Transcripts For CSPAN2 U.S. Senate U.S. Senate 20240713

Vote the presiding officer are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote . On this the vote the yeas are 53, the nays are 40. The nomination is agreed to and confirmed. Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senates actions. The clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. The clerk cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of Lawrence Vandyke, of nevada, to be United States circuit judge for the ninth circuit. The presiding officer by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. The question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of Lawrence Vandyke, of nevada, to be United States circuit judge for the ninth circuit shall be brought to a close . The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call the roll. Vote vote vote the presiding officer are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote . Seeing none, the yeas are 53, the nays are 40. The motion is confirmed. The presiding officer the clerk will report the nomination. The clerk Lawrence Vandyke of nevada to be use circuit judge for the ninth circuit. The presiding officer under the previous order, the senate will proceed to legislative session and to the consideration of s. 2740, which the clerk will report. The clerk s. 2740, a bill to amend the federal, food, and drug and cosmetic act and so forth and for other purposes. The presiding officer the senate will be in order. Mr. Casey madam president . The presiding officer the senator from pennsylvania. Mr. Casey madam president , could we have order . The presiding officer the senate will be in order. Mr. Casey madam president , the senate is about to vote on the overthecounter monograph safety innovation reform act of 2019. I want to thank my friend and colleague, senator isakson, for his good work on this for many years. Chairman alexander, Ranking Member patty murray. The current o. T. C. Monograph system is broken. What were talking about here in simple form is the presiding officer the senator will suspend. The senate will be in order. Please move your conversations off the floor. Mr. Casey madam president , literally whats on your pill bottle, that kind of information. It is a broken system. The f. D. A. Doesnt have the authority to move swiftly when there is a threat to Public Health t doesnt have the opportunity to update existing mono graphs and theres no incentive for innovation. This is decades overdue. Im grateful for the good work of so many who made it possible. Its a commonsense bill. Consumer groups support t industry stake holders support it and of course the f. D. A. Not only supports it but needs it. I will now yield to my friend and colleague, senator johnny isakson. Mr. Isakson thank you very much, senator from pennsylvania. The presiding officer the senator from georgia. Mr. Isakson if you want to go home on time, if you want to take something home for the American People that they want and need, then youll vote with myself and the other members who have spoken on this for the bill today. There are sunscreens on the market in america that are 12 years short of being on the market i mean, in europe. Theyre 12 years short of being on the market in america. All because of an antiquated approval system in earthquake in. Its time we began to end melanoma. Its about time we settled a problem thats been a problem for a long time. I plead with you to vote for this bill and youll make everybody happy, nobody mad at you and you youll save a life. Theres Nothing Better than that. I yield back. Mr. Burr madam president . The presiding officer the senator from north carolina. Mr. Burr madam president , i ask unanimous consent to speak for one minute in opposition to this legislation. The presiding officer is there objection . Seeing none. Mr. Burr i reluctantly rise in opposition to this legislation. Ive worked with senator isakson on f. D. A. Legislation. I want to be perfectly clear that i agree with all of the reforms that are in this these of legislation within the overthecounter legislation. I disagree with the resources needs to achieve these reforms. I dont believe tend of this process they will result in what the expectations are of the author. When the drug Industry First agreed to user fees in 1993, the fee to file a new drug application was 100,000. Today that fee is 2. 1 million. To that end, the f. D. A. Struggled to uphold its end of the bargain. Falling behind in its commitment to hire the number of employees that the agency needs, to actually eview the applications needed to file. The f. D. A. Continues to increase the number of user fees eroding the balance of congressional oversight, provided by the appropriations of taxpayer dollars. I urge my colleagues, what johnny is trying to do is the right thing to do. It is the wrong way to pay for it. I yield the floor. The presiding officer the clerk will read the title of the bill for the third triumphant. The clerk calendar number 290, s. 2740, a quill to amend the federal food, drug, and cosmetic act and so forth and for other purposes. The presiding officer question is on passage of the bill. Is there a sufficient second . There appears to be. The clerk will call the roll. Vote vote the presiding officer are there any members in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote . Seeing none, the yeas are 91, the nays are two. The bill is passed. The senate resume ective session executive session. The senator from maryland. Mr. Van hollen thank you, madam president. After a discussion we will have on the senate floor, i intend to ask unanimous consent that the senate pass s. 1060, which is a bipartisan piece of legislation called the deter act. What is the deter act . The deter act is legislation that i introduced with senator rubio. It has bipartisan sponsorship and its designed to send a very clear and simple message to russia or any other country that is thinking about interfering in our elections and undermining our democracy that if we catch you, you will suffer a severe penalty. It wont be a few sanctions against a few of the oligarchs. It will hit big parts of your economy. It will hit your banking sector, it will hit your energy sector. It will hurt so you better think before you try to interfere in any future election. Senator rubio and i introduced this legislation a number of years ago, and in response to concerns that we that were raised, we made a number of important changes, but despite those changes, we are still here in the United States senate with less than one year to go before a National Election and we have not passed this bill to deter foreign interference in our elections. We know what Vladimir Putins ambitions are. He wants to sow division and make our political process even more thats not just my conclusion, this is the that is the unanimous verdict of the u. S. Intelligence committee and communities after the 2016 election. Its not just them. Our own Senate Intelligence committee, on a bipartisan basis, issued its findings. It also found that those were putins intentions and it found that in 2016 russia interfered in all 50 of the states to a greater or lesser extent all 50 of the states. And what Vladimir Putin clearly has learned and taken away from all of this is that he can attack our democracy and attack our elections with impunity because the rewards are high. He creates division, he accomplishes his objectives and the price is zero. There is currently no cost to Vladimir Putin from interfering in our elections. So what the deter act is designed to do is to raise the cost for the coming elections to make it clear if we catch you next time, there will be a penalty to pay. And we know that putin hasnt gotten this message because theres no penalty right now, and thats why on november 5, just a few weeks ago, we got another unanimous prediction from u. S. Intelligence agencies. All of them jointly stated, quote, russia, china, iran, and other foreign ma lish yas malicious actors will influence voter perceptions. Adversaries may try to accomplish their goals through a variety of means, such as social media or conducting disruptive or destructive cyberattacks on state or local infrastructure. That that was just a few weeks ago unanimous from the intelligence agencies. Clearly Vladimir Putin hasnt gotten the message. What the deter act is all about is sending that message that he will now know that there will be a penalty to pay upfront. Look, there are only two ways we can protect our elections. And we need to do both. One is to harden our election infrastructure here at home. Try to make it harder for somebody to use Cyber Attacks to get into our election systems. Make it harder for them to abuse our social media platforms. But this is a case where the best defense is a good offense because we can harden our systems but you can be sure that the russian Government Cybersecurity folks will always be looking for a way around it just like the arms race. So just like the arms race, deterrence is the best way to protect the integrity of our democracy. Letting them know upfront that there will be this very tough price to pay. Now, we hope and thought we could address this issue in the