we are making it very clear in advance to Vladimir 
Putin that if he interferes, and we catch him, there is a very stiff 
price to pay.
  The whole purpose of this act is not to impose sanctions; it is to 
avoid sanctions by making it clear upfront what the costs will be if 
Putin interferes in our elections. The whole point is to use the threat 
of automatic, swift, and tough sanctions to discourage and deter the 
Russians from interfering in the first place.
  I haven't heard anybody provide one substantive argument for why we 
should not do this to protect our democracy. I can think of no more 
important place to include this provision than the national defense 
authorization bill because if the national defense authorization bill 
is not about defending our democracy, I am not sure what it is about.
  So the question is, Why are we still debating this in the conference 
committee for the national defense authorization bill? I can't figure 
out who is opposing it other than the fact that somebody is. I was told 
it was the Republican Senate leader and the chairman of the Senate 
Banking Committee who are opposing this provision. If that is the case, 
they really need to come to the Senate floor and explain this because 
the Senate unanimously instructed Senate conferees to adopt just

[[Page S6745]]

such a provision--unanimously. That includes the Senate majority leader 
and the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. They didn't object. 
Yet somehow now we are in the middle of a conference committee on 
defending our country, which I thought meant also defending our 
democracy, and we have these folks who don't want their fingerprints on 
it who are somehow trying to defeat this measure.
  Here is what I have to say. If this provision is not included in the 
NDAA, it would be grossly negligent because we know from our own 
intelligence community 2 weeks ago that the Russians are coming to 
attack our elections again, and we are going to pass a defense 
authorization bill where we sit on our hands and do nothing about it? 
That would be outrageous.
  This measure needs to be in the NDAA bill. I will tell you, if it is 
not, I am going to be here on this floor regularly asking for unanimous 
consent to bring this bill up for a vote. I am going to have the 
majority leader have to come down here regularly, or whomever he wants 
to designate, to object to a unanimous consent agreement for a 
provision to defend our elections.
  I hope it is included in the Defense authorization bill. That is the 
place it should be. If it is not, I will be down here every day, and 
the clock will be ticking down day by day for the 2020 election, our 
Intelligence Committee will continue to warn us about Russian 
interference, and I am going to want to hear in public--in public--why 
some of our colleagues don't want to take action to defend the 
integrity of our democracy; why they want to allow Putin to have his 
way cost-free. That is a question I will be asking every day. I hope I 
don't have to ask it every day. I hope we do what the Senate already 
instructed our conferees to do, which is to include it in the National 
Defense Authorization Act.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                        Tribute to Rosie Habeich

