[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 44 (Thursday, March 5, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1511-S1514]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
ADVANCED GEOTHERMAL INNOVATION LEADERSHIP ACT OF 2019--Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 2657, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2657) to support innovation in advanced
geothermal research and development, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Murkowski amendment No. 1407, in the nature of a substitute.
McConnell (for Ernst) amendment No. 1419 (to amendment No. 1407), to
establish a grant program for training wind technicians.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
Women's Healthcare
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I just listened to the Republican
leader, and there was a glaring omission in his speech. He did not
mention what the rally yesterday, my speech, or the case before the
Court was about--a woman's constitutional right to choose.
To the women of America: What we are talking about here, what I am
fighting for here is your right to choose--an issue, of course, Leader
McConnell completely ignored in his speech. I feel so passionately
about this issue, and I feel so deeply the anger of women all across
America about Senate Republicans and the courts working hand in glove
to take down Roe v. Wade.
I just read about a woman in Shreveport who, under the Louisiana law
now before the Supreme Court, would have to travel over 300 miles to
exercise her constitutional freedoms. And this is happening in States
across the country.
Republican State legislatures are restricting a woman's right to
choose so severely as to make it nonexistent, and the courts are now
likely to go along because Senate Republicans have confirmed nominees
they believe will strip away women's rights and fundamentally change
this country, going so far as to deny a duly elected President the
right to pick a Supreme Court Justice.
Republicans here in the Senate are afraid to confront this issue
directly. So they try to accomplish through the courts what they would
never accomplish in the court of public opinion, and they leave women
out in the cold.
So, yes, I am angry. The women of America are angry. And, yes, we
will continue to fight for a woman's right to choose. I will continue
to fight for the women of America.
Now, I should not have used the words I used yesterday. They didn't
come out the way I intended to. My point was that there would be
political consequences--political consequences--for President Trump and
Senate Republicans if the Supreme Court, with the newly confirmed
Justices, stripped away a woman's right to choose. Of course, I didn't
intend to suggest anything other than political and public opinion
consequences for the Supreme Court, and it is a gross distortion to
imply otherwise.
I am from Brooklyn. We speak in strong language. I shouldn't have
used the words I did, but in no way was I making a threat. I never--
never--would do such a thing. Leader McConnell knows that, and
Republicans who are busy manufacturing outrage over these comments know
that too.
What will remain long after the clamor over my comments dies down is
the issue at hand: a woman's constitutional right to choose and
Republican attempts to invalidate it.
The fact that my Republican colleagues have worked systematically
over the course of decades to install the judicial infrastructure to
take down Roe v. Wade and do very real damage to the country and to the
American way of life--that is the issue that will remain, and we owe--I
owe--an obligation to the women of America to fight for their
constitutional rights.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I come to the floor this morning as a
Senate colleague who may know Chuck Schumer better than most. We lived
under the same roof for almost 20 years. We know one another. We know
each other's families. We have been together through moments of sadness
and triumph. I know him well, and I come to the floor this morning to
make this statement.
I respect Chief Justice John Roberts, but I respectfully disagree
with the statement he made yesterday about Senator Schumer's comments
before the Supreme Court Building. It is not in Chuck Schumer's nature
to physically threaten anyone--anyone--or to create a dangerous
situation for any person. That is just not Chuck Schumer. Even his
passion, as you just heard about the issue of women's healthcare, would
not lead him to that position. Yes, as he said, he could have chosen
his words more carefully, but is there a person in public life who has
ever stood in this Chamber or any other who wouldn't say the same about
some public utterance?
What troubles me is his being admonished publicly by President Donald
Trump for his use of words--being admonished by President Trump for his
use of words. It just takes your breath away to think that this
President, with his thousands of tweets and statements and utterances--
outrageous as they have been--would be standing as a judge of others
when it comes to the use of language.
I listened carefully this morning as Senator McConnell, the
Republican leader, came to the floor and spoke, when he talked about
his singular respect for the Supreme Court and judicial independence.
He used the phrase repeatedly: ``judicial independence.'' He called the
judiciary, rightly, a pillar of the American Government.
Does Senator McConnell think we have forgotten what he did when it
came to the Supreme Court after Justice Scalia passed away? He
intentionally left a vacancy in the Court for almost a year for
political purposes before it was filled.