National Defense authorization act. What better place to defend the integrity of our democracy than in the legislation thats designed to protect our National Security. And in fact, the United States Senate Unanimously passed the resolution i have in my hand, s. Res. 330 which says very clearly that we wanted the folks at the ndaa conference to require the administration, any administration, future administration to properly submit a report on russian interference or other interference following every federal election. And that would include a detailed assessment of the Foreign Governments that were involved in that interference. The senate is part of that resolution also voted to promptly impose sanctions on any Foreign Government determined to have interfered in on future federal election, including individuals and entities within that government that countrys territories. So let me emphasize that point, madam president. Every senator here supported that or at least nobody objected to that. Weve been working for over two years to get this done. And we keep hearing that the Trump Administration doesnt want to do it. Of course, we havent been told by the Trump Administration why they object. Even secretary pompeo in testimony before the Senate Foreign elations Committee Said he relations Committee Said he supported the concept. Everybody on the committee asked this, supported this legislation. So you have to ask the question why. Why such opposition and if its because of President Trump, we need to be doing our job here in the legislature, not the bidding of the white house. And so now, madam president , id like to yield to the democratic leader. Mr. Schumer i just want to thank my colleague from maryland for his diligence in this issue of utmost importance to the integrity of our elections, to our National Security, and basically for trust in government. If American People feel that a foreign country can interfere in their elections and particularly that their president is okay with that, i worry and pray for our democracy. So for the past few years Senate Democrats have sought to pass legislation to improve security of elections. There are many ways to do this. Hardening our election infrastructure, shoring up cyber defenses, requiring paper ballots, but one of the most important has been advocated with passion and vigor by my colleague from maryland. And that is, deterring foreign adversaries from trying to interfere with elections in the first place. For the past year democrats have been pushing legislation that would do just that. By instituting mandatory crosscutting sanctions against any adversary, russia, china, iran, north korea that even dare to attempt to meddle in our democracy. Its a bipartisan idea. Senators van senator van hollen has legislation that is cosponsored by senator rubio. We tried hard to pass this measure in the annual defense bill. Senate republicans and leader mcconnell blocked the provision from the final agreement. So here we are today asking our republican colleagues to relent and allow this Bipartisan Legislation to pass the senate on its own. Our top Nation National Security Officials have warned us that our adversaries are right now, right now as we speak working on ever more sophisticated methods to meddle in our elections. Thats what putin does. He doesnt have the military power or the economic power, but he has long tentacles and clever ways to undermine our democracy. And are we going to stand there benignly and let it happen . Thats outrageous. So why have leader mcconnell and Senate Republicans opposed it . I hope its not because the Russian Foreign minister is in town this week. I hope its not because anyone wants to invite foreign interference. I am worried that it is just, as my colleague from maryland said, donald trump who has shown no regard for rule of law, for fairness, for decency, for honor, if he thinks russian interference will help him, he says lets do it. Whats bothersome is that my colleagues on the republican side of the aisle move forward on his wishes. Right to the undermining of our democracy. I guarantee it if leader mcconnell were allowed to vote on this legislation, it would pass almost unanimously. Remember, the motion to instruct conferees on ndaa to include this legislation passed near lir unanimously. Nearly unanimously. So i would plead with my good friend, a good man from idaho, senator crapo. I would plead with leader mcconnell. Stop this now. If trump is getting you to do this, if the white house is which i suspect is true, thats not your duty to this country. And you must put that higher than your duty to President Trump. I yield back to my friend from maryland. Mr. Van hollen i thank the minority leader and as he indicated, the Russian Foreign minister, foreign minister lovroff is in town. Theres a report that secretary pompeo said to the russians dont interfere in our elections but wagging your finger is not enough to scare off Vladimir Putin. Thats why you need the deter act. Of course saying that is a big advance over the president of the United States who has been denying russia interference in our elections, but its not enough to scold the russians, not enough to scold the foreign minister, not enough to scold Vladimir Putin. You have to raise the price for interference. As if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs be discharged from further consideration of s. 1060 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. The presiding officer is there objection . A senator madam president , reserving the right to object. The presiding officer the senator from idaho. A senator mada madam presid. I think the record needs to be set straight here. Mr. Crapo the picture being painted is that the republicans or President Trump or both dont care about the fact that russia is and has been trying to interfere in our elections. And that for some reason our refusal to allow this specific act to move forward until it is fixed is in evidence of that. In support of that, it is said that there is no penalty on the russians because of their actions. Ill remind my colleagues that im the chairman of the committee that has jurisdiction over the economic sanctions. On this floor last congress, we have this very de we had this very debate only i was making the case then that we needed a broad, strong sanctions law against russia for its election interference. And not only for its election interference but for its invasion of crimea. For its cybersecurity attacks on the United States. And what happened then . We passed what i believe is probably the strongest, most extensive legislation putting into effect sanctions on russia for electio elections interferer cybersecurity violations, for invasion of crimea and other malign conduct. And under that legislation the administration has been active. I want to read you just i think that President Trump has probably put more sanctions on the russians than any president in our history. Treasurerys russians Sanction Program is among the most active sanctions program that the United States has. This administration has sanctioned 335 russianrelated individuals and entities. 317 of which were sanctioned under treasury authorities. By the way, the bill i refer to has an acronym. Its the countering americas adverse adversaries through sanctions act or caatsa. Thats the legislation that the administration is using to deter Russian Election interference and other act oifts. And other activities. In addition to other malign conduct. Now, i want to state again as my colleague knows, i agree and have agreed that we can work on further legislation. But we need to get it right because economic sanctions legislation is a twoedge sword. It hurts the United States and our allies often as much as it hurts the entity sanctioned. Because of that we have to have the ability to be flexible in when to apply, how to apply and how to adjust the impact of our sanctions. Otherwise we will say that we will do more damage to ourselves and our allies than to russia. And by the way, we dont just need legislation dealing with russia. We need legislation dealing with the same type of activities from iran and china and north korea to name just a few of the others. But we need to do it with the appropriate mechanisms, the mechanisms in this bill have been designed more to attack the Trump Administration than republicans than to attack the russians and those who would attack our country and our elections. I have said again and again and again if we can fix the mechanisms so that they will work effectively to work against our enemies and protect america and our allies as our current sanctions regimes do, then we can move forward with legislation that will even enhance what we did in caatsa. I would also remind my colleague that in addition to caatsa, one of the reasons that we have been so active in the United States is that we passed significant additional legislation. I remind my colleagues and everyone that in addition to caatsa and the already existin g ieepa legislation which is a broad and powerful enter nngs emergency economic authorities that have previously existed in the United States to help our administrations pushback against malign conduct from