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, it is Thursday. I know the pages know 
this, and many people watching know this, but it is that time of the 
day in the Senate when I come down on the Senate floor and talk about 
somebody who makes my State a very unique and special place--and it is 
an opportunity for me to talk a little bit about what is going on in 
Alaska right now, particularly before the holidays--somebody we refer 
to in Alaska and here in the Senate as the Alaskan of the Week.
  Before I get into this very special Alaskan, I will give you a little 
weather update. A lot of people like to understand what is going on. 
Winter has come. It is coming to Alaska. Snow has arrived throughout 
much of the State. In Southcentral Alaska it has come. Anchorage is 
covered in snow. A lot of people are getting ready to undertake winter. 
Sports and activities on Monday in Utqiagvik, the northernmost point in 
North America--it used to be called Point Barrow--the Sun rose and set 
for the last time until January 23. So it is going to be dark up there, 
but they are used to that. They are great people. The community has now 
officially settled in for a bit of a dark Arctic winter, but they have 
been doing that for a millennium.
  It is a winter wonderland right now throughout Alaska. So I always 
encourage people watching, watching on TV, to come on up. Summer, 
winter, fall, spring, come on up and visit. You will love it. It will 
be the trip of a lifetime.
  As I mentioned before, I think I come from the most beautiful State 
in the country, but it is also a place made up of the most important, 
caring, wonderful, generous, and supportive people anywhere. Some of 
these people have had ancestors living in Alaska for thousands and 
thousands of years. Others arrived more recently but immediately found 
a home in a community that they were supportive of and was supportive 
of them.
  Let me introduce you to Rosemary Habeich. Her friends call her Rosie. 
She is an extraordinary Alaskan who has done extraordinary things for 
our people. She is our Alaskan of the Week.
  What has she done? What is extraordinary about Rosie?
  Let me just mention one off the top, which is pretty remarkable--
fostering over 50 Alaskan children with her husband, Eben Hobson, Jr. I 
should add here that Eben is the son of the first mayor of Alaska's 
North Slope Borough and someone who has also fought for the rights of 
Alaska Natives throughout his life. He deserves mention, as well as his 
wife, as a legendary Alaskan.
  Not only did Rosie and Eben foster all these children, they adopted 
three, and raised five of their own children. That is a crowded 
household but a kind, loving, supportive and warm household--a place of 
love.
  I can say here that the recommendation for Rosie to be our Alaskan of 
the Week comes from our First Alaskans Institute fellow, Elizabeth 
Ahkivgak, who is right here with me and who has done a great job in my 
office.
  Elizabeth is one of dozens and dozens of children Rosie and Eben took 
into their bright home and loved them so much so they could love 
themselves.
  Let me tell you a little bit about Rosie, our Alaskan of the Week. 
She was born in Idaho. Like too many Americans, unfortunately, she 
actually came from a broken home. Her mother was battling an illness 
and sometimes was too sick to handle Rosie and her siblings.
  It was during one of those bouts of illness that Rosie herself 
briefly became a foster child. That experience, the experience of 
visiting her mother in an institution, and the kindness of neighbors 
who stepped up and helped during those very difficult years would form 
the basis of Rosie's steadfast belief that helping others in your 
community throughout your State is a higher calling.
  Eventually, Rosie moved with her family to Fairbanks when she was 
just a young girl. Those were good years for her and her family. She 
thrived in Alaska, went to college, and became a social worker for the 
State. Eventually, her work took her to Utqiagvik--as I mentioned, 
formerly Barrow, AK--where she fell in love both with her husband, 
Eben, and with the community.
  She found in Utqiagvik that if you had a good idea and were willing 
to do the work and see it through, you could succeed with the help of 
others, and she did succeed.
  At various points during her time in the North Slope Borough of our 
great State, she worked as the director of the city's rec department, 
director of the health department, and executive director of the Alaska 
Eskimo Whaling Commission. She also sat on the board for the Rural 
Alaska Community Action Plan. She was a public health nurse and was 
appointed director of the North Slope Borough Health Department by two 
different mayors. That is an impressive resume, as you see.
  She now spends much of her time in Anchorage, where she volunteers 
for a group called Friends in Serving Humanity, or F.I.S.H.--a church 
network that feeds the hungry. On many days, you can find her in 
different communities handing out meals and food boxes often paid for 
out of her own pocket.
  Rosie gives her all to everything she does, but one of her truly 
lasting contributions to Alaska and to her community is how she has 
taken in so many children across the State who need a home, who need 
support, and who need love. She took in siblings. She took in infants. 
She took in teenagers. She took them from all backgrounds, from all 
across the State, and she loved them. She was patient with them. She 
intuitively understood what they needed and when they needed it. Some 
of the children she took in were horribly abused, most others were 
homesick, and some were confused.
  In Alaska, getting running water to households across the State has 
long been a major challenge, one we are still working on today. If you 
can believe this--this is certainly one of my passions in the Senate--
we have over 30 communities in Alaska with no flush toilets, no water 
and sewer--in America. Many of the children who came to Rosie were from 
these kinds of households and these kinds of communities. Many had 
never flushed a toilet in their lives.

  She was sensitive to all this. One of the first things she did when a 
child came to her was to teach her how a faucet and a bathroom and a 
toilet worked. Then she fed them. Rosie's cooking is renowned. She 
listened to them and loved them.

