washington, wednesday, june 19, 2019 no. 103 senate · 19.06.2019 · u n congressional record u m...

Congressional RecordUN

UME PLURIBUS

United Statesof America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 116th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

∑ This ‘‘bullet’’ symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor.

.

S3807

Vol. 165 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 2019 No. 103

Senate The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was

called to order by the President pro tempore (Mr. GRASSLEY).

f

PRAYER

The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of-fered the following prayer:

Let us pray. Ruler of history, giver of peace, guide

our lawmakers. Remind them that no Earthly power can cancel Your prom-ises. May they claim Your promise to supply their needs and to infuse them with Your spirit of peace. Lord, save them from the temptations of earthly security.

When their spirits shrivel, overtake our Senators with Your grace, mercy, and love. Break through estrangements and shatter the structures that lead us away from You.

We pray in Your strong Name. Amen. f

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The President pro tempore led the Pledge of Allegiance, as follows:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Repub-lic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

f

RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. BLACKBURN). Under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

f

CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business is closed.

f

EXECUTIVE SESSION

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will pro-

ceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomina-tion, which the clerk will report.

The bill clerk read the nomination of Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, of Texas, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Iowa.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask to speak as in morning business for 1 minute.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

MILITARY JUSTICE IMPROVEMENT ACT Mr. GRASSLEY. According to the

Pentagon’s estimation, a young woman in the military has a one-in-eight chance of being sexually assaulted. Un-fortunately, many cases are never pros-ecuted.

This is completely unacceptable. We must do more to prevent assaults and ensure that survivors get justice. The men and women who have volunteered to place their lives on the line deserve better.

The Military Justice Improvement Act would help ensure impartial justice and send the message that sexual as-sault in the military will not be toler-ated.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk proceeded to call the

roll. Mr. MCCONNELL. Madam President,

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.


RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ma-

jority leader is recognized. MARK ESPER

Mr. MCCONNELL. Madam President, first this morning, I want to express my gratitude for Acting Secretary Pat Shanahan, whom we learned yesterday will soon be leaving the Department of

Defense. The Acting Secretary has served in a crucial post during chal-lenging times and difficult cir-cumstances. His deliberate leadership and steady focus on implementing the national defense strategy served the Nation, the Pentagon, and the men and women of the Armed Forces very well.

I respect his decision to withdraw his candidacy, and I hope it will bring to an end the media’s scrutiny of his fam-ily.

It is unfortunate that this news means we are no closer to having a Senate-confirmed Secretary of Defense. As the Senate considers the NDAA this week, the many challenges facing our Nation are top of mind.

We need to modernize our military to meet the challenges posed by Russia and China. We need to stay assertive against local terrorism organizations like ISIS and al-Qaida until they are decisively defeated. We need to con-tinue to reform and enhance critical partnerships from NATO to the Middle East, to the Indo-Pacific. Of course, we face an urgent need to deter and defend against Iranian aggression.

These challenges and opportunities demand strong leadership. While the Senate still looks forward to consid-ering a nominee to formally serve as the Secretary of Defense, we should take heart in President Trump’s choice for the next Acting Secretary, Mark Esper, our current Secretary of the Army.

Mark Esper is no stranger to the Sen-ate. Among the many impressive stops on his résumé, he served with the For-eign Relations Committee and later as national security advisor to then-Ma-jority Leader Bill Frist. Many of us re-member his calming demeanor and his professionalism.

He served in several capacities at the Pentagon as well, including as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense. Imme-diately prior to becoming Secretary of the Army, he had also built a success-ful career in the private sector. All of

VerDate Sep 11 2014 07:44 Jun 20, 2019 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\A19JN6.000 S19JNPT1dlhi

ll on

DS

KB

BY

8HB

2PR

OD

with

SE

NA

TE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES3808 June 19, 2019 this came after Mr. Esper’s own deco-rated military service. His graduation from West Point was followed by Army Ranger training, which then led to serving in the Gulf war with the sto-ried 101st Airborne.

Given the precarious international situation and challenges facing our Na-tion, I am encouraged that an experi-enced, tested, and capable leader such as Secretary Esper will be at the helm in the Pentagon. I look forward to working closely with him to defend America and advance our interests.

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT Madam President, later today, the

Senate will officially turn to this year’s National Defense Authorization Act. Every year, this legislation fo-cuses this Chamber on one of our most fundamental constitutional duties— providing for the common defense. Every year, the Senate approves au-thorizing legislation to address the needs of America’s men and women in uniform.

Over the past 2 years, our working closely with the Trump administration on the NDAA has yielded big results. We have authorized major investments in everything from new, cutting-edge systems, to improved services for mili-tary families, to massive strides to-ward restoring the readiness of our all- volunteer force. Yet, as the headlines are reminding us every day, this is no time to let up. In fact, it is just the op-posite.

Russia’s designs on Eastern Europe and the Middle East have certainly not abated nor has Putin’s investment in long-range strike capabilities, from ad-vanced hypersonic weapons to new mis-siles to stealthy submarines, nor has China’s increasingly aggressive Pacific strategy nor has Iran’s hell-bent com-mitment to underwriting terrorism and proxy conflicts throughout the Middle East.

So this year’s NDAA is built with a heavy emphasis on strengthening our partnerships in the most troubled re-gions around the world. Of course, it also ensures that the U.S. military will sustain its place as the most-prepared, best-equipped, and most lethal fighting force in the world.

The legislation authorizes tens of bil-lions of dollars for new battle force ships and an expansion of the Joint Strike Fighter Program. It lays the groundwork for expanding missile de-fense batteries, and it delivers a $1.4 billion increase in funding for cutting- edge research and development.

From bases across America to posts overseas, the NDAA accounts for the needs of servicemembers and their fam-ilies. It also prioritizes military con-struction and addresses problems with military family housing. It streamlines the delivery of benefits through the de-fense health program, and it unlocks a 3.1-percent pay raise for uniformed per-sonnel.

Of course, our work on the floor in the coming days is just the last chap-ter. Our colleagues on the Armed Serv-

ices Committee and their staffs have been working overtime on this impres-sive legislation for many weeks. So, as we take the next step today, we should thank Chairman INHOFE and our col-leagues for their leadership thus far.

CLEAN POWER PLAN Madam President, on another mat-

ter, the previous administration left a sprawling mess of regulation tangled throughout the Federal Government and the U.S. economy.

Sweeping leftwing visions were dreamt up here in Washington and forced on farm families, domestic man-ufacturers, and small businesses throughout the country with there being very little regard for the con-sequences. The reach of regulators grew longer and longer, and the burden on American prosperity became heav-ier and heavier. So, naturally, rolling back much of this mess and putting Washington back in its place has been a major priority for the Republicans in Congress as well as for the Trump ad-ministration.

Yet some actions were so egregious and so likely illegal that the courts put a halt to them before we could even re-form or repeal them. As my colleagues recall, the implementation of the so- called Clean Power Plan was frozen by a Supreme Court stay more than 3 years ago, back in 2016.

The Obama administration’s War on Coal has already done plenty of damage in places like my home State of Ken-tucky, but at least this additional hammer blow on so many Americans’ livelihoods was held off. It would have weaponized a Federal agency to bury energy producers and all of those who depend on them under one-size-fits-all regulations with duplicative mandates and unrealistic timelines. Also, as the production of the most affordable and reliable energy available to American families would have dried up, it would have left higher electricity costs in its wake.

Higher domestic power prices would have meant fewer American jobs here at home with there having been no meaningful effect on global emissions. Any rational observer would have con-cluded that this regulation would have been all pain for no gain—just good American jobs having been shipped overseas.

This was a bad idea that many of us here in the Senate fought tooth and nail. Back in 2013 and 2014, after Presi-dent Obama’s EPA Administrator re-fused my request to come meet with Kentuckians, I held hearings in Ken-tucky about the negative impacts the plan would have actually had. I worked with Governors to hold off on its imple-mentation. I helped to spearhead an amicus brief in the legal proceedings and led on legislation to overturn the rule.