our enemies, we have also passed the ukraine freedom support act. I referenced the crimea earlier. Weve passed the magnitsky act. And both president obama and President Trump and i believe president bush before them have issued significant executive orders on their own with their executive Order Authority to expand sanctioning authority. So to create the picture a, that there is no deterrent is false. To create the picture that the Trump Administration is trying to turn a blind eye to russias malign conduct is false. To create the picture that the republicans because they want to get a mechanism that works properly and are, therefore, willing to turn a blind eye to russia is false. And when we can finally stop trying to play politics with this issue, when we can stop trying to make it antitrump or antirepublican or make politics out of the problems that russia truly is creating for us, maybe we can come together and pass yet another strong piece of legislation to move forward. But not as long as it is done with mechanisms and with lack of flexibility that actually undermine our own Economic Security and our success in applying the sanctions. And because of that, madam president , i object. The presiding officer objection is heard. Mr. Van hollen madam president . The presiding officer the senator from maryland. Mr. Van hollen i want to just address some of the comments made by the chairman of the Banking Committee and start by saying i have appreciated the conversations that he and i have had on this legislation over the years. Let me just address some of the comments that were made. One is to say that currently, the current caatsa scheme is enough to deter future russian interference in our elections. If that were true, you would not have had every single one of our intelligence agencies just a few weeks ago predict that russia will interfere in our elections again along with other foreign malign actors. If the the laws on the books could deter that interference, why did they predict a few weeks ago that they are coming for us in the Upcoming Elections . Second, this is not a partisan attack on President Trump. This is a bipartisan bill. This bill not only has senator rubio as the chief author, coauthor of the legislation, there are a number of other republican and Democratic Senators on this bill as cosponsors. In fact, they are evenly matched on this legislation. So this has nothing to do with President Trump. In fact, this determination and this law would not even kick in until after the 2020 elections. I dont know whos going to be president then. This has nothing to do with President Trump. This has to do with protecting our elections. Yes, is it informed by what happened in 2016 . He bet it is because we know, again from all of our intelligence committees and community agencies, every one of them headed by somebody nominated by President Trump, that the russians attacked us in 2016. And a few weeks ago they said the same thing will happen in 2020, and that will happen especially if we dont raise the price. Now, the caatsa legislation, as the senator knows, was put in place by an overwhelming veto approved vote in the United States senate and it was required because the russians interfered but it was retrospective. So, yes, we punished some of the oligarchs who were close to Vladimir Putin but that is not enough, clearly, to raise the price to Vladimir Putin to deter him from doing it again. Again, we just heard that from our own intelligence agencies. If you want to raise the price for future interference, you need not just to hit a few oligarchs, you need to let them go. Some of those russian government banks, they are going to get hit. Their Energy Sectors going to get hit. By the way, theres actually more flexibility in this bill than i would like. As the chairman of the committee knows the original bill that senator rubio and i introduced did not have Waiver Authority for the president of the United States. The version right now contains Waiver Authority for every single one of the sanctions if the pre makes a National Security determination and says the waiver wont hurt our National Security. It has nor flexibility than i like because my view is you need to set up a machine thats almost automatic. If we catch you interfering there will be a price to pay. Under this bill, if we catch them, yes, there will be sanctions, but the reality is that the president can decide to waive those sanctions. So weve come a long way. This is a bipartisan bill. This is about protecting our democracy. Its not about any particular individual or any particular president. It wouldnt even kick in until after the next elections, and those sanctions will only kick in if theres interference. The whole purpose of this bill is to have sanctions that are tough enough so that putin doesnt interfere or another Foreign Government doesnt interfere and so they dont interfere and so they dont go off the sanctions. Thats the whole purpose. I hope, madam president , we will vote on this. The clock is ticking, and im going to be down here on this floor week after week until we come together and pass something that actually has some teeth and will deter that very foreign interference that every Intelligence Agency predicted will happen as recently as five weeks ago that will happen unless we act. I yield the floor. A senator madam president. The presiding officer the senator from idaho. Mr. Crapo not to belabor the point, but to respond briefly. Yes, there are republicans and democrats on this bill, but many of the members who are on this bill have told me they are ready and willing to make it work. I have offered and tried for months to get that done, and im going to continue to try to look and try to improve and strengthen this bill. But the notion that this is just somehow trying to protect the president from having to make tough choices is simply false. And ill read today, as its been indicated, we have leaders from russia in America Today and in response to that our secretary of state, secretary pompeo said that the Trump Administration will all work to protect the integrity of our elections, period. Should russia or any foreign actor take steps to undermine our democratic processes, we will take action in response. And all of the authorities in this legislation that were debating right now exists already under caatsa. So i guess the argument is that President Trump wont use them. The reality is he will. But secondly, ive indicated my willingness to work on this legislation. So i think rather than continuing to stand here on the floor and debate why we like or dont like what President Trump is doing, i think we ought to get down to the Serious Business of legislating. Thank you, madam president. I yield the floor. Mr. Van hollen i hope we will get down to the Serious Business of legislating. As i indicated in the hearings that have been held in the senate Banking Committee and the Senate Foreign relations committee, there was overwhelming support to move forward with the deter act, to deter russian interference in our elections. Im going to say it again. This authority this sanction, if theres interference, doesnt kick in until after the next president ial election. So its not designed to focus on any particular president. Its designed together, on a bipartisan basis, and this is a bipartisan bill, to set up a mechanism in advance to let Vladimir Putin or other maligned foreign actors know if they interfere, then there will be a price to pay. Not maybe, not lets just guess about it. There will be a price to pay unless the president decides to waive it, which i said was a concession that we made to address peoples concerns about some flexibility. But we need to send the up front message that at least initially these sanctions will take affect and that they will hurt and that is the only way to deter Vladimir Putin and the russians from interfering in our elections to raise the price and make it clear that they will pay it. Ms. Cortez masto madam president. The presiding officer the senator from nevada. Ms. Cortez masto thank you. Madam president , i rise today because of my Firm Opposition to Lawrence Vandykes nomination to the ninth Circuit Court of appeals, which has jurisdiction over my home state of nevada. Mr. Vandike lax the support of lacks the support of jacky rosen and i. His qualifications are inadequate and his ties to nevada are minimal. His nomination sets a dangerous precedent for senate and would allow future administrations to nominate outsiders over senators objections. The president could have chosen a better nominee. Senator rosen and i tried to work with the administration to identify wellrespected attorneys from nevada as potential Appeals Court judges. But instead the president decided to nominate someone with no current ties to our state, someone who the American Bar Association has rated as not qualified for the federal bench, someone who holds extreme beliefs about reproductive rights, lgbtq rights, gun violence protection, and environmental protection. The American Bar Association interviewed 60 of Lawrence Vandykes colleagues and these colleagues characterized him as arrogant, lazy, an tie deal log and lacking knowledge in procedural