[[Page S6746]]

  This is how one of her former foster children described the 
experience of walking into Rosie's home:

       Imagine coming from a place with nothing--absolutely 
     nothing, [poverty]--and you walk into a normal house, filled 
     with normal things that people and the rest of America take 
     for granted--a warm house, a flush toilet, food on the stove, 
     adults who speak to you [kindly]. It was like visiting a toy 
     store for the first time. It was like visiting a different 
     planet. It showed us what [a good] life could be like.

  Not all of Rosie's kids made it out of a life of challenges and 
dysfunction and abuse, but many of them have. Many have broken the 
cycle of violence in their families for the first time. Some of them, 
along with their biological children and the ones she has adopted, are 
now doing great things for our State and our country. They are 
successfully running businesses. They have joined the military. They 
have worked at high levels of government. One of them, who is sitting 
right here next to me on the Senate floor, works in my office. We are 
lucky to have Elizabeth.
  All of them, regardless of where they are now ``have a place in my 
heart,'' says Rosie. Why does she do it? Why has this woman given 
herself to so many others and changed so many lives?
  She tells a story about a time when her mother was sick and had to go 
back into the institution, leaving her to take care of her four younger 
siblings. It was Christmastime, and Rosie literally had nothing. So the 
neighbors got together, left boxes of presents at the door of their 
house, and brought over Christmas dinner when she was young and needed 
help. ``That's the way life is supposed to be,'' Rosie said. ``You're 
supposed to recognize when people have less than you, and you are 
supposed to help them out. It doesn't matter if you're looking at it 
through a biblical lens, or through karma, or through Buddha. Giving is 
fundamental.'' That is her quote: ``Giving is fundamental.''
  All the Senators here today are heading home and heading back to the 
great States they represent for Thanksgiving, which we will be 
celebrating next week--a uniquely American holiday that all of us love 
and cherish so much. I know I certainly do. Rosie and Eben's story and 
commitment to others are exactly the kinds of things we as Americans 
should be thankful for as we are celebrating Thanksgiving next week. 
Giving is fundamental. I know I am thankful for what they have done.
  Their household will be full this holiday season--friends, family, 
children. At some point this season, she will make her famous apple 
sausage stuffing, a recipe she learned from her own foster mother and 
one she has passed down to foster kids all across the great State of 
Alaska. It is made with love and with kindness and with thanksgiving.
  Rosie, thank you for all you have done. From the bottom of my heart, 
thanks for your spirit, your generosity, and your example as we head 
into Thanksgiving weekend, for touching so many lives across Alaska. 
Congratulations on being our Alaskan of the Week and happy 
Thanksgiving.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                               Healthcare

  Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I have spent 3 years in the U.S. 
Senate. During this time, I can tell you the No. 1 issue when I am 
home--and I suspect it is in your State, as well, and across this 
country--is the cost of healthcare in this country and to be sure that 
everybody in this country, no matter your party, your religion, where 
you live, urban or rural area, has access to affordable healthcare not 
only when it is needed but also for preventative purposes to give you 
peace of mind.
  Unfortunately, what we have seen is high cost; inability to get 
access to it, oftentimes when you are in a rural community; and a fight 
here in Congress. Instead of working together to solve this problem, we 
are too far apart in presenting a solution--in coming together for a 
solution.
  It is open enrollment season for healthcare right now, which means 
Americans have an opportunity to get new healthcare coverage or change 
the coverage they have.

       In Nevada, the State is running a new exchange website and 
     working hard to make sure every Nevadan gets covered at 
     NevadaHealthLink.com. I thank our fantastic exchange 
     director, Heather Korbulic, and her team for all they are 
     doing.