So unwinding this proposed economic self-sabotage and sticking up for work-ing families has been a top priority of mine and of many of my colleagues for years. Fortunately, it has also been a

major priority for the Trump adminis-tration. Last year, it announced a pro-posed rule to do away with it, and, later today, the EPA will be finalizing it and making it official. I look for-ward to the administration’s rolling out a new policy that upholds the rule of law, keeps the EPA within its statu-tory role, and encourages American en-ergy reliability and affordability.

This is just one more win for all Americans who live and work in com-munities where affordable, homegrown American energy sources like coal still matter a great deal. It is another win for States like Kentucky. It is nice to have an administration that isn’t nar-rowly focused on just big, blue, urban areas but that looks out for all of our country.

BORDER SECURITY Madam President, on one final mat-

ter, as I have noted before, my col-leagues on the Appropriations Com-mittee will today begin marking up a stand-alone funding measure to address the humanitarian crisis on our south-ern border.

By now, it can hardly be more obvi-ous that the border crisis is unaccept-able and unsustainable. I think all of us know perfectly well that immigra-tion is a politically charged subject. Yet, surely, at a minimum, Congress ought to at least be able to provide these emergency funds. This is what my Republican colleagues and I have been saying over and over again for weeks.

Remember, we are talking about money for noncontroversial purposes, mostly for humanitarian efforts. These are resources so that authorities can better accommodate the men, women, and children who have been turning up in record numbers on our southern bor-der—resources to alleviate the over-crowding in facilities and to lighten the untenable burden that our over-stretched agencies are having to bear. Whatever the Senate’s other disagree-ments—and there are, certainly, plenty of them—this funding, for these pur-poses and in the midst of this crisis, should be a slam dunk.

I will not repeat here all of the facts and statistics to show why the status quo is so unsustainable. By now, we all know that the agencies along our bor-der are running on fumes.

The Acting Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection has said:

We are at a full-blown emergency . . . The system is broken.

The Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement put it this way:

We are begging. We are asking Congress to please help us.

As I have noted several times, even the New York Times’ editorial board has seen fit to side with the Trump ad-ministration on this issue. One of its two editorials on this subject was head-lined: ‘‘Congress, Give Trump His Bor-der Money.’’

It has now been 50 days since Presi-dent Trump submitted a request for

VerDate Sep 11 2014 07:44 Jun 20, 2019 Jkt 089060 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 0624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G19JN6.003 S19JNPT1dlhi

ll on

DS

KB

BY

8HB

2PR

OD

with

SE

NA

TE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S3809 June 19, 2019 emergency aid for badly overstretched agencies. In that time, partisan resist-ance has blocked progress. At least one House Democrat from a border State has publicly admitted that the left flank inside his own caucus has been the obstacle here. Yet, here in the Sen-ate, I think many of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, hope and expect that we can do better than that. This body can take the lead, set a better standard, and deliver a clear message.

If the Appropriations Committee can approve this legislation today across party lines, it will be a big sign of progress. A big bipartisan vote will be a big step toward the Senate’s forging a real consensus, where House Demo-crats have failed, and finally getting this urgently needed funding moving.

I am grateful to Chairman SHELBY and Ranking Member LEAHY for finding common ground and generating this progress.

I urge my fellow committee members on the Democratic side to finally put partisanship aside and vote to advance the kind of targeted, bipartisan solu-tion that this crisis has needed for weeks.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-ator from Illinois.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.


Mr. DURBIN. I will yield when the minority leader, Senator SCHUMER, comes to the floor.

PRESCRIPTION DRUG COSTS Madam President, a recent briefing

told us a story that most Americans can, certainly, understand. People are saying: I can’t afford to have cancer. What does that mean? It means the ob-vious—that 40 percent of Americans lose their entire life savings in 2 years or less after having a cancer diagnosis. The cost of healthcare, particularly for a serious illness, is so high that if you don’t have a really good health insur-ance plan, it will wipe you out. That is the reality.

So is it any wonder that we are con-cerned about the lawsuit filed by the Trump administration and supported by Republican State attorneys general that would remove the guarantee in the law that reads that people with preexisting conditions can have health insurance? That, to me, is funda-mental.

Over a majority of Americans either have a preexisting condition or have someone in the family with such a con-dition. Without the protection of health insurance, people can find them-selves literally wiped out. When we hear that fewer than 50 percent of the people in this country have $1,000 in savings, we can understand that even a trip to an emergency room can wipe out the meager savings people have been able to put together during the course of their lifetimes.

Why do Republicans and this Presi-dent still seem determined to lessen

the coverage of health insurance for an American population that is so vulner-able to the high cost of healthcare?

When you ask the major insurance companies what is driving up the cost of health insurance premiums, they tell you it is pretty obvious. More than anything, it is the cost of prescription drugs.

Last night, in Florida, President Trump announced his plans for reelec-tion. I guess my first question to him is this: Will you finish what you prom-ised 4 years ago? On two of the things he promised—infrastructure and doing something about prescription drugs— he has done nothing.

How bad is the prescription drug sit-uation in this country? As I said, it is the biggest driver of the increase in health insurance premiums. When you look at the specifics, you can see it.

Take a look at America’s insulin scandal. Insulin was discovered almost 100 years ago by two Canadian re-searchers who surrendered the U.S. patent rights for $1 and said at the time that no one should ever get rich on this lifesaving drug. Now look at what we are faced with—Humalog, made by Eli Lilly, a common insulin product. Humalog cost $21 a vile in 1996. That same vile of Humalog today costs $275—$21 to $275 unless you live in Canada. If you live in Canada, the exact drug, made by the same com-pany, sells for $39. It costs $39 just across the border in Canada and $275 here in the United States.

Is it any wonder that people with dia-betes are rationing their insulin and, in doing so, endangering their health, with, sadly, many losing their lives be-cause of that decision?

Why aren’t we taking this on? The American people identify this as one of their major concerns when it comes to their economic vulnerability.

We are not taking it on because of the political muscle of PhRMA and the pharmaceutical companies. Sadly, they have this Chamber in a position where we are not entertaining legislation that would control prescription drug pricing, and, frankly, we have no legis-lative proposal coming forward by the Trump administration.

There are many good ideas out there. For example, do you ever see an ad for a pharmaceutical drug on television? If you don’t, then you don’t own a tele-vision. You can barely turn them on now without some ad for pharma drugs. It reaches the point where people learn how to pronounce and even spell Xarelto, having watched the ad so many times, and they can recite back to you what is said about various drugs that are advertised over and over.

The problems is, of course, that all of the information they give you, as fast as they can talk in 60 or 90 seconds, never includes the price. It never in-cludes the price. HUMIRA, the most heavily advertised drug on television today—how much does it cost for this drug to treat psoriatic arthritis and to clear up the little red spot of psoriasis

on your elbow? It costs $5,000 a month—$5,000 a month.

If they were forced to advertise the price of the drug, with all of the claims that they make for the drugs, Ameri-cans would at least be notified about what they are getting into if they go to a doctor and ask for HUMIRA, but they will not. They refuse to disclose it.

So in fairness, the Trump adminis-tration’s Dr. Azar, the head of HHS, called me last year and said he sup-ported the bill that I had introduced calling for price disclosure. The admin-istration is trying to do this by regula-tion, and I applaud them for that. There is so much more we can do, but I applaud them for that.

Who turned around to sue them in court to stop the requirement of price disclosure on ads? The pharmaceutical companies, including Eli Lilly, the one I just mentioned that has the scan-dalous pricing of insulin. They don’t want Americans to know what they are charging for these drugs. They would rather fight this out over emails be-tween insurance companies and pre-scription benefit managers and the like.

Well, it is time for us as a Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to ac-knowledge that we have had enough of this. We want pharma to be profitable so that they engage in more research for more cures, of course, but we can’t stand by idly and watch this price gouging at the expense of American pa-tients, those with diabetes and other serious conditions. We should insist, when it comes to pharma, that they have actual price competition.

They can have a patent period where they have exclusive rights to sell a drug. That is the incentive for them to discover these drugs. But there comes a point when there are supposed to be other drugs on the market—generic drugs—that offer the same benefits as the original brand-name drugs but at a much lower price. That was the design of the system. It has fallen apart.

The major drugs for sale in the United States today are going up pre-cipitously in price. In the first 2 years of the Trump administration, 2,500 major drugs in this country saw their cost increase by double digits. That is what we are faced with while the Sen-ate does nothing.