We remember when President Obama, in the last year of his Presidency,
offered the nomination of Merrick Garland, a highly respected circuit
court judge for the District of Columbia. Do you remember what this
Republican leader, Senator McConnell, did in response--this man who so
admires this pillar of the American Government, the judiciary? He
refused to even personally meet with Merrick Garland, President Obama's
nominee, and he instructed his colleagues on the Republican side to do
the same, to shun him, to give him the cold shoulder, and to make it
clear that, for a year, there would be a vacancy in the Court because
he, Senator McConnell, was praying he would get a political opportunity
to fill that vacancy if a Republican were elected to the Presidency.
And, of course, that is what happened in 2016.
So for Senator McConnell to come before us and talk about his respect
for the Court, keeping politics out of the Court, calling it a pillar
of the American Government--has he forgotten what he did to Merrick
Garland?
Incidentally, despite his constitutional contortion that, for some
reason, in the last year of a Presidency, that President has given up
any constitutional right to fill a vacancy, Senator McConnell was
recently asked: Well, what if that happens in the last year of
President Trump's administration?
Well, he wasted no time saying: Of course, I would let President
Trump fill the vacancy--as transparent as possible his partisan motives
when it comes to that Supreme Court.
So if he wants to show respect for the Court, it certainly has not
been demonstrated, starting with the vacancy of Justice Scalia.
And how about Senator McConnell's single-minded effort to fill every
Federal vacancy across the United States as quickly as possible, sadly,
with many men and women who scarcely have any experience of service in
our judicial system?
So far, President Trump has sent to this Senate, with Senator
McConnell's acceptance and approval, nine nominees for the Federal
Judiciary who have been found ``not qualified'' by the American Bar
Association, many of them unanimously--nine men and women who have such
extreme backgrounds or such limited experience that they shouldn't sit
on the Federal bench. But Senator McConnell, with
[[Page S1512]]
his respect for the judiciary, couldn't wait to give them lifetime
appointments.
Oh, you ask: Wait a minute. What about President Obama? How many did
he send to the Senate who were found ``not qualified'' by the American
Bar Association? None. None, not one.
That is what we are facing here with Senator McConnell's singular
strategy to fill the courts with people who share his extreme views on
women's healthcare, on civil rights, and on so many other fundamental
issues.
So preaching on this floor about your respect for the Supreme Court,
your respect for our Federal judiciary doesn't go very far when you
take a close look at the record that Senator McConnell has written.
At this point, let me suggest that we move forward from this day and
not dwell on what the morning headlines might be. We have work to do,
and it would be better if we did it in a bipartisan fashion, with
respect for one another.
I stand ready to work with those on the other side of the aisle to
achieve that goal, but I want to say at this moment that dwelling on
this particular chapter doesn't serve the American people. They didn't
send us here to squabble and fight. They sent us here to pass important
legislation that respects their right to quality, accessible, and
affordable healthcare. They sent us here to make sure that women have
the basic constitutional right to make the most important personal
decisions of their lives. They sent us here to make sure that we serve
this country in giving working families a fighting chance. All of the
other things that we spend time talking about on this floor diminish in
comparison.
It is time for us to roll up our sleeves and let the Senate be more
than a rubberstamp for Federal judicial nominations when there are
partisan goals in mind by Senator McConnell and others.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Supreme Court
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, as I begin this morning, I want to
associate myself with the remarks of the Republican leader, Senator
McConnell, earlier this morning.
The attacks that were made by the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer,
on the Supreme Court yesterday were not only irresponsible; they were
reckless and they were shameful. I think we need to just call that what
it is.
For them to suggest--for him to suggest--that this isn't what he
meant and that this is somehow manufactured outrage on the part of us
or Republicans in general doesn't fit with the way that these comments
came across either, because I want to read for you from the CNN Supreme
Court reporter: ``Schumer, speaking at a rally of abortion rights
supporters, appeared to threaten Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, President
Trump's two Supreme Court nominees who were confirmed after bruising
nomination fights.''
That is the interpretation not of FOX News but of CNN.
I think we need to be very clear: When comments like that are made
that threaten an independent judiciary in this country, they need to be
called out and they need to be walked back. I appreciate the fact that
the Democratic leader acknowledged today that he should have said it
differently, but it doesn't in any way diminish what was said or the
context in which it was said or the attacks that were made on the
Supreme Court.
It needs to be recognized as that, and I think all of us need to be,
as U.S. Senators, aware--aware--no matter what the audience,
particularly when you are the Democratic leader, of how these things
come across and what they mean to the people who have been threatened
by them.
Coronavirus
Madam President, I am pleased that Republicans and Democrats in both
Chambers have quickly come together to provide emergency funding to
combat the coronavirus, and I look forward to voting this afternoon to
send this important funding measure to the President's desk.