rules. Lawrence vandykes nomination is unprecedented for all of these reasons. If affirmed, Lawrence Vandyke would be the first judicial nominee appointed to the bench without the support of home state senators, with a not qualified rating from the American Bar Association, and without ties to the community whose Appeals Court seek he sit he would occupy. Id like to ask my colleagues, what kind of a message are we sending when we confirm individuals who dont have the support of their local communities . We need judges with the knowledge, the maturity and experience to understand the impact their decisions will have on the states over which they preside. So how would my colleagues feel when a future administration attempts to do the same thing to their state, when a democratic president , perhaps, nominates a californian to sit on a District Court in kentucky or a lifelong d. C. Resident is sent to a court in texas . But Lawrence Vandykes qualifications and connections to nevada are just one part of my objection to his confirmation. I believe his views are too extreme to promote to the bench. He signed on to an arizona case that argued that roe v. Wade, quote, should be revisited. On lgbtq protections, Lawrence Vandyke broke down in frustration at the very idea that he might be unfair to lgbtq litigants. He insisted that he believes in treating, and i quote, all people with dignity and respect. But he didnt treat lgbtq with dignity and respect when he wrote a 2004 article that samesex marriage hurts family, children, and society, and it doesnt reflect an attitude of dignity and respect to support extreme groups like the Alliance Defending freedom both of which have been designated as antilgbtq hate groups by the southern poverty law center. Now the people who can legitimately shed tears about Lawrence Vandykes record on lgbtq rights are those who are shunned because of who they love. On the issue of preventing gun violence, Lawrence Vandyke made it clear in a question the n. R. A. Sent to him. In an answer to the n. R. A. s questions, Lawrence Vandyke said that, quote, all gun control laws are misdirected. Well, in nevada we believe in Second Amendment rights, but we also agree, as almost all americans do, that commonsense measures like background checks keep us safer. And, finally, Lawrence Vandyke has done his best to erode Environmental Standards and protections. As solicitor general of nevada he signed on to a lawsuit that threatened the protection of a species. The governor at the time said that lawsuit did not represent the state of nevada, the governor or any state agencies. The western United States have some of the most fragile and iconic public lands in the nation. I object to letting Lawrence Vandyke oversee them when he seems to care so little for their value. His record shows that he is not a neutral arbiter of the law. Because of his poor qualifications, because of his extreme activist approach to the law, i will vote against his confirmation and i urge my colleagues to do the same. Madam president , i yield the floor. A senator madam president. The presiding officer the senator from iowa. Ms. Ernst madam president , there are just 21 days left in 2019. With the days dwindling, congress has made little progress on its todo list that without question must be addressed before going home for the holidays. This is largely due to the distractions and delays caused by the democrats. In this body, and especially by those across the capitol. Lets take the United Statesmexicocanada agreement. President trump signed it over one year ago. If approved, usmca would create 176,000 new jobs by expanding access to markets and providing muchneeded certainty for american businesses and farmers. Literally everyone benefits yet here we are still waiting for the House Democrats to bring it up for a vote a vote that would be broadly bipartisan. Speaker pelosi even admitted today that there is no question that usmca is much better than nafta. I am hopeful the house will finally vote on the measure next week before leaving town. This would be a great Christmas Gift for american workers, farmers, and businesses. But its not just on trade deals. Were now over two months into the new federal fiscal year yet Congress Still has not approved the annual funding bills for this fiscal year. These bills will actually fund the government. Yet democrats are stalling, throwing up roadblocks at every turn. Theyre failing to support our Service Members including providing them with the largest pay raise in a decade. Just recently i was on the ground in kuwait in afghanistan to meet with our u. S. Troops, including iowans of the des moinesbased 103rd expeditionary sustainment command. These Service Members are relying on congress to do their job so that our military men and women can carry out their job of protecting our homeland. As a former Company Commander in kuwait, i realized just how vital resources are to our troops. And lets not forget democrats agreed to a framework months ago on all of these bills. Yet theyve repeatedly blocked consideration of these business. Similarly, the authorization for the violence against women act, a law that is deeply personal to me, expired a year ago and remains in limbo. For months the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee and i worked to develop a bipartisan bill to renew the law which provides desperately needed resources to prevent domestic and sexual abuse and care for our survivors. We were making real progress. But all of a sudden Senate Democrats walked away from the progress we made in an apparent attempt to make violence against women an election issue. Folks, we cannot allow our political differences to keep us from performing our most basic constitutional duties, to provide for the common defense, fund the operations of the federal government, and support women and children across this country facing sexual and domestic abuse. I plan on continuing to work with senator feinstein without regard to the political wins because we have to stop playing politics with womens lives and our nations defense. At a time when democrats and republicans in washington cant find many areas of agreement, these are all issues where we should and absolutely can find Common Ground. I implore my democratic colleagues to end the obstruction and delay. Work with us to fund the government and support our Service Members. Pass the usmca and provide resources for my fellow survivors of domestic and sexual abuse. The American People are counting on us. With that, madam president , i yield the floor. A senator madam president . The presiding officer the senator from West Virginia. Mrs. Capito thank you, madam president. I am privileged to be on the floor today with my fellow senator from iowa, senator ernst. And i am here to join in a chorus of voices to ask this congress to do better, to do our todo list, to do the things the people sent us here to do. I will highlight some of the critical items Congress Still needs to get done and she talked about them very eloquently. When im home in West Virginia, people ask me about policies that impact their everyday lives. They ask about health care. They ask about the pensions and health care for our retired miners. They ask about Surprise Medical Bills and i see people every day two or three months after an operation or visit to the hospital my receive a bill in the mail they had no idea was coming their way. The high cost of prescription drugs. This is an issue that hits many of us, many in our pocketbooks and particularly for those who suffer from disease or those who are elderly, it is a particular strain on their wallets. They ask about National Security and caring for our veterans. Heres one everybody complains about, including all of us here. Robo calls. Can somebody please stop the onslaught of robocalls. Weve got legislation but were not getting the action on it that we need to do. Better trade deals that will help grow our economy and support our american workers. You no he what theyre not asking me about . My constituents are not asking me about the latest impeachment headline. Theyre not asking me about witnesses in front of a House Committee or the newest breaking news over on the house side. In their minds its just a bunch of washington hoopla to most people. A few days ago i ran into some constituents while i was running errands and they said to me, just stop this. Stop this. Something similar happened while i was Grocery Shopping and the butcher says to me, arent you just tired of it . Well, yes, i am. We have two weeks until christmas until congress leaves for christmas break. 