Senator MCCONNELL was here today speaking about the agenda and what we need to do. Well, I certainly agree with him. The situation at our border needs to be addressed, and it should be quickly. We are going to take it up this morning in the Appropriations Com-mittee. But beyond that, we need to take a step to deal with the issues that people really care about, issues that af-fect their daily lives, and No. 1 on that list—and they tell us No. 1 on their own list—is the cost of prescription drugs.

Now is the time for this Congress and Senate to act. You see this empty Chamber? It should be filled with Mem-bers of the Senate debating bills to


ll on

DS

KB

BY

8HB

2PR

OD

with

SE

NA

TE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES3810 June 19, 2019 bring down the high cost of prescrip-tion drugs. Instead, it is silent, and the best we can do is to get a speech from a Senator from Illinois.

So I hope someone is listening, and I certainly hope Senator MCCONNELL’s office is listening.

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT Madam President, thank you to

Chairman INHOFE and Ranking Member REED and their staff for their work to produce the Fiscal Year 2020 defense authorization bill. The Senate has spent very little time actually working on legislation this Congress so I look forward to considering this bipartisan bill and debating amendments.

This bill that the Senate is expected to consider soon authorizes $750 billion for defense—far higher than last year’s amount of $716 billion, and far higher than the House version of $733 billion. This is because we are all committed to a strong national defense and for the protection of our men and women in uniform. But we also must make crit-ical investments in other parts of the federal government that also con-tribute to a strong national defense.

Before becoming Secretary of De-fense, then-General Mattis was fond of noting that if Congress doesn’t fund the State Department then he’d need to buy more bullets.

We cannot hope to compete against China and Russia if we are not making critical federal investments here at home in everything from medical and science research to affordable, quality education.

So while this defense authorization bill is an important step, we must reach an agreement on budget negotia-tions so that we can begin working on appropriations bills as soon as possible.

Now let me mention a few key issues in this bill.

There is widespread agreement about the importance of space and the seri-ousness of the threats posed to our as-sets in space. We also all agree that the Defense Department needs to ensure that it prioritizes space personnel and equipment so that the issue doesn’t get lost among many important defense concerns. But many of us were openly skeptical about the Department’s pro-posal for a significant $2 billion ‘‘Space Force’’ bureaucracy.

Should we spend $2 billion on bu-reaucracy, or should we invest it in new, real space capabilities? The NDAA reaches a reasonable compromise on this subject. It elevates U.S. Space Command as a co-equal combatant command. It places more focus on space at the Secretary of Defense level, and it does not impose a large bureauc-racy on the Air Force.

I appreciate this compromise, and I look forward to continuing to work with the chairman and ranking mem-ber to ensure that we are focused on providing clear organization and em-phasizing real capabilities over more bureaucracy.

Another area we need to focus on is the process—the painfully long proc-

ess—that the Department of Defense has for developing and fielding new weapons systems.

One of the most illuminating—and frustrating—hearings this year in the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee was with DOD’s head of research, Dr. Griffin.

It is clear from our conversation that the Pentagon is not moving at the speed of relevance in terms of deciding on new weapons systems and delivering them in reasonable timeframes. Dr. Griffin noted that the most advanced aircraft ever built—the SR–71 Black-bird—was designed, built, and flown in less time than it takes some parts of the bureaucracy these days to decide what to do next.

This has to improve. So I thank the chairman and ranking member for in-corporating a reform I have proposed to speed up the process that the Pen-tagon goes through to conduct its ini-tial analysis of alternatives. We know that this analysis of alternatives has dragged on for 18 months . . . 24 months . . . 27 months, in some cases. It is unconscionable. I hope this amendment can limit this nonsense and get the Department moving again.

I also appreciate the chairman and ranking member working with me to extend lease authorities for depots and arsenals such as Rock Island Arsenal in Illinois and on the honorary promotion of Tuskegee Airman Colonel Charles McGee, a true American hero.

I also hope that we can debate two other amendments I have introduced, which go to the heart of Congress’s constitutional duties.

The first is the need for Congress to stop abdicating its responsibility on matters of war and peace. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to declare war. I voted for the war in Afghanistan, but I never imagined that we would still be there 18 years later, or that the bill I voted for back in 2001 would still be on the books, unchanged.

My amendment would sunset all au-thorizations for the use of force after 10 years so that Congress can take up the issue and engage in its constitutional duties.

I have also cosponsored an amend-ment led by Senator UDALL making clear that Congress has not given the executive branch any authority what-soever to go to war against Iran.

These are matters of war and peace which demand this Chamber’s atten-tion. Think of the places around the globe currently justified under the 2001 AUMF voted on 18 years ago. Think of how dangerous and destabilizing a third war in the Middle East would be. I fear that we are drifting in that direc-tion. Congress must step in.

My other amendment deals with this President’s unbelievable decision to take money from our military so that our servicemembers could pay for his medieval wall on the southwest border.

It used to be that Mexico was going to pay for the wall. Remember that?

The President boasted about that more than 200 times on the campaign trail and in the Oval Office. But in Feb-ruary, he announced instead that he would take $6.1 billion from the troops and put it toward building a wall.

We need a robust debate on the prop-er, effective way to respond to the hu-manitarian crisis at our border. But taking money from our men and women in uniform is not the way to do it. I hope we can debate this more.

Madam President, I hope that we may be able to debate these issues dur-ing floor consideration of this author-ization bill. In the meantime, I reit-erate my thanks to Chairman INHOFE and Ranking Member REED for their work on this bill.

Mr. DURBIN. 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. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CRAMER). Without objection, it is so or-dered.

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, this week

we will begin consideration of the Na-tional Defense Authorization Act, the annual legislation to authorize funding for our military and national defense. This year’s legislation builds on last year’s bill, with its emphasis on restor-ing military readiness and ensuring that we are prepared to meet threats from major powers like China and Rus-sia.

Some may take it for granted that we have the strongest military in the world, but our military strength, built on the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform, requires sus-tained investment. In recent years, budgetary impasses paired with in-creased operational demands have left our Armed Forces with manpower defi-cits and under-equipped for confronting the threats of the 21st century. Given the multitude of threats around the world, we cannot afford to become complacent or ease our preparedness. The truth is, the last time our military underwent a comprehensive moderniza-tion, Ronald Reagan was President.

In November 2018, the bipartisan Na-tional Defense Strategy Commission released a report warning that our readiness had eroded to the point where we might struggle to win a war against a major power like Russia or China. The Commission noted that we would be especially vulnerable if we were ever called on to fight a war on two fronts. Repairing this readiness deficit has to be one of Congress’s most important priorities.

Last year’s National Defense Author-ization Act took major steps forward on modernization, making significant and targeted investments in the re-search, manpower, and materiel needed to equip our military to face 21st-cen-tury threats. We have made real


ll on

DS

KB

BY

8HB

2PR

OD

with

SE

NA

TE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S3811 June 19, 2019 progress, but there is a lot more work to be done.

This year’s National Defense Author-ization Act focuses on building on the progress we have made. It invests in the planes, combat vehicles, and ships of the future, including the Joint Strike Fighter and the future B–21 bomber, which will be based at Ells-worth Air Force Base in my home State of South Dakota. It authorizes funding for research and development and advanced technology. It authorizes funds to modernize our nuclear arsenal to maximize our deterrence capabili-ties. It also focuses on ensuring that we are equipped to meet threats on new fronts, including in the space and cyber domains.

It is important that we invest in these new areas of the battlefield to en-sure we are prepared to meet and de-feat threats. We are once again in an era of great power competition, where states like China and Russia harbor imperial ambitions. The National De-fense Authorization Act will help en-sure that we have a credible deterrence and are equipped to meet threats from great powers as well as rogue states and terrorist organizations. This legis-lation will also invest in our relation-ships with key allies and security part-ners to help counter shared threats.

Importantly, this NDAA will help our military bases rebound from recent natural disasters.

Finally, of course, this legislation will invest in our most important re-source—our troops and in their fami-lies.

This year’s National Defense Author-ization Act authorizes a 3.1-percent pay increase for our troops, the largest in-crease in a decade. They more than de-serve it, and an increase is important for recruitment and retention in our All-Volunteer Force when the economy is as strong as it is.