5G
Madam President, on another subject, our Nation is poised for the
widespread deployment of the next generation of internet technology:
5G. With its incredible speed and connectivity, 5G will usher in a new
era of innovation. Advances in medical care, the large-scale deployment
of precision agriculture, safer transportation technologies--5G will
bring all of these things and more.
But, like any new technology, 5G networks will present new risks and
vulnerabilities. Because 5G will mean a vastly greater number of
connected devices, the risks with 5G will be greater. That is why an
essential part of deploying 5G networks has to be looking at how we can
mitigate security risks.
Yesterday, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, of which I am a member, held a hearing on supply chain
risks for 5G. We need to ensure that the component parts of our devices
and, critically, the component parts of telecommunications networks,
like cell towers and the small cells that will be required for 5G, are
secure.
That means ensuring that 5G equipment comes from trusted vendors.
Currently, one of the biggest suppliers of 5G equipment worldwide is a
Chinese company--Huawei--which is supported by the Chinese Government.
American security officials have raised concerns that much of Huawei's
equipment is built with ``backdoors,'' giving the Chinese Government
access to global communications networks.
The United States has taken a number of steps to prevent equipment
from Huawei and another suspect Chinese company, ZTE, from being used
in U.S. communications networks, but these companies still pose a risk
to the United States. For starters, some U.S. broadband providers,
often in rural areas, still have equipment from Huawei and ZTE in their
communications networks, and a number of our allies and trade partners,
entities with whom we regularly share information--including sensitive
national security information--have used or are using technology from
Huawei and ZTE.
Yesterday's Commerce Committee hearing focused on both of these
issues. We discussed so-called ``rip and replace,'' an initiative
already underway to replace suspect telecommunications components with
hardware from trusted companies.
Last week, the Senate unanimously passed the Secure and Trusted
Communications Networks Act, which is now with the President to be
signed into law. This legislation will help telecommunications
providers with the cost of replacing network components that pose a
security risk. I cosponsored this legislation, which was developed by
Commerce Committee Chairman Roger Wicker.
Madam President, cost is a major obstacle for small broadband
providers when it comes to replacing telecommunications hardware, but,
as one expert witness at the hearing noted, a lack of qualified
telecommunications workers also poses a barrier to replacement.
I recently introduced legislation, the Telecommunications Skilled
Workforce Act, to help increase the number of workers on the frontlines
of replacing this equipment and deploying new, secure 5G networks. I
hope this legislation will quickly make its way through the Senate.
Replacing problematic hardware in our domestic telecommunications
networks will help ensure the security of our communications for years
to come.
As I said earlier, that is not the only challenge that we are facing.
We regularly exchange information, including sensitive national
security information, with our allies and trading partners, and this
information can only be secure if networks on both ends are secure.
That is why the United States has called for other countries to reject
telecommunications technology from Huawei and ZTE. While some countries
have committed to using trusted companies to build out their
telecommunications networks, other countries are still planning to make
use of Huawei's technology.
That is why I am introducing legislation today to make
telecommunications security a key objective when
[[Page S1513]]
negotiating future trade deals. This legislation is critical as the
United States begins formal trade talks with the United Kingdom and
with other allies. We should be using trade agreements to push for
enhanced network security globally, which would benefit not only our
country but every country with which we do business.
As one witness noted at yesterday's hearing, this legislation is
``long overdue.'' I could not agree more. Over the past few years, we
have talked a lot about the importance of having the United States win
the global race to 5G. There are important reasons for that. For
starters, having the United States at the forefront of 5G technology
will mean big benefits for our economy and for American workers, but
there are also important security reasons to have the United States at
the head of the 5G revolution. If we lead the world in implementing 5G,
we will have the chance to set standards for 5G deployment--including,
most importantly, network security standards.
It is no exaggeration to say that having the chance to set worldwide
standards for 5G is critical--it is critical--to our national security.
Our telecommunications networks already play a huge role in our
national security, and that role will only grow as we fully adopt 5G
technology. We need to ensure that U.S. networks are as secure as it is
possible for them to be.
I appreciated the witnesses who took the time to address the Commerce
Committee yesterday. There is no better way to learn what needs to be
done for 5G security than to hear from the people on the ground who
spend every waking day managing network security issues. I look forward
to continuing to work with all of my colleagues in the Senate to
advance telecommunications security and ensure that the United States
is fully prepared for the 5G future.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Braun). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Coronavirus
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, later in the day, I will be making a
motion to table the Paul amendment that would require offsetting the
$7.76 billion for the coronavirus against the foreign operations
account.