  I want to encourage all Nevadans to get coverage. I don't think 
people realize how much help there is for individuals to get coverage 
at Nevada Health Link. If you want healthcare, please, please reach out 
by the December 15 deadline to learn more about the opportunities that 
are available to you to be able to afford it.
  Open enrollment is a good time for us to reflect on how far we have 
come, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, and to take stock--to take 
stock--of the threats to that coverage. Unfortunately, I have watched 
in Congress as Members of the Republican Party, particularly this 
administration, try to sabotage the Affordable Care Act at every turn.
  At the end of October, the Senate held a vote on Senator Warner's 
resolution to overturn this administration's damaging and dangerous 
rule expanding so-called junk plans. My Democratic colleagues voted in 
favor of the resolution because they know how important healthcare is 
to our constituents. Yet, unfortunately, nearly all of the Senate 
Republicans voted against it. They voted to allow Americans to buy 
skimpy, low-benefit plans that send us back to the dark days of health 
coverage in America by allowing insurers to sidestep the patient 
protections in the Affordable Care Act.
  These junk plans don't cover essential services like prescription 
drugs, emergency room visits, mental healthcare, and maternity care. 
They don't prevent insurers from discriminating against people with 
preexisting conditions. There are about 1.2 billion of them in Nevada 
alone.
  My colleagues on the other of the aisle argue that these junk plans 
are low cost. Well, they cost less than some plans, but that doesn't 
mean they are cheap. They may have high deductibles or exclude coverage 
of costly services, and, by law, more of the money they collect in 
premiums can go toward the insurers' profits. But when you realize that 
these plans provide barely any benefits, you can see, for most people, 
the plans are no savings at all.
  What is more, because insurers often use deceptive marketing 
practices, people who purchase these plans don't always know just how 
skimpy their coverage is. Sometimes patients don't realize that their 
plans leave out much needed procedures until after they have racked up 
huge bills.
  Paving the way for junk plans is just one way Republicans are 
undermining the Affordable Care Act. The Trump administration and 18 
Republican State attorneys general are trying to get the Fifth Circuit 
Court of Appeals to overturn the entire Affordable Care Act in a case 
called Texas v. United States. This is just the latest and one of the 
most dangerous of over 100 Republican attempts to get rid of the 
Affordable Care Act in Congress and the courts.
  If the Fifth Circuit overturns the Affordable Care Act, Americans 
will lose the peace of mind and protections they have told us so many 
times that they want. The last thing Americans need is for us to turn 
back the clock to a time when they couldn't get healthcare for 
preexisting conditions or they couldn't get insurance to cover 
essential health needs.
  This summer, I met with Ashby Bellows and Charlie Bell, two Nevadans 
with juvenile diabetes. Both girls are doing well now, but their 
parents worry that when the girls are no longer on their parents' plan, 
they might opt to ration their insulin. Think about that--ration their 
insulin. Unfortunately, it is a common practice among people who cannot 
afford the often sky-high cost of insulin, and it can be deadly. In 
fact, one out of seven Americans knows someone who passed away in the 
last 5 years because they couldn't afford treatment for a medical 
condition.
  Senate Republicans have told their constituents that they will 
protect Americans' healthcare, and President Trump has said he has a 
plan to provide Americans with healthcare. Well, where is it? I mean, 
the only plan we have seen is an attempt to sabotage the Affordable 
Care Act and rip away coverage from hundreds of thousands in Nevada and 
millions across America.
  My Democratic colleagues and I are fighting to ensure that everyone 
in this country has access to affordable

[[Page S6747]]

healthcare. Unfortunately, what I have seen on the other side of the 
aisle and in this administration is that they are fighting to take it 
away. There is a clear distinction between the two, and I think the 
American public is tired of it.
  We all should be working in a bipartisan way to make sure that 
everyone in this country has access to affordable healthcare. I will 
continue to vote for comprehensive and affordable healthcare in this 
country, and I will continue pushing to strengthen the Affordable Care 
Act and reduce prescription drug costs for Nevadans. I will keep 
fighting to ensure that Americans stay safe and healthy, and I will 
assure you that I will keep talking to my colleagues so that, 
hopefully, one day we will be fighting for the same thing, which is to 
ensure that everyone in this country, no matter your background or 
where you live, has access to affordable healthcare when you need it--
when you need that coverage and you want to protect a loved one.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                          Presidential Pardons