The bill also focuses on addressing the recent significant health and safety issues faced by many families with pri-vate on-base housing, and it contains measures to support military spouses seeking employment and increased ac-cess to childcare on military installa-tions.

It also allows parental leave to be taken in multiple increments, better adapting to the lives of our warfighters.

In his first annual address to Con-gress, George Washington noted: ‘‘To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.’’

There is no better way to preserve peace and protect our Nation than to ensure that the U.S. military is the best equipped, most capable fighting force in the world.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the National Defense Authorization Act and to give our mili-tary men and women the tools they need to defend the country.


clerk will call the roll.

The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum be rescinded.


RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Democratic leader is recognized. ADMINISTRATION POLICIES

Mr. SCHUMER. Now, if there is one word to describe the State of the Trump administration, it is ‘‘chaos.’’ The administration’s policy at the bor-der is in chaos; the administration’s foreign policy is in chaos; and the Trump administration itself is in chaos: the vacancies in so many agen-cies, people within the administration fighting with each other, and the Presi-dent tweeting away, even if it is unconnected to the people who actu-ally administer the policies.

So even though this has been a con-stant theme in the Trump Presidency— the chaos within—it is getting worse and more alarming.

On the border, the President an-nounces a new cockamamie policy al-most every day: a national emergency to build a wall, tariffs with Mexico, shutting down the border entirely, mass arrests and deportations inside in our borders. Many of these ‘‘policies’’ were announced by tweet with little or no thought or force of action behind them. Not one of them has been imple-mented, even though the President could implement many on his own. Most were tossed aside as casually as they were announced, and it is easy to see why. The policies he has announced at the border are cruel, inhumane, inef-fective, and most are impossible to carry out.

Meanwhile, the Trump administra-tion is cutting off security assistance to Central American countries—the one thing his administration was doing to stem migration and address the root causes in the first place. Even on the issue the President talks about most, the chaos of his administration is mak-ing the problem exponentially worse, not better.

It doesn’t get any better when it comes to the administration’s foreign policy. In response to increased activ-ity from Iran, the President has now announced two deployments of 1,000 troops or more without even explaining to the American people what is hap-pening and why. As Commander in Chief, he owes it to the American peo-ple, and especially our troops, to clar-ify what he hopes to achieve in the Middle East. What is the strategy? What is the goal? What is the limit of what we will do, and what are the things we will do? Any foreign policy expert will tell you outlining these things helps the strategy and helps build support for it. Does the President have clear goals? Does he have a strat-egy or, once again, when he wakes up in the morning and thinks—one day, he tweets about it, and the next day he

thinks something else and tweets something different or even contradic-tory.

We have no earthly clue to the Presi-dent’s strategy or goals because, like everything else in his administration, his foreign policy is wracked by chaos.

The Trump administration, in terms of its personnel and leadership, is in chaos as well. Yesterday the Presi-dent’s choice for Secretary of Defense withdrew. Where was the vetting? Why wasn’t this known by the White House long before he got to this level? So now the most powerful military in the world has been without a Senate-con-firmed Secretary since Secretary Mattis resigned in December of last year—6 months without a confirmed head of the DOD. How can we conduct a foreign policy, a military policy with no head of DOD?

The administration is escalating ten-sions in Iran and sending troops over-seas without a permanent Defense Sec-retary, someone who is really in charge and thoroughly vetted at the helm. It is not just the Defense Department where chaos reigns. The positions of Homeland Security Secretary, OMB Secretary, SBA Administrator, Ambas-sador to the U.N., and even the Chief of Staff in the White House are all in the acting capacity.

It is a revolving door. People want to leave. Most people of substance can’t stand the chaos and misdirection from the President, and we have had less fo-cused attention to issue after issue from this President than any in a very long time because of chaos. The insti-tutions of our government under Don-ald Trump lack steady and experienced leadership. It is a crisis of competence. The President is making decisions without proper counsel, preparation, or even communications between the rel-evant agencies. It is policy by whim. The withdrawal of his Secretary of De-fense nomination is only the latest ex-ample of an administration in chaos.

I raise these points not to disparage the President but because the swirling chaos in his administration hurts the American people. It has frustrated our ability to find real solutions at the bor-der and stunted progress on issues Americans care about, like infrastruc-ture and healthcare. Above all, I fear the chaos in the White House could lead our country closer to a conflict with Iran that most Americans want to avoid.

In short, the amateur hour must end. The U.S. Government is not an episode of ‘‘The Apprentice.’’ It is real life with real consequences. It is deadly serious business. For the sake of the country, the Trump administration needs to get its act together.

CLIMATE CHANGE Mr. President, now on climate, when

I come to the floor to speak on matters of legislation, it is almost always about legislation here in Congress. But in our Federal system of government, the States, too, have enormous power to shape the current events in our country.


ll on

DS

KB

BY

8HB

2PR

OD

with

SE

NA

TE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES3812 June 19, 2019 Today, I want to talk about a bill in

my home State of New York that I be-lieve will do just that. A few weeks ago, I endorsed the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, a bill that would put New York on a course for a net zero economy, meaning neg-ligible to no carbon pollution by the year 2050. It is an ambitious target, but we need ambition because we live in unprecedented times.

We are witnessing human-caused cli-mate change in the storms, floods, droughts, wildfires, and other extreme weather that has throttled our country in recent years. It has caused loss of life and destruction of livelihoods all over the country and all across the world. We must prioritize the urgency of climate change, and we must recog-nize the need to take bold steps to con-front it aggressively.

It is unfortunate that here in Con-gress, because of our Republican col-leagues, we don’t do a thing, not one single thing on climate change. The bills the House has sent over and the bills that Democratic Senators have proposed end up in Leader MCCON-NELL’s legislative graveyard. Nothing happens, and climate gets worse.

Thank God the States are doing something, and that is why I supported the climate bill in New York State. That is why I am so proud today that my State’s legislative leaders have reached an agreement that will clear the way for its passage, with a vote in the Senate as soon as this evening.

I look forward to watching my State pass the most robust climate policy package passed by any State in the country. I am proud of that fact. I hope that it serves as an example for other States to follow, another catalyst for the national debate about how we can tackle climate change, and a reminder that we, in Congress, must do our part.

NOMINATIONS Mr. President, Leader MCCONNELL

comes to the floor often to laud the quality of his party’s judicial picks. But even the slightest scrutiny reveals that many of these judicial picks will disgrace the Federal bench.

Take the nominees we are consid-ering this week. Several have terrible records on women’s reproductive health, LGBTQ equality, and other issues, but Matthew Kacsmaryk from the Northern District of Texas takes the cake. Mr. Kacsmaryk has dem-onstrated a hostility to the LGBTQ community bordering on paranoia. He has opposed marriage equality. He has defended businesses that discriminate against people on sexual orientation, and he has opposed Equal Employment Opportunity Commission protections for people based on orientation.

Here is what he said. This is a man who is being given a lifetime appoint-ment to the Federal bench. He said the nationwide right to marriage equality was a ‘‘road to potential tyranny.’’ He called the inclusion of LGBTQ protec-tions in VAWA ‘‘a grave mistake.’’ He labeled the Equality Act a ‘‘public af-

firmation of the lie that the human person is an autonomous blob of Silly Putty, unconstrained by nature or biol-ogy, and that marriage, sexuality, gen-der identity, and even the unborn child must yield to the erotic desires of lib-erated adults.’’

This is a judge? Is this someone who is weighing both sides carefully and who is giving equal consideration to plaintiffs and defendants?

It is unbelievable that this man has been nominated, and he is not alone. The parade of narrowminded, often big-oted people who are being put on the bench simply because they are mem-bers of the Federalist Society is un-precedented in this country—unprece-dented.

Beyond his work for the anti-LGBTQ group called the First Liberty Insti-tute—which boasts such luminaries as Jeff Mateer, who said transgender chil-dren were ‘‘part of Satan’s plan’’—Mr. Kacsmaryk has no judicial experience. None. Why on Earth is this man a nominee for a lifetime appointment? Why would my colleagues want to drape black robes over these bigoted views? Our judicial system is designed to protect liberties, not denigrate them.

One Republican Senator rightfully voiced concerns about this man’s fit-ness. Where are the others? Where are the others? I urge my friends on the other side to study this man’s record because any fairminded look at his qualifications would demand a ‘‘no’’ on his nomination.