Senator Paul is at it again. He is consistent. I respect his view; I
just reject it. What he would be doing is basically upending the fiscal
year 2020 agreement on foreign assistance spending passed by Congress
and signed into law by President Trump. He would be putting our Nation
at risk if this amendment actually passed.
One percent of the Federal spending is foreign assistance in
different fashions and ways, including our commitment to our friends in
Israel and other programs we have that I think are national-defense
oriented.
The U.S. Global Leadership Coalition--consisting of 500 businesses,
NGOs, military, and faith leaders--has warned that ``cuts of this
magnitude would have devastating consequences on our ability to
confront unprecedented global challenges--including countering China's
growing influence around the world, supporting partners in the fight
against extremism, and addressing the impacts of the Venezuelan refugee
crisis on key allies like Colombia.''
I would even go further: This cut would devastate the foreign
assistance account in terms of being able to deal effectively with the
effects of the virus overseas.
David Beasley, head of the World Food Programme, warned in an AP
article, which I would like to make part of the Record, that ``if the
coronavirus continues to create panic around the world, and there is an
economic downturn, I have been telling European leaders, and leaders
around the world, you don't have enough money set aside to address the
needs in Africa, East Africa, West Africa, in the Middle East right
now.''
We are only beginning to understand the cost associated with the
virus.
I want to compliment Senators Shelby and Leahy for putting this
package together. I compliment the White House, the Senate, and the
House. There was a huge vote in the House.
If we accept Senator Paul's offset amendment, we will be devastating
our ability as a nation to deal with this matter overseas.
As to Senator Paul's world view, I have consistently rejected it.
When it comes to international terrorism, I have no desire to go back
to the pre-9/11 footprint of where we ignore problems over there,
hoping they will not come here. When it comes to fighting disease and
containing viruses, I think we understand that we have to be present
over there, and in an effective way, to control the spread of the
coronavirus, Ebola, and other diseases that can make their way to
America.
We have always rejected these types of offsets by Senator Paul. I
think the best thing we can do is have an overwhelming bipartisan vote.
Count me in for dealing with the deficit, but this is penny wise and
pound foolish because the $7.6 billion, if it is taken out of the
foreign operations account, makes this country less safe on multiple
fronts.
I will be making a motion to table at the appropriate time. And I
urge my colleagues to understand that what happens over there matters
to us over here. This would devastate programs like the Benjamin Gilman
International Scholarships and participant schools like Berea College
and Western Kentucky University. There is a ripple effect of enormous
proportions. It is not going to do much for the debt, but it will do a
lot to make us less safe.
I yield to Senator Leahy.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, my friend and colleague on the floor--I
totally agree with what he just said. Senator Shelby and I will be
giving longer statements in a few minutes.
Senator Graham and I have had the duty to put through the Foreign
Operations bill for a number of years now. We tried to do it in a
bipartisan and nonpartisan way, and as a result, it has gotten very
strong support from both sides of the aisle, which is what we hope will
happen now.
I will certainly be voting with Senator Graham's motion to table when
he makes it. Every Senator--he or she--can vote any way they want, but
I would note for our colleagues, Senator Shelby and I and key
Senators--including the Senator now on the floor--in both parties have
worked every day, every evening, our staffs on weekends, in order to
get to where we are. This is a product of every single Republican,
every single Democrat who wanted a voice in this, a chance to speak to
it. Both Senator Shelby, as chairman, and I, as vice chairman, made
sure that voices were heard.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GRAHAM. I would like to again compliment you and Senator Shelby.
You always deliver. You always seem to be able to do things that other
people can't do at a time when we need you to deliver for the body and
the country.
Mr. President, I would like to have printed in the Record an article,
``UN food aid chief fears for Africa, Mideast amid new crises,'' and a
U.S. Global Leadership Coalition letter, dated March 5, 2020.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
UN Food Aid Chief Fears for Africa, Mideast Amid New Crises
[March 5, 2020]
Amman, Jordan (AP)--The head of the U.N.'s food aid agency
warned of ``absolute devastation'' in Africa and parts of the
Middle East in coming months if wealthier nations grappling
with an economic downturn linked to the new coronavirus don't
step up aid efforts in countries in need.
David Beasley, head of the World Food Program, told The
Associated Press that the convergence of several crises could
further destabilize conflict-scarred regions.
``If the corona virus continues to create panic around the
world, and there is an economic downturn, I have been telling
the European leaders, and leaders around the world, you don't
have enough money set aside to address the needs in Africa,
East Africa, West Africa, in the Middle East right now,''
Beasley said during an interview in Jordan late Wednesday,
after a visit to Syria.