21 days until the end of the month. And we still have so much to do. Our sole focus should be on legislating and making life better for people across the country. I can tell you as somebody who has been in this body and over on across the aisle for several years, when you rush to judgment and when you rush to legislate, that is when things that you dont know get into bills get into bills and things that you want into bills dont get into bills. So rushing into legislating is not the way and fairest way to do it. Im pleased that at long last were going to pass a National Defense authorization act that protects our National Security and supports our men and women in uniform. We still need to pass Appropriations Bills that fund much of our federal government. Im the chairman of the Homeland Security subcommittee so i very much want to see us enact a bill that would provide Critical Resources to protect this country. Homeland security, sure, we have border patrol. We have the wall. We have i. C. E. You know what else we have . Coast guard, t. S. A. , secret service, fema, absolutely essential services. This includes our funding for our immigration laws and also continuing to fund and work on the border wall system. So i want to see us pass all 11 of these bills as well as provide funding for our troops and our veterans. Funding medical research. Im committed to funding the research for the research of alzheimers. Addressing the opioid epidemic, infrastructure, and many other priorities. I also have a priority that really affects just part of the country but deeply affects those of us in West Virginia. We need to enact the bipartisan american miners act this year. Congress must act to save the health care of 13,000 retired miners and protect the pension benefits of about 92,000 people. More than 25,000 retired miners received benefits in West Virginia last year and we have a bipartisan bill to address this critical issue for our mining families and for West Virginia communities. It is critical we pass this bill before the end of the year because this situation is getting more dire every single day. The usmca, United Statesmexicocanada, Free Trade Agreement has been waiting for action all year as senator ernst said. Im glad to see Speaker Pelosi finally moving on this an agreement that will grow our economy and improve robust protections for american workers. Weve got to get this across the fun line. Im especially proud of the work that were doing on the environment and public works committee. We passed a fiveyear highway bill out in a we had a unanimous vote 210. It would help improve the roads, highways, bridges that americans count on every day to travel safely, whether theyre going to church, whether theyre going to the job, or theyre going on a family trip. We authorization of this federal Surface Transportation Program is a top priority for the coming year. We have a lot to do in the coming days, but we also have lots to do in the coming year. So i hope that we will Work Together and not practice the past practices of this year. And i hope we will Work Together to get that job done. With that i yield back my time. Thank you. Mr. Scott madam president . The presiding officer the senator from florida. Mr. Scott i rise to speak today about the Things Congress is failing to accomplish while democrats in the house continue their obsession with impeaching this president. To overturn the results of the 2016 election. Lets be clear. Thats whats happening here. The democrats lost the election in 2016 andersed theyre going and realized theyre going to lose again in 2020 and theyre trying to use the impeachment process to hurt the him. Thats shameful now but lets think about what congress is not doing. Congress is not passing a budget. Congress is not funding our military. Congress is not securing our border. Congress is not lowering the cost of prescription drugs. Congress is not doing the things the American People sent us to washington to do. But i want but i wont accept that. I have a background in business and in the real world if you dont do your job, you dont get paid. Its that simple. If congress cant accomplish even the most basic tasks, passing a budget and appropriation bills in orderly fashion, then lawmakers shouldnt get a paycheck, period. The Current System is broken. No one takes responsibility and there are no consequences. That should change. Which is why we need to pass my no budget, no pay proposal now. With holding paychecks from members of congress who fail to pass a budget will help preend prevent Government Shutdowns which hurt the economy and millions of americans. Oitle also an important step to promote fiscal responsibility in the face of our staggering national debt. Which stands at over 23 trillion. No budget, no pay is moving through congress with bipartisan support. It was approved by the senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs committee in june and is included as part of the prevent Government Shutdowns act. We need to pass no budget, no pay now to show we are serious about the future of this nation. Members of Congress Make 174,000 per year. All were asking them to do is the most basic function of government. Pass a budget. Its not complicated. If youre a member of congress, rich or poor, and you dont believe that congress can or should pass a budget every year, then go home. There are lots of other competent people who can have your job. When the American People dont do their job, there are consequences. Its time we make washington just a little bit more like the real word. So if all my colleagues will join with me and pass no budget, no pay. I note the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call quorum call mr. Blumenthal mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from connecticut. Mr. Blumenthal thank you, mr. President. I ask that the quorum call be lifted. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Blumenthal thank you, mr. President. In the midst of all the historic and profoundly significant events happening these days in the congress, there may be a temptation to overlook some of the judicial nominations that are coming to the floor of the United States senate, some of them almost a caricature of the unequal filed nominees that we have seen unqualified nominees that weve seen all too often the. And one is before us today, Lawrence Vandyke, nominated to the ninth circuit. Over the past three years weve watched the Trump Administration march ceaselessly to degrade the judiciary. But even having witnessed this travesty firsthand, i find mr. Vandykes nomination truly astonishing and alarming. Once again, were faced with a nominee who lacks the support of his home state senators, who is not even from the state for which this seat is designated and who was rated not qualified by the American Bar Association. Thats a pretty tough set of qualifications or lack of them to match. But Lawrence Vandyke has done it. These departures from bedrock principles that once guided the senates constitutional advise and consent should disturb all of us, but even more disturbing is mr. Vandykes record as an unrelenting ideologue who has spent his entire legal career promoting an extreme political agenda. And, unfortunately, thats exactly what we can expect of him if he is confirmed to the ninth Circuit Court of appeals. That ideological rightwing extremist image and record is exactly why he has been nominated by the president , who has outsourced many of these decisions about nominations to the farright groups that evidently he feels he has to follow. Mr. Vandyke has already made it abundantly clear how he will rule on gun violence prevention issues. In an n. R. A. Questionnaire that he completed when he ran for the Montana Supreme Court in 2014 mr. Vandyke stated that he would not support any legislation regulating firearms and ammunition, any restrictions on the possession, ownership, purchase, sale, or transfer of semiautomatic firearms or legislation man mandating the use of mandating the use of safetyment. There are currently bills before congress that would do each of these things. I should know. Ive sponsored them. None of these would get a fair hearing in mr. Vandykes court. That predilection never disavowed, never refuted, never denied should be disqualifying. Worse still, in the same questionnaire, mr. Vandyke stated that the only reason he is not currently a member of the n. R. A. Was that he didnt, quote, want to risk recusal if a lawsuit came before me where the n. R. A. Was involved, end quote. In other words, he would join the n. R. A. , he supports n. R. A. , he feels that he should be a member of the n. R. A. , he wants to rule in favor of the n. R. A. , but he might have to recuse himself if he joined the n. R. A. That statement alone should be disqualifying. Were talking here, remember, about a lifetenured position on the federal judiciary, not just for a few years, not an elected position on a state court a federal nomination to the second highest appellatelevel court in the United States. Second only to the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Vandykes hostility to commonsense gun violence prevention also led him to challenge a law based passed by the voters of a state that he was charged with serving. In 2016 now were talking about nevada, not montana the voters of nevada approved a ballot measure to expand background checks to cover the private sale of firearms, closing a critical loophole in that states laws. I have repeatedly emphasized, we must address this loophole at the federal level. Nevada did it at the state level, but mr. Vandyke, who was at the time that states solicitor general, took the very unusual step of working to undermine the voterapproved law. Meanwhile, when he worked for the montana attorney general, he was