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. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask


The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SASSE). Without objection, it is so or-dered.

ESCAPE ACT Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, we

talked a lot in recent weeks about the importance of a transatlantic political and military alliance between our country and many other nations. In celebrating NATO’s 70th anniversary in Washington a few months ago and the 75th anniversary of D-day in Europe, there has been a common theme, and that common theme has been security cooperation. The common theme has been a need to strengthen our response to threats that continue to arise around the globe.

I believe energy security is a critical part of our shared defense. That is why I just introduced legislation to help our NATO allies escape Russian bullying by improving European energy secu-rity. My bill imposes sanctions on Rus-sia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline. It also speeds up U.S. natural gas exports to our NATO allies.

For years I have raised concerns about Russia’s energy export pipeline project. Nord Stream 2 would carry

added Russian natural gas supplies to Germany via the Baltic Sea. It would do it along the existing Nord Stream 1 route. This pipeline will fuel Russian aggression as well as regional insta-bility. For our sake and the sake of our allies, we must stop it.

Nord Stream 2 makes Europe and our NATO allies more dependent on Russia and so more prone to Russian influ-ence. It also means a massive money transfer from our allies straight into the Kremlin’s pockets. That is new money that Russia can use to fund their military.

As we know, Russian President Vladimir Putin is no friend. He is a dangerous foe, and he has plans to di-vide Europe and destroy NATO. Putin uses Russia’s military and economy as tools of intimidation. One of Russia’s biggest economic levers, of course, is its gas monopoly in Europe. In fact, Putin has a history of using his Rus-sian energy resources as a geopolitical weapon.

Russia literally threatens to turn off the gas if its demands are not met. Putin did cut off natural gas supplies to Ukraine in 2006, again in 2009, and most recently in 2014. Of course, 2014 was the year that Russia invaded Ukraine and Crimea. Currently, most Russian gas exports to Europe must cross Ukraine, but by using Nord Stream 2 to bypass this route, Russia can freely undermine Ukraine’s econ-omy.

Putin threatens not just Ukraine but also our NATO ally Poland. Just last week Poland’s President was here in Washington meeting with President Trump to discuss security issues. Un-like Germany, Poland is working to free itself from Russian energy reli-ance. Poland has signed a deal to buy an additional $8 billion of abundant re-liable American natural gas, and this is on top of the $25 billion already under contract.

At the meeting last week, President Trump said he is considering Nord Stream 2 sanctions. He also warned Germany to end its dependence on Mos-cow. President Trump rightly noted: ‘‘We’re protecting Germany from Rus-sia and Russia is getting billions and billions of dollars from Germany.’’

The President is right. He went on to add: ‘‘Reliance on a single foreign sup-plier of energy leaves nations totally vulnerable to coercion and extortion.’’

The Economist magazine calls Nord Stream 2 ‘‘a Russian trap’’—one that Germany has fallen into. I agree with the President and I agree with the Economist. Nord Stream 2 will com-pletely undermine the European Union’s efforts to diversify energy sources, suppliers, and routes.

Already, Russia supplies nearly 40 percent of European Union gas im-ports, and European demand for nat-ural gas is expected to continue to grow rapidly. Many of our NATO allies, especially Germany, are becoming ad-dicted to Russian gas. It is time for American intervention.


ll on

DS

KB

BY

8HB

2PR

OD

with

SE

NA

TE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S3813 June 19, 2019 The bill I just introduced will help

our allies to escape Putin’s trap. The bill is actually called the ESCAPE Act. It stands for the Energy Security Co-operation with Allied Partners in Eu-rope Act. It mandates sanctions on Nord Stream 2, as well as other Rus-sian pipeline projects. At the same time, it speeds up U.S. gas exports to NATO allies. The bill also creates a transatlantic energy security strategy, and it directs our NATO representative to help our allies and our partners im-prove their own energy security.

The ESCAPE Act builds on previous action in Congress. The Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanc-tions Act, which Congress passed in 2017, authorizes but does not require sanctions on Russian energy pipelines.

In March of 2018, I led a bipartisan group of 39 Senators in sending a letter to key administration officials oppos-ing Nord Stream 2. President Trump has made clear time after time that he believes Europe’s reliance on Russian gas undermines regional security. The United States, especially Wyoming, has been blessed with abundant natural gas resources and supplies. We have more than enough gas to meet America’s needs, as well as exporting gas to other countries. So why shouldn’t we use some of these energy resources to help our friends in Europe, as well as our own energy workers here at home.

Last summer I published an op-ed in the Washington Post saying:

We made clear that we want to roll back Russia’s energy invasion of Europe. Now Congress should take the next step and man-date sanctions.

Freeing Europe from Russian energy dependence will strengthen both our al-lies and our NATO alliance. It is time to shut off Putin’s pipeline valve and open Europe’s escape valve. It is time to pass the ESCAPE Act.


clerk will call the roll. The senior assistant bill clerk pro-

ceeded to call the roll. Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask



HONG KONG Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, this past

week we saw the largest protest in Hong Kong since 2014. Millions turned out in order to protest the erosion of civil rights, human rights, and good governance in Hong Kong, violating the commitment that was made during the July 1, 1997, transfer of Hong Kong from the United Kingdom to China.

We saw China backtracking in 2014 on its electoral changes, when the can-didate for the Chief Executive had to be screened by the Chinese Govern-ment, contrary to the commitments that were made when Hong Kong’s re-lationship with the United Kingdom ended.

The protests in 2014 were called the Umbrella Movement because a large

amount of protesters, who were being attacked by the police with tear gas, were using umbrellas to protect them-selves from the tear gas itself. The ‘‘one country, two systems’’ that was developed after the United Kingdom re-linquished its control in 1997 was a commitment that Hong Kong would be a capitalistic system and the way of life that existed before the transfer to the Chinese would be upheld and un-changed. That was the commitment that was given, and that commitment has not been lived up to by China.

There is the Chinese interference we saw in 2014, and then this time we saw the government of Hong Kong try to implement an extradition law that pro-vided real concern about people who disagreed with what is happening in China and who wanted to protest about their universal rights of being sub-jected to extradition to China.

This is not hypothetical; this is a real concern. Two million people went to the streets this month in Hong Kong to protest that erosion of rights in Hong Kong, basically at the insistence of the Chinese Government.

This is not theoretical. Lam Wing- kee is one example. I can give many ex-amples. In 2015, he mysteriously dis-appeared. He was selling literature in Hong Kong that was banned by the Chi-nese Communist Party in China, not Hong Kong, supposedly. He disappeared from the streets and ended up in China, in solitary confinement in one of their prisons. He was ultimately allowed to leave with certain commitments. He decided to flee to Taiwan and stay safe there.

There are so many other examples of individuals who are in jeopardy. The extradition law that was being pro-posed really put the fear into those people who live in Hong Kong and visit Hong Kong that if they did anything that would upset the Chinese Govern-ment, they could be charged with a crime in China and extradited to China, never to be seen again.

Millions turned out in protest. As a result of the protests and, quite frank-ly, the international spotlight on what was happening in Hong Kong, the gov-ernment decided to withdraw the ex-tradition—the proposed law, but they didn’t say they would withdraw it per-manently and made no commitments about any future. And, of course, the current chief executive remains there, which is very much against the reforms that were supposed to take place.

The United States has spoken on this issue. The United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 allows the United States to treat the territory as sepa-rate from the rest of China politically, economically, and otherwise under cer-tain conditions. Those conditions are that Hong Kong remain sufficiently au-tonomous from China and that the rights of its citizens be protected. That is specific in our law.

I question, as I think many of us do, whether Hong Kong and China are com-plying with the conditions under which

the United States passed the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 that allows for preferential treatment in Hong Kong that is not enjoyed by China.

Last week, Senator RUBIO and I, with the support of the chairman and rank-ing member of the Senate Foreign Re-lations Committee, introduced the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democ-racy Act. It reaffirms the act that we passed in 1992 to make it clear that Hong Kong’s recognition by the United States and its trading relationship with the United States and its special relationship with the United States— much different from China—only exist if the conditions on autonomy are maintained.