``If there is an economic downturn, on top of the economic
downturn that exists now in Syria and Lebanon, it absolutely
could be a catastrophe,'' he said. ``I mean absolute
devastation. I am very concerned about what would happen in
the next six months. You
[[Page S1514]]
could see destabilization unlike any time period, maybe in my
lifetime.''
In the Middle East, Iran has been hardest hit by the new
virus which has spread around the globe after first being
detected in the Chinese city of Wuhan late last year. There
are over 3,740 cases of the virus across the Mideast, with
most linking back to the Islamic Republic which also
confirmed dozens of deaths. Only a small number of cases has
been reported in Sub-Saharan Africa so far.
Beasley did not give an amount for additional aid needed,
but suggested it would be in the billions of dollars. Beasley
spoke after a tour of Syria's northwestern ldlib province,
the country's last rebel stronghold, where hundreds of
thousands of civilians have been displaced in recent weeks by
a Russian-backed Syrian government offensive.
U.N. agencies, including the WFP, are distributing aid in
ldlib, but are often hampered by logistics problems,
including shifting front lines, access restrictions and roads
clogged by large numbers of people on the move.
The leaders of Russia, which backs the Syrian government,
and Turkey, which backs the rebels, were meeting in Moscow on
Thursday to try to avert further calamity. But any deal will
likely bring only a temporary halt in the punishing offensive
by the military of Syria's President Bashar Assad, which
threatens continued suffering for the 3 million people
trapped in ldlib.
Beasley appealed to leaders on all sides of the Syrian
conflict to end the war, which has raged for nine years.
``Enough is enough,'' he said. ``Too many people have
suffered too long.''
____
U.S. Global Leadership Coalition,
March 5, 2020.
Hon. Lindsey Graham,
Chairman, Subcommittee on State-Foreign Operations, Committee
on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Patrick Leahy,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on State-Foreign Operations,
Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Graham and Ranking Member Leahy: On behalf of
the more than 500 business and NGO members of the U.S. Global
Leadership Coalition {USGLC), including business, military,
and faith-based leaders in all 50 states, I write in strong
opposition to an amendment proposed by Senator Rand Paul that
would offset emergency funding to address the growing
coronavirus threat by canceling over $8 billion in
congressionally approved funds for the International Affairs
Budget.
If enacted, this amendment would cancel critical funding
for State Department, USAID, and other development programs
around the world, undermining our national security and
economic interests and placing America's global leadership at
risk. Cuts of this magnitude would have devastating
consequences on our ability to confront unprecedented global
challenges--including countering China's growing influence
around the world, supporting partners in the fight against
extremism, and addressing the impacts of the Venezuelan
refugee crisis on key allies like Colombia.
There is a strong bipartisan legacy in the Senate of
rejecting deep and dangerous cuts to America's development
and diplomacy programs. I urge the Senate to once again take
decisive action and reject Senator Paul's shortsighted
amendment. Doing so will ensure that resources already
approved by Congress can be fully deployed to support cost-
effective programs that advance America's interests.
Thank you for your unwavering support of America's
international affairs programs and your commitment to
strengthening the critical resources needed to advance
America's global leadership.
Sincerely,
Liz Schrayer,
President & CEO, USGLC.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wrap up by saying that Senator Paul is
consistent. Every time he wants to pay for something, he comes to the
foreign assistance account. I understand the argument: Why are we
spending over there when we have problems here? That sounds good until
you realize how the world is.
On September 10, 2001, the day before 9/11, we didn't have one
soldier in Afghanistan, not an embassy, not an ambassador, not a dime
of aid. The Taliban were in charge, and they gave al-Qaida safe haven.
That is where the planning of the attacks and 9/11 originated. Looking
back, wouldn't it have been nice to have had some influence in
Afghanistan on September 10?
All I can say is, I will never go back to that pre-9/11 mindset of
ignoring the world, because I have learned, like most Americans, the
world can come here in a very bad way or very good way, depending on
how we defend ourselves.
This 1 percent of the budget--foreign assistance to deal with
problems over there--is absolutely essential in terms of global health.
He exempted the global health component of the foreign assistance
account, but the money--$7.76 billion--will destroy other things in the
account that I think are vital to our public health here and our
national security and our alliances. You cannot fight problems like
this by yourself. You need partners. You need to get involved over
there so the virus doesn't spread any more here than necessary.
I hope that people will listen to what Senator Leahy just said, that
this was a negotiated agreement. We all came together to get a budget.
Senators Shelby and Leahy did a wonderful job working with the House
and the White House to get us to where we are today. This amendment
would upset everything. I am going to move to table it at the
appropriate time.
With that, 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. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________