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concerns about 
the President's recent interference in war crimes cases involving 
members of the U.S. military and the President's inappropriate public 
statements regarding these cases.
  The President has the power to pardon, but he has a responsibility to 
use that power wisely, not recklessly. The way he has gone about it in 
this instance does a real disservice to our troops and the entire 
American military justice system.
  Good order and discipline are critical and time-honored traits of the 
U.S. military, not only to enable military readiness and effectiveness 
but also to ensure that military men and women remain firmly tethered 
to our Nation's moral and ethical principles in the most demanding 
wartime environments.
  A few have argued that the President has the authority to pardon, but 
that is a false defense. The issue is that the President's intervention 
in these cases sends a damaging message to the world, our adversaries, 
and, most importantly, our men and women in uniform. The Commander in 
Chief's actions should make us safer and stronger in the world, but 
President Trump's actions do not.
  The cases in which the President intervened fall far outside of the 
norm. The President's pardon authority has traditionally been reserved 
for nonviolent infractions, including draft evasion and desertion. I am 
aware of no other instance in which a President has intervened to grant 
clemency for violent crimes committed while in uniform, especially for 
war crimes including murder.
  Especially concerning is the President's decision to intervene in a 
case prior to its even going to trial--an action that I believe is an 
insult to our entire system of military justice.
  Just this morning, the President again intervened--via tweet--to stop 
a Navy administrative review process that could have resulted in the 
removal of a servicemember from the Navy SEALs, despite the fact that 
the servicemember was previously found guilty of posing for photos with 
a dead ISIS fighter. We must expect more from our military men and 
women, especially those in our Special Operations forces.
  Regrettably, President Trump has repeatedly advocated for a return to 
torture, stating that we should ``take out the families'' of terrorists 
and expressing his view on standards of military conduct by saying: 
``You have to play the game the way they are playing the game.'' The 
President's statements are reminiscent of former Vice President 
Cheney's embrace of the ``dark side'' of counterterrorism--the very 
kind of thinking that underpinned later abuses at Abu Ghraib and the 
CIA's use of torture as part of its so-called Detention and 
Interrogation Program.
  President Trump tweeted in October that ``we train our boys to be 
killing machines, then prosecute them when they kill!''
  No, Mr. President, the U.S. military does not prosecute its own for 
carrying out lawful missions in service to our Nation. We do not train 
our troops to kill indiscriminately. We do not train them to attack 
noncombatants. We do not train them to violate the Geneva Convention 
and the rule of law because we want our troops to be protected by those 
same standards. To think or say otherwise is to go against discipline, 
the selfless service of so many, and the history of our military.
  As former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff GEN Dempsey wrote in 
May:

       Absent evidence of innocence or injustice the wholesale 
     pardon of US servicemembers accused of war crimes signals our 
     troops and allies that we don't take the Law of Armed 
     Conflict seriously. Bad message. Bad precedent. Abdication of 
     moral responsibility. Risk to us.

  I couldn't agree more.
  Some have claimed that the President's intervention in this case has 
somehow improved the morale of our military and given them more 
confidence on the battlefield. On the contrary, President Trump's 
disregard for our military justice system risks undermining the 
confidence of our servicemembers in the rule of law--especially those 
who are courageous enough to bring allegations of war crimes to light 
and testify against their teammates.
  By substituting his judgment for that of commanders and military 
juries, the President may also inadvertently increase the risk to our 
U.S. personnel overseas. When we do not hold our military personnel to 
appropriate standards of conduct, it makes it more likely that they 
will face similar abuses on the battlefield and less likely that we 
will be able to hold our enemies accountable.
  There is no one with more credibility and no one with the service and 
sacrifice who can say it any better or more authentically than former 
Senator John McCain, who stated:

       This is a moral debate. It is about who we are. I don't 
     mourn the loss of any terrorist's life. What I do mourn is 
     what we lose when by official policy or official neglect we 
     confuse or encourage those who fight this war for us to 
     forget that best sense of ourselves. Through the violence, 
     chaos, and heartache of war, through deprivation and cruelty 
     and loss, we are always Americans, and different, stronger, 
     and better than those who would destroy us.

  Those are the words of John McCain.
  I believe the President's actions minimize the honorable service of 
all U.S. servicemembers who have served with discipline and distinction 
since 9/11 and have answered our Nation's call throughout the history 
of this country.
  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.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________