Under this legislation, we require the administration to periodically certify to us that Hong Kong is, in fact, in compliance with the conditions of the 1992 law. If not, special exceptions would no longer be valid. We also put into this statute sanctions against those who are responsible for abridging the human rights of people in Hong Kong. This is similar to what we did in regard to the Magnitsky statutes.

I am very proud of the work this Chamber did, particularly the work I was able to do with our late colleague Senator McCain on passing the Magnitsky laws. We first applied it to Russia. We then applied it globally. Now we have seen other countries also apply these sanctions where if a person violates basic, internationally recog-nized human rights, that individual is denied the opportunity to visit Amer-ica by not allowing any visa or the use of our banking system. We extend those types of sanctions in regard to those who are violating the rights of the people of Hong Kong.

Let me point out that our foreign policy—our strength is American val-ues. It is the values we stand for as a nation—democracy, support for human rights, the basic freedom of people, re-ligious freedom. Those are the values America brings to our engagement globally. It is important that we be on the right side of history in regard to Hong Kong and that the Congress and the American people stand in soli-darity with the people of Hong Kong; that we stand with them and the com-mitment that was given in 1997 that Hong Kong would be different and au-tonomous from China and the rights of their people would be protected, as they were under British control.

It is important today that the Sen-ate, the Congress, the American people, and our government stand by those commitments and stand with the peo-ple of Hong Kong. We saw millions show up this week to show their sup-port for these principles. We must stand with those people.

I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The


ceeded to call the roll.


ll on

DS

KB

BY

8HB

2PR

OD

with

SE

NA

TE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES3814 June 19, 2019 Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask



ABORTION Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, many

State legislatures across the country have taken action recently to protect unborn babies from the violence of abortion. My home State, for instance, Arkansas, has just passed a law to pro-tect unborn babies after 18 weeks of de-velopment. This reform is not just sup-ported by Arkansans; it is supported by a large majority of all Americans, more than 70 percent of whom believe unborn babies ought to be protected at or before that stage of pregnancy.

These reforms are the work of the pro-life movement, which fights for the most vulnerable among us every day. The pro-life movement seeks change in the noblest tradition of our country and works within our democratic sys-tem so that our laws ultimately live up to our highest principle in the words of our Declaration of Independence—that all men are created equal and that all have a basic right to life.

Of course, this is a democracy. So not everyone agrees when or even if we ought to protect the unborn. I under-stand that. I know there are decent people on both sides of this sensitive issue. We resolve our differences and reach compromise through democratic debate. What should never happen, though, is a billion-dollar corporation’s trying to dictate these moral questions to us. Politically correct CEOs shouldn’t be in the business of threat-ening normal Americans, but that is exactly what we have seen lately.

The loudest objections to these pro- life laws haven’t come from the bottom up, from normal citizens who happen to disagree with one another, but from the top down, from cultural elites and, increasingly, from giant corporations that wield their economic power as a weapon to punish the American people for daring to challenge their pro-abor-tion extremism.

Giant media companies, like Disney, Netflix, and WarnerMedia, have threat-ened to cripple Georgia’s film industry if its residents don’t bend the knee and betray their pro-life convictions.

Just last Monday, the New York Times ran a full-page advertisement that was organized by the pro-abortion lobby and was signed by the CEOs of hundreds of companies that read that legal protections for unborn babies are ‘‘bad for business.’’ How disgusting is that? Caring for a little baby is ‘‘bad for business.’’

Now, I get why outfits like Planned Parenthood and NARAL would say ba-bies are bad for business. Abortion is their business, after all, and they are just protecting market share. Yet what about all of those other CEOs? Why do they think babies are ‘‘bad for busi-ness’’? It is, perhaps, because they want their workers to focus single- mindedly on working, not on building families and raising children.

All these politically correct CEOs want company men and women, not family men and women. They will sup-port your individuality and self-expres-sion just as long as you stay unat-tached and on the clock.

You couldn’t find a more perfect ex-ample of this mindset than that of &pizza, one of those companies whose CEO signed the pro-abortion ad. This company, &pizza, doesn’t even offer paid maternity leave to its employees, but it does celebrate their oneness and individuality. It will even pay employ-ees to get a tattoo of the company logo. So if you want to be a walking billboard for your employer, &pizza will foot the bill, but if you are preg-nant with a child, tough luck.

In the spirit of some of these CEOs, I might call for a boycott of &pizza for their political correctness, but you could just skip them because their pizza is lousy anyway.

There is a troubling trend among giant corporations using their wealth and power to force liberal dogma on an unwilling people. As liberal activists have lost control of the judiciary, they have turned to a different hub of power to impose their views on the rest of the country. This time it is private power located in a few megacities on the coasts.

That is not an exaggeration. The overwhelming majority of companies that lashed out against the pro-life movement in that New York Times ad are headquartered on the coasts, hop-ing to rule the rest of us like colonies in the hinterlands. More than three- quarters are headquartered in New York or California alone. More than a dozen are foreign companies. Yet those same companies presume to tell all of America what we should think.

For some reason, this outrage only seems to go in one direction. As States like Arkansas have passed pro-life laws, other States have sadly gone down a different path, stripping unborn children of recognition and protection under the law. States like New York, Illinois, and Vermont recently passed laws declaring abortion a fundamental right, accessible until moments before birth for practically any reason as long as you have a doctor’s note.

We have already begun to see the consequences of these laws which strain so mightily to defy and deny the humanity of the unborn. In New York City, prosecutors recently dropped a charge of abortion against a man who brutally stabbed to death his girlfriend and her unborn child. They dropped that charge because the pro-abortion law that had just passed the legislature in Albany removed all criminal pen-alties for killing an unborn child. Ac-cording to the laws of New York State, that woman’s child never existed.

The pro-abortion laws passed in New York, Illinois, Vermont, and elsewhere truly deserve the label ‘‘radical.’’ So why isn’t the national media covering these radical laws with the same inten-sity they have reserved for States like

Georgia? Where are the indignant CEOs who profess to care so much for their female employees? They are nowhere to be found because their outrage is very selective. They don’t speak for the majority of Americans, much less for women. Instead, they are actively try-ing to force a pro-abortion agenda on an unwilling public.

These companies want to wield a veto power over the democratic debate and decisions of Arkansans and citizens across our country. They want to force the latest social fashions of the coasts on small towns they would never visit in a million years. They want us to be-tray our deeply held beliefs about life and death in favor of a specious ac-count of equality. If there is one thing the New York Times ad got right, it is that ‘‘the future of equality hangs in the balance’’ when it comes to abor-tion, but their idea of equality doesn’t include everyone. It omits, it degrades unborn babies as expendable, lesser than even bad for business. That is a strange kind of equality, if you ask me.

This trend of intolerance ought to alarm everyone, no matter your views on this sensitive question. It threatens democratic debate on this question and ultimately on all questions.

Despite the pressure campaign waged against us, I am heartened because I know the pro-life movement will carry on, as it always has, speaking to the inherent dignity of every human life. Not everything can be measured on a corporate balance sheet. Some things are bigger and more important than the bottom line or what wealthy, po-litically correct corporations consider bad for business. The cause of life is one of those issues worth fighting for.



ceeded to call the roll. Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask



PRESCRIPTION DRUG COSTS Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I

rise to talk about something I have talked about many times on the floor and to reiterate over and over again that healthcare isn’t political; it is per-sonal. It is personal for people in Michigan. It is personal for every per-son, every child, and every family all across our country.

It affects each of us, regardless of our political affiliation or the State we live in or what kind of car we drive. Hope-fully, you are driving a car made in Michigan.

At some point, just about all of us will need to take at least one prescrip-tion medication in our lifetime. The question is, Will we be able to afford it?

Brian Hose knows this struggle very well. He owns Sharpsburg Pharmacy, an independent drugstore in Sharps-burg, MD. He joined me and some of


ll on

DS

KB

BY

8HB

2PR

OD

with

SE

NA

TE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S3815 June 19, 2019 my Democratic colleagues at a press conference last week on the rising cost of prescription drugs.

As a pharmacist, Dr. Hose works hard every day to make sure the customers he has have access to the medications they need to stay healthy and, in many cases, to stay alive.