all too happy to defend an extreme and poorly drafted state law that sought to exempt firearms and the ammunition made in montana from all federal regulation. Dont take my word for it, as yogi berra said. You could look it up. And mr. Vandyke himself stated in an email to the Federalist Society that this statute was, quote, illadvised, end quote, and that he could not come up with, quote, any plausible, much less good argument, end quote, to defend that state law. That didnt stop mr. Vandyke from defending the law, nor did it stop the Federalist Society from providing him with the help he had requested. In contriving arguments, concocting illfounded claims to support the law. When mr. Vandyke wants a particular outcome but cant figure it out himself or cant find the legal path to it, he turns to the Federalist Society for answers. No great mystery here about how he will act when he is faced with similar situations, if he is confirmed as a judge for the federal court of appeals for the ninth circuit. Unfortunately, mr. Vandykes promotion of the n. R. A. s extreme positions is far from the only plank of his farright agenda. He has made many statements hostile to lgbtq rights, including questioning the ability of gay parents to raise children and suggesting that protecting lgbtq rights is an affront to religious liberty. He fought tirelessly to uphold state bans on gay marriage. He fought to allow discrimination against lgbtq people in public accommodations. His open hostility to lgbtq people was one of the main reasons that the a. B. A. Rated him not qualified. Not only is it clear how he would rule on issues relating to those rights, but the a. B. A. Was not even confident that he could treat lgbtq litigants fairly, regardless of the issue before him. That is disqualifying. Mr. Vandyke is also an ideologue on reproductive rights issues. His adherence to his extremist positions against Womens Health care and reproductive rights has blinded him to the need about these rights. In 2013 he signed an amicus brief that stated that, quote, a growing body of Scientific Literature Shows that a fetus can suffer pain at 20 weeks gestation, end quote. That view was rejected emphatically by the American College of obstetricians and gynecologists who felt compelled to put out a statement laying this dangerous fetal pain myth to rest. Whether he cannot tell the difference between fact and fiction or simply feels comfortable misleading the court, this kind of behavior is disturbing for a federal judicial nominee. Ordinarily this kind of indifference to the truth would be disqualifying for a federal nominee. Ordinarily blind adherence to ideology would be disqualifying for any nominee to an important position of trust and respect. Ordinarily the fact that a nominee is unqualified would be disqualifying itself, but for mr. Trump, these are not disqualifying flaws; they are, being in, the reasons they are, in fact, the reasons for his nomination. So lets send the white house a message that we will insist on qualified nominees. They may have views that are different from ours, but they should be qualified to hold these lifetime positions of trust on our nations highest courts. I hope that we will reject mr. Vandykes nomination. Thank you, mr. President. I yield the floor. A senator mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from connecticut. Mr. Murphy thank you very much, mr. President. Mr. President , i am here to join my colleague from connecticut, senator blumenthal, and others in urging my colleagues to oppose the nomination of Lawrence Vandyke, and i may risk repeating some of the ground covered by senator blumenthal, but i think its important enough that we reiterate over and over the dangerous nature of this particular nomination. I have come down to speak on the floor in opposition to maybe only a handful of the president s judicial nominees, and in fact if you look up the voting record, i probably am amongst a very small handful of democrats that have routinely voted for the president s nominees, not just judicial nominees but also his appointments to positions in his administration. Often in committees, im the only democrat supporting some of the president s nominees and appointments. And thats because ive come to the conclusion that this body should give deference to the administration and to the president when it comes particularly to filling out those that work for him in political appointments, but to a degree as well in the judiciary. So ive put my votes where my test is, and probably with only two or three exceptions in the democratic caucus, i voted for more of the president s nominees than those on this side of the aisle. One, i want individuals who are qualified, and obviously qualifications are sometimes in the eye of the beholder. But i want folks who know something about the job theyre about to undertake or have some set of skills that will be relevant. And second, i want to make sure that the candidates we are reviewing for judgeships or for administration posts are not out of the mainstream. And i mean the conservative mainstream. I dont want folks who have radical points of view. Mr. Vandyke doesnt pass that test, as far as im concerned, and thats why i chose to come down to the floor and express my opposition to his nomination. And in particular, i do not believe that mr. Vandyke is within the mainstream when it comes to his positions on the issue of gun violence. Obviously its a personal issue not just to me, but to everybody in this chamber. We have a lot of disagreement, maybe a narrowing set of disagreements on the policy surrounding what we should do to better protect this country against the growing scourge of gun violence. But mr. Vandyke has held a position that would take away from this body the ability to keep our friends and our neighbors and our constituents safe. Mr. Vandykes record as a candidate for the Supreme Court and as a solicitor general was to endorse views outside of the mainstream that would take away from us the ability to pass laws to keep people safe. Let me tell you what im talking about. First and foremost, he was a vocal proponent of something called the firearms freedom act. As solicitor general of montana, he argued that the federal government should not have the power to regulate gun ownership in his state of montana. This is a political cause that is picking up steam in some conservative circles around the country, but it is still a radical notion, the idea that the congress can pass a law restricting who can own a gun or what kind of guns can be owned and that a state can just claim that those laws are not valid in their state. Thats what montana was attempting to do and thats what mr. Vandyke was pushing, the idea that that state was just going to conveniently avoid enforcing federal firearms act and laws. Now that position is unconstitutional, and federal courts have held that it is unconstitutional, but it didnt stop mr. Vandyke from pushing what is essentially a political cause, the idea that one of the ways to stymie federal action on guns is to just convince states to pass laws saying that they wont enforce federal laws. Thats a really slippery slope to go down, certainly on the issue of enforcement of firearms laws. But its a slippery slope to go down with respect to any federal laws that states may want to ignore or invalidate. Second, mr. Vandyke has taken a position opposing the constitutionality of restrictions on the sales of certain types of weapons. We have big disagreements here as to what kind of weapons should be sold commercially and which kind of weapons should be reserved for Law Enforcement and the military. I believe that these semiautomatic assaultstyle weapons like the ar15, they are best left in the hands they were designed for soldiers, Law Enforcement. Many of my republican colleagues dont agree. But that should be a debate that we have here. And i simply do not believe that our Founding Fathers would accept the premise that the constitution restricts our ability to decide what kind of weapon should be in civilian hands and what kind of weapons should be in the hands of the military. There was all sorts of gun regulation happening at the time of the passage of the United States constitution. They were not unfamiliar with the idea that government was going to have a hand to play in regulating firearms. I reject the idea that the constitution bars us from having those debates. Mr. Vandyke has spent a lot of time arguing that the constitution prohibits congress from acting to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of civilians. Its one thing to have a policy objection. Its another thing to put somebody into the federal court system that doesnt think that we should have ownership as a political body of a question which is inherently political, not constitutional. And so i come to the floor to just point out a handful of ways in which mr. Vandykes record i believe is outside of the conservative mainstream when it comes to guns. I think he holds positions that would make even n. R. A. Endorsed republicans in this body a little uncomfortable, especially this idea that states can nullify federal firearms laws. And so though there are many reasons, i