However, that task keeps getting harder and harder. Between 2008 and 2016, prices on the most popular brand- name drugs rose 208 percent—208 per-cent during that timeframe. Dr. Hose’s customers didn’t see their incomes rise 208 percent during that same time. Cer-tainly people in Michigan didn’t see their incomes rise 208 percent during that same timeframe.

According to AARP, the average price of brand-name drugs that seniors often take rose at four times the rate of inflation in just 1 year—four times the rate of inflation in 2017 alone. That is unsustainable for people.

Dr. Hose’s most vulnerable customers are seniors, of course, especially those who live on Social Security. As the price of medications keeps going up and up, Dr. Hose’s customers find it harder and harder to pay for the medi-cations they need.

Dr. Hose said this: ‘‘In no way is the current system looking out for the best interests of the patient, who ulti-mately needs to buy their medications to stay alive.’’ Just ask anyone who takes insulin. Insulin is not a new drug. In fact, it has been around since 1922—almost 100 years—when Canadian scientists treated the first diabetic pa-tient. Those scientists sold the patent to the University of Toronto for three Canadian dollars. They said they didn’t believe they should make money off of something that was so important to people’s lives. Imagine. They knew how important their discovery was and how many lives would be saved. But some-where between 1922 and 2019, insulin has become less about saving lives and more about making money. In fact, over the past 15 years, insulin prices have tripled, putting people’s health and lives at risk.

Last summer, I met Nicole Smith- Holt, who lives in Richfield, MN. She came to Washington, DC, to testify during a hearing on prescription drug prices. Her son, Alec, was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes when he was 24 years old. Alec worked hard to keep his diabetes under control, but one thing he couldn’t control was the rising cost of his insulin.

When Alec turned 26, he was no longer qualified to be under his par-ents’ insurance plan, as we have under the Affordable Care Act. About 20 days later, he went to the pharmacy to buy his monthly supply of insulin. The bill for his insulin and supplies came to $1,300. It was a week from payday, and he didn’t have $1,300, so he started ra-tioning his insulin. Alec never made it to payday.

Nicole said: I received a call that no parent ever wants

to receive or expects to receive. I was told

that my son was found dead in his apart-ment, on his bedroom floor all alone.

She added: We lost an amazing young man. He had so

many hopes and dreams. He left behind a 5- year-old daughter who now has to grow up without her father. His little brother lost his idol, his sisters lost a best friend, and my husband and myself lost our child.

Affordable medication is a life-and- death issue for millions of Americans like Alec. Unfortunately, we have a pharmaceutical industry that is more interested in profits right now than in people.

In 2018, there were 1,451 registered lobbyists for the pharmaceutical and health product industry. That is al-most 15 lobbyists for every Senator. Their job is to stop competition and keep prices high, and they are doing a very good job. It is the ultimate exam-ple of a rigged system. It has to change.

The No. 1 way we can bring down costs is to let Medicare negotiate the best price. From the beginning, Medi-care Part D has been prohibited from harnessing the bargaining power of 43 million American seniors to bring down costs, which is absurd. That didn’t make sense back in 2003, when it was passed as part of Medicare Part D’s protectionist language, and it doesn’t make sense today.

We know how negotiation can work. We know how negotiation can work be-cause it works for the VA, which saved 40 percent compared to Medicare. We have the VA system for veterans, and we have Medicare for seniors and peo-ple with disabilities. The VA nego-tiates. Medicare is stopped by law from negotiating best price—which, by the way, keeps us with the highest prices in the world. In fact, according to a re-cent AARP analysis, Medicare could have saved $14.4 billion on just 50 drugs in 2016 if that program had paid the same prices as the VA—$14.4 billion. By the way, cut that down, that is hun-dreds of dollars—thousands of dollars out of the pockets of seniors and people with disabilities and, more broadly, people across the country in every fam-ily.

A recent poll found that 92 percent of Americans support allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. I would love 92 percent agreement on anything. We should be able to act quickly on some-thing that 92 percent of the American public thinks we ought to do. So what is stopping us? The pharmaceutical lobby and my Republican colleagues in Congress. It is time to listen to the 92 percent of Americans who want to allow Medicare to negotiate with drug companies. It is just plain common sense.

Negotiating a bulk price is not rad-ical; it is actually something that is done in industry after industry after industry.

Dr. Hose said: Seniors in Medicare Part D are one of the

largest purchasers of medication in the world. Yet they are unable to leverage their buying power to decrease their costs.

It makes no sense. It makes no sense. It is past time that this should be changed. But we certainly, as we are talking about ways to lower prices right now—and I commend the chair-man and ranking member of Finance for working on this issue and the chair-man for bringing the top drug company CEOs and the pharmacy benefit man-agers into committee. I commend him for that. But this is the moment we need to be totally focused and totally serious about bringing down prices in the most effective way. If we want to do it right, we need to allow Medicare to negotiate on behalf of the American people and put people first.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

LANKFORD). The clerk will call the roll. The senior assistant bill clerk pro-

ceeded to call the roll. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Texas. Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.


NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today

we will take the first step in the pas-sage of the National Defense Author-ization Act when we hold the cloture vote this afternoon. For the last 58 years, consecutively, Congress has passed this important legislation to fund our Nation’s military and support the men and women who wear our uni-form and defend our freedoms, both at home and around the world.

Last month the Senate Armed Serv-ices Committee voted overwhelmingly by a vote of 25 to 2 to advance this leg-islation to the Senate floor. So it goes without saying, perhaps, that this en-joys broad bipartisan support, but in this political environment, I will go ahead and say that anyway.

This bill received that kind of sup-port because it includes the ideas and feedback from Members of both parties and places our national security where it should be, above all other consider-ations when it comes to the Federal Congress.

I wish I could say the same thing about the House version of the Na-tional Defense Authorization Act. After extensive debate and a largely party-line vote in the House, the House Armed Services Committee voted last week to ban the deployment of low- yield nuclear warheads on submarine- launched ballistic missiles, which is a dangerous step that could prevent us from being able to respond to attacks from our adversaries.

I realize the seriousness of this topic, and really the purpose of my speaking today is to raise the visibility of this issue so that Members can begin to un-derstand and grapple with the subject matter and reach informed decisions, which I believe would be in favor of the Senate version, which would allow the deployment of low-yield nuclear weap-ons on submarines.


ll on

DS

KB

BY

8HB

2PR

OD

with

SE

NA

TE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATES3816 June 19, 2019 Significantly, I believe the House

provisions, although well-intended, would make the potential for the use of these weapons more likely rather than less. To state the obvious, I hope that no nuclear weapon in our arsenal or in the arsenal of an adversary of ours will ever see the light of day. Nuclear weap-ons should always be a last resort.

If you think about it, it is really al-most a miracle that 74 years ago at Hiroshima was the last time a nuclear weapon was used, and I hope that record continues unbroken indefi-nitely. Why has it been 74 years? Well, it is because the countries, by and large, that possess nuclear weapons re-alize the gravity of their use and that, once started, a nuclear war would re-sult in devastation for everyone—ev-eryone, literally—on the planet.

Yet we would be foolish to ignore the clear posture of our adversaries when it comes to nuclear weapons and play into their hands and, I think, actually make the use of these weapons more likely through miscalculation and mis-take. Let’s take Russia, for example. Back when General Dunford, the Chair-man of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testi-fied at his confirmation hearing before the Armed Services Committee, he was asked his assessment of the threat that Russia poses to the United States. He said: My assessment today, Senator, is that Russia presents the greatest threat to our national security. If you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States, I would have to point to Russia, and if you look at their behav-ior, it is nothing short of alarming.

That was in 2015, and I would say, in terms of the existential threat, nothing has changed in terms of Russia’s bad behavior. They have continued their bad behavior to this day in Syria, Ukraine, and Crimea. Basically, if they feel they can make America’s job tougher anywhere around the world, they try to do so.

Looking at Russia and its nuclear ar-senal—their nuclear deterrent strategy is one of the world’s worst-kept se-crets. It is known by most as ‘‘escalate to deescalate.’’ The Russians are aware that the United States possesses far greater conventional military capabili-ties and developed a strategy that uses their lesser capabilities as an advan-tage. But Russia’s nuclear doctrine al-lows them to attack conventional forces—say, NATO forces in Europe— with a nuclear weapon under the pre-text that the United States would have no way to respond to that attack—in other words, use of a low-yield tactical nuclear weapon in Europe—and they would essentially dare the United States to respond, and the only option the United States has is a strategic weapon on top of an intercontinental ballistic missile. Well, you can see why a President would be reluctant to use that sort of devastating power to re-spond to the use of a tactical nuclear weapon in Europe—attacking one of our NATO partners. That is the dis-

parity I think all of our Members need to be aware of and need to think about.

The foundation of the Russian nu-clear doctrine is this: They believe the United States would be hesitant to re-taliate against a low-yield first strike by Russia with a high-yield weapon. Through their actions, those who are opposing the deployment of low-yield nuclear weapons in the Defense author-ization bill are confirming the belief of the Russians that absent a low-yield tactical weapon that could be used in response without using strategic weap-ons and risking a nuclear holocaust— actually, it counterintuitively makes it more likely that the Russians would take that step through miscalculation.

Our friend and colleague Senator INHOFE, the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said on the floor last summer when we were having a de-bate on this topic that Russia ‘‘may perceive that limited nuclear first use, including low-yield weapons, would present the United States with two bad choices: escalate or do nothing.’’ He is exactly right.

We are dissuaded from using conven-tional forces out of fear that the con-flict would quickly escalate into a cat-astrophic world war, but we cannot ac-cept inaction as an appropriate re-sponse. In order to honor our NATO and global security commitments, our military needs to have the capacity to respond appropriately and proportion-ately to any attack, and to do that, we must develop our own low-yield nu-clear weapons and bolster the deter-rence value of the U.S. nuclear triad.

The point here is to make nuclear war—to take it off the table so that no one will even dare travel down that path. That is the way we will keep that 74-year record since Hiroshima unbro-ken into the indefinite future, hope-fully permanently.

The importance of replacing high- yield warheads with low-yield ones was underscored in the 2018 Nuclear Pos-ture Review. The administration called for the employment of low-yield nu-clear warheads to remove Russia’s per-ceived advantage, which former Sec-retary Defense James Mattis once called ‘‘bellicose and cavalier.’’ It spe-cifically argues that expanding these options will ‘‘help ensure that poten-tial adversaries perceive no possible advantage in limited nuclear esca-lation, making nuclear employment less likely.’’ That is the point; that is the objective—to make nuclear em-ployment less likely.

This is what the strategy refers to as credible deterrence. By reducing the disparity between their potential strike and our potential response, the initial attack is less likely. This is of huge importance to our country and our national security, as well as that of our allies. NATO and non-NATO allies depend on the U.S. nuclear deterrent for their own security, and we must take every step possible to be prepared.

I note, parenthetically, that this is another reason why only rational ac-

tors should have nuclear weapons, be-cause when Kim Jong Un in North Korea or when the ayatollahs in Tehran get ahold of nuclear weapons, they may or may not be subject to the same sort of deterrence that a Russia is when it comes to the use of possible employment of nuclear weapons.

I find it perplexing that some of our Democratic colleagues are trying to take this step, which would place us in a strategic disadvantage against Rus-sia, when they have made a platform of confronting Russian aggression. As a matter of fact, I think we all, on a bi-partisan basis, have supported opposing Russian aggression. So why is it that we are hesitant to do so on this topic?

When it comes to Russia’s most bla-tant form of aggression—nuclear weap-ons—we can’t afford to unilaterally disarm our military and leave the United States without a credible deter-rent. We have already seen Russia’s fla-grant violations of the Intermediate- Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and it continues to modernize its nuclear weapons. The more it feels like it has gained some advantage over the United States, the more they may be tempted to actually use them.

Why should we allow that to con-tinue without preparing for a possible response or, at minimum, reducing the likelihood they will ever be employed in the first place?

House Armed Services Chairman ADAM SMITH said: ‘‘We do not think it is the proper approach to start talking about a proportional response, because it plants in peoples’ minds that there is somehow an acceptable nuclear war.’’

That is just not true. No one accepts as inevitable a nuclear war. What we are trying to do is to reduce the poten-tial that that might actually happen because of its devastating con-sequences to everyone on the planet, literally.

While there is no doubt we would all prefer to live in a world with no nu-clear weapons, indulging in utopian dreams is not what our constituents sent us here to do—wishful thinking. We can’t reduce or stifle our nuclear capabilities while allowing our adver-saries to increase their arsenals and their capability. We must operate in the world we live in, not the one we wish for. America’s adversaries possess this low-yield nuclear weapon capa-bility. At least from their rhetoric and their doctrine, it seems like they are prepared to use it.

I fundamentally disagree with House Democrats’ attempts to block the Pen-tagon from deploying low-yield nuclear warheads on submarine-launched bal-listic missiles, which was the rec-ommendation of that Nuclear Posture Review I mentioned earlier. They would place our country at a strategic disadvantage and reinforce our adver-saries’ belief that they can escalate to deescalate and make the world a far more dangerous place.

I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-

ator from Connecticut.


ll on

DS

KB

BY

8HB

2PR

OD

with

SE

NA

TE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S3817 June 19, 2019 GUN VIOLENCE

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, 6 years have passed since 20 beautiful children and 6 wonderful educators were killed in a massacre that gripped the Nation’s attention in Newtown, CT. That tragedy, for any of us who lived through it, remains as real and vivid and grief-stricken today as it was then. We have lived with the memories and with the families and with countless others who found their lives changed— literally, transformed—in ways they never imagined.

In the day or so after that shooting— it may have been the following day—I was at one of the numerous calling hours I attended, and I spoke with one of the moms of those children. I said to her: When you are ready, we should talk about what can be done about gun violence in America.

She looked at me, through her tears, and she said: I am ready now.

Many of the families of Sandy Hook were ready then. Our Nation was ready then. Yet the U.S. Congress proved dis-astrously and tragically unready—in fact, failing in its responsibility to react not only with prayers and thoughts, as it did, but also with action to honor those wonderful children and educators with action, to honor them before others would die in the same way, the result of massacres that are preventable.

The Senate came close to acting. More than 50 votes were there for a background check bill, which had bi-partisan support, but not the 60 votes that were necessary. From this Gallery vividly came the shout: Shame on you.

It was well justified. Shame on the U.S. Senate for failing

to act 6 years ago. Shame on the Con-gress for being complicit in the con-tinuing massacres that have been added since Sandy Hook: Oak Creek, Blacksburg, Charleston, Chattanooga, Lafayette, Parkland, San Bernardino, Las Vegas, Sutherland Springs. That is just a partial list, not to mention the 90 deaths every day, often occurring singularly or in twos or threes or by suicide or by accident, as claimed the life of Ethan Song in Guilford, CT, when he was playing with a friend and a gun killed him—a loss that Kristin and Michael Song have made positive by their advocacy of commonsense measures to require safe storage of weapons.

The voices and faces of Sandy Hook have continued to inspire and move us. As of Parkland and all of the other tragedies that have occurred, they have rallied and written, emailed and called, organized and mobilized, and they have created a movement. It is a movement that is turning around this country, and it already has the effect of breaking the vice-like grip of the NRA on Congress. It is moving us for-ward. It has spawned groups at the grassroots, like Newtown Action Alli-ance and Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action, CT Against Gun Violence, Brady, and many others, in-

cluding Sandy Hook Promise, whose dinner we will attend tonight, their an-nual gathering.

We have come to the floor of the Sen-ate now to demand action that honors those victims and prevents more vic-tims, more survivors, more grieving families. I am here with my colleague Senator CHRIS MURPHY, who has been an unstinting advocate, a champion, a partner in this effort. We are here to demand that this body act on a meas-ure that was passed more than 100 days ago by the House, which would require a universal background check.

The fact that the House passed that measure is itself evidence of a change that is moving this country. The change in leadership in the House is the result of the election of new Mem-bers in the House of Representatives as a result of the gun violence prevention movement that politically is acquiring an undeniable and indisputable force. Gun violence prevention was on the ballot in the last election, and gun vio-lence prevention won. It won in the new Members of Congress who have championed that universal background check measure and closing the Charles-ton loophole, and they have success-fully passed it there. They are making a critical difference, and they are com-ing here. Their election is

washington, wednesday, june 19, 2019 no. 103 senate · 19.06.2019 · u n congressional record u m...

Documents