think, to draw issue with this particular nominee, i put this set of issues at the top of the list. Again, this is coming from someone who has spent a lot of time supporting the president s nominees who, with whom i have big policy disagreements. This is i think beyond a question of policy disagreements. This is someone who is going to bring some pretty radical ideas on what the constitution allows states to do and what the constitution allows this body to do when it comes to keeping our constituents safe. I would urge us to oppose Lawrence Vandykes nomination, and i would yield the floor. A senator mr. President. The presiding officer the senator from oklahoma. Mr. Lankford mr. President , 2019 is almost over but there is a lot still to be done on this floor. A lot bills moved through this year. We have had 75 bills, or 78 bills i should say that have been signed into law this year so far. This year, as we worked through the process, we have had quite a few judges and nominations that the senate has actually worked through. By the end of this week well have our 50th Circuit Court judge that will be finished this week. Theres a lot of engagement. But with a week and a half left and were still on the floor we still have issues like the United Statescanadamexico trade agreement. That agreement called the usmca has been sitting in the house for 14 months. It looks like the house is going to take it up this week or next week. After 14 months of being there were pleased to be able to see movement there. The National Defense authorization bill, we hope to be able to move. Thats been waiting for months and months and months under the capable leadership of senator inhofe as he tried to negotiate this with the house and to be able to get that done. Hopefully that will get done this week or next week but its cramming into the end of the year. We have 12 Appropriations Bills still unfinished and we face a deadline of the 20th of december or well run into another Government Shutdown, which brings me to a bill that senator hassan and i are dropping today, something that we have negotiated for months across party lines to be able to have a nonpartisan solution to how we can never discuss ever again Government Shutdowns. This past week when i was flying up back to d. C. Back from home, on the plane as i was coming up, there was a federal employee that caught me in the aisle way of the plane and just said i hear youre working on stopping Government Shutdowns. Thank you. Her next comment surprised me, though. She said shes worked for a federal agency for years, that shes retiring in january because she is so tired of constantly having to prep for, prepare for, get set for a Government Shutdown that may be pending in the days ahead. Its worn her out. And someone who has great wisdom and experience in serving in one of our federal agencies is retiring in january and will lose well lose those years of experience because shes tired of dealing with shutdowns. I dont blame her, quite frankly, though i wish she wouldnt leave. I dont blame her because year after year we end up in this same conversation, are we going to have another shutdown. Federal families across the country, as we approach christmas, it seems like every year are wondering if theyre about to be furloughed and wont get a check soon. And federal Agency Leaders from those that are city confirmed all the way through the process of leadership arent spending their time on vision setting or oversight. Theyre spending their time in the office having to figure out what to do in case theres a Government Shutdown or working through the process of a continuing resolution because they only get funding a few days at a time. All of us know this is bad, but for years weve discussed ending Government Shutdowns but never done it. Senator hassan and i have put together a nonpartisan bill that is a very straightforward approach that we bring to this body and to the house to say lets take Government Shutdowns off the table forever. Lets make this so in the decades ahead we talk about the wayback days long ago when we used to have Government Shutdowns, as we have in this body now weve had 21 Government Shutdowns in the last 40 years. Lets talk about the days that used to happen that never happens again. We have a very straightforward, simple solution. Our simple solution is if you get to the end of the funding cycle, at this point it would be the 20th of december, if we get to the end of that time period, we have an automatic continuing resolution that kicks in so that federal families dont feel the effect of that across the country. Theyre not on furlough. But members of congress and our staff work seven days a week, we have session here seven days a week, and we cant move to bills other than appropriations for 30 days so that we are locked in to settling the appropriation issue. The simple resolution is if we get to the end of the fiscal year and our work is not done, we keep working until it is done. Its not that hard. But weve never made the commitment to each other that we will stay here and continue the work until its done. What weve done instead is one of two things. Just punt a c. R. , a continuing resolution, for months at a time and say, okay, lets get back to this in eight weeks, which is what we did before. And then before that, there was a fourweek continuing resolution, so we just punt it out and say well keep going and well try to figure this out later, which puts a lot of chaos in agencies. Or we do a Government Shutdown while we argue. We go home, federal workers are on furlough. Lets commit to each other we will never do that again. We will never put federal workers on furlough because we cant resolve our differences. Lets also commit to each other that when we get to the end of the fiscal year, well resolve the problem right then. Theres nothing different from this week than there was seven weeks ago, when we first started a continuing resolution. Theres nothing different about it other than we just decided to go and get it resolved. When we get to the end of this problem, this Congress Needs a deadline to resolve it. Lets make it and make it simple and straightforward. We will stay at it until we solve it. Thats our commitment, and that we will hold federal workers harmless through that process. Senator hassan and i worked on this for months. We have three republicans, three democrats were putting in front of this body today. We have multiple folks that have contacted us and said they want to be added as cosponsors as soon as we drop it. Today is the day we introduce that bill and we would welcome any of the 100 of us to be able to join us in a nonpartisan bill to end Government Shutdowns forever. And lets keep working until we solve the problem. Mr. President , i yield the floor. The presiding officer the senator from texas. Mr. Cornyn mr. President , let me begin by commending our friend from oklahoma for his patience. It takes a lot of patience to get things done around here. It also takes a lot of perseverance. Sometimes i think if you cant convince people, maybe you can just wear down their resistance over time. But this is a idea thats time has come. I congratulate our friend from oklahoma, senator hassan, and would love to join them in supporting their effort. Thank you. Mr. President , as you heard from the senator from oklahoma, this has been another wild week in washington, d. C. It looks like the house is working to remove the president of the United States and that their work is finishing, nearing the finish line. This morning the House Democrats unveiled articles of impeachment. It looks like the Judiciary Committee is headed for a vote later this week. I assume that means that it comes to the floor of the house next week before they leave. On top of that, this morning Speaker Pelosi announced House Democrats and the Trump Administration reached an agreement on the usmca, the u. S. Mexicocanada trade agreement, the successor to nafta. In my state nafta is not a dirty word and i believe the chamber of commerce figures, which indicates that nafta and trade between mexico, the United States, and canada supports about 13 million jobs in the United States alone. And the usmca will improve that nafta trade agreement, create more jobs and more prosperity. Ill be looking to see what this looks like in writing. We had ambassador lighthizer, the trade representative, on the Conference Call this morning trying to go through some of the top lines, but im still reviewing the details of this agreement to ensure its in the best interest of my constituents texas farmers and ranchers, manufacturers and consumers. And as you heard from the senator from oklahoma, were ten days away from a complete Government Shutdown, unless we reach some sort of agreement on spending bills. We thought wed taken care of this last august when democrats and republicans, senators and house members agreed to a top line of spending. But unfortunately after the august recess, our democratic colleagues walked that back and let us now led us up to the precipice of another Government Shutdown. On top of all of this, the Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz released his report on the Counter Intelligence investigation of the Trump Campaign and any potential contacts with russia. We know director mueller, the special counsel, has concluded after about two years that there was no collusion, no obstruction, but this was an investigation of something called crossfire hurricane, which is a Counter Intelligence investigation by the f. B. I. Into, that ultimately led to these appointments of the special counsel. I want to talk a little bit about in advance of inspector horowitzs appearance before the Judiciary Committee tomorrow because its very, very important. We may recall that this process started about a year and a half ago after speculation over the motivation and the methods of the f. B. I. In opening up an investigation on President Trump when he was still candidate trump. The 2016 election was historic in many ways, but one of the ways in which it was historic in a notpositive way was the fact that both president ial candidates were under active f. B. I. Investigations, leading up to the election. Hillary clinton for her use of a private email server. We saw the press Conference Held by director comey on the 5th of july, i believe it was, only to reopen the investigation publicly days before the election. You can imagine how secretary clinton felt about director comeys actions and what potential influence it had on the outcome of the election. But now, depending on which tv channel you watch or what sort of social media feed that you subscribe to, there are vastly different narratives about what this Inspector General report that spans 400plus pages, what it does or does not prove. But when you take away all the spin, there are some key findings of this report that should be of grave concern to every american. Republicans, democrats, unaffiliated if you are an american citizen and you care about Civil Liberties, you should care about whats in this report. First of all, there are the errors and inaccuracies in something called a foreign Intelligence Surveillance warrant. People may not realize it, but the Intelligence Community cannot open up an investigation on an american citizen unless they get a warrant issued by a judge upon the showing of probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. Now, the law is different when it comes to noncitizens overseas, and thats what the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act purports to cover, the procedures and the protocol and the oversight of that very delicate but yet very important process. One of the things that im that gives me assurance that our Intelligence Community is operating within its guidelines and the law is the oversight that congress provides on a regular basis. Its the laws we pass, like the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act. Its the work being done by the committees, the Senate Select committee on intelligence and i see senator wyden from oregon who serves and has served with distinction on that committee for a long time. But those intelligence committees, both in the house and the senate, provide essential oversight of our intelligence agencies to make sure they stay within the hashmarks, that they stay within the guide rails that congress prescribes. Then there are the internal rules that congress uses at the National Security agency, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa that they have to comply with, their own internal guidelines derived from the Authorities Congress provides. Then there is a very Important Court called the foreign Intelligence Surveillance court. When the f. B. I. Believes they have to open an investigation into potential intelligence matters, they can apply fora foreign Intelligence Surveillance warrant, which hopes up authorities they can use to gather intelligence to investigate this threat to National Security of the United States. But its a very laborious and detailed process. They have to apply to the court. And the court relies on the representations made in that application. And thats why youve heard so much discussion in recent months and even years about the foreign Intelligence Surveillance application issued on some of the people affiliated with the Trump Campaign, including a man named carter page. These documents are submitted to a federal court to determine whether the government should have access to what would otherwise be private communications. In this instance, the question was, was mr. Page, was there any indication mr. Page was an agent of a foreign power and improperly using his relationship with the russian government and the Russian Intelligence Services to become a threat to the National Security of the United States . I would think we would all agree as a fundamental matter that spying on an american citizen is no small thing. But thats what were talking about here. There are strong and exhaustive processes in place to prevent the government from abusing the powers provided under the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act, and thats of course where the foreign Intelligence Surveillance court comes into play. This court, like most courts, relies on the honesty and the accuracy and the completeness of the information provided to do its job properly. But we know in the case of the carter page application, there were a multitude of errors. In fact, the Inspector General has identified 17 errors in the four different applications for a warrant under the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act. One of them jumps out at me because it involves a lawyer in the general counsels office at the f. B. I. Altering a government record and intentionally deceiving the fisa court about carter panels involvement with the intelligence carter pages involvement with the agency community, a federal agency. But this lawyer at the f. B. I. Office of general counsel intentionally altered that record so that in the application for the fisa warrant the f. B. I. Would literally be lying and deceiving the fisa court about the facts. Thats a grave and serious and profound problem. Well, we know there were a number of other errors, and thats hardly an error thats an intentional, an intentional act, for which i understand the gentleman who made that doctored email has now been referred for a criminal investigation and perhaps prosecution for intentionally violating the f. B. I. s policy and providing a deceptive piece of information to the fisa court. Interestingly, i note mr. Horowitz is going to be asked about political bias, and he says theres no documentary or testamentary indication of political bias. But i think what this report demonstrates is something a lot more serious than political bias. It demonstrates an abuse of power, an abuse of power that ought to concern every american citizen because, mr. President , if these rogue agents at the f. B. I. Primarily in the leadership of the f. B. I. Can do this to a president ial candidate, donald trump, or the president of the United States, they can do it to any one of us. And what sort of power would we have if the might of the federal government was concentrateed and it arrayed against us in this sort of investigation . Thats why we must take these sorts of failures and intentional deceptions very, very seriously. Well, to make matters worse, we know this application relied on the deeply flawed steel dossier. The steel dossier was a piece of Opposition Research produced by the Hillary Clinton campaign against donald trump. And what they did is they hired a former intelligence agent from the united kingdom, mr. Steel, to generate this what has now been called a dossier. I want to remind my colleagues that when attorney general barr testified before the Judiciary Committee earlier this year, i asked him if he could state with confidence that the steel dossier was not part of a Russian Disinformation Campaign and the attorney general said no. He could not make that statement with confidence. And he told the committee that this was one of the areas that he was reviewing as part of his investigation. But he said, i dont think its entirely speculative. Well, the Inspector General touched on this in his report but noted that an investigation of this dossier falls outside of the scope of the Inspector Generals oversight role. His job is primarily to do oversight of the fide and the department of of the f. B. I. And the department of justice and not to investigate these outside matters. But we need to know we need to know with confidence whether this steel dossier was part of a Russian Disinformation Campaign. We are all profoundly concerned about Foreign Countries becoming involved in our elections. And there was no more intrusive means of getting involved in the 2016 election than the generation of this dossier. We need to know its providence. We need to know whether this was planted by our adversaries in order to create dissension and discord, which has been obviously the result of this investigation for the last three years. So i hope attorney general barr or u. S. Attorney john durham will be able to provide clarity on this topic. This is especially important considering we learned from this 400plus page report that the dossier played a central and essential role in the fisa process. And as time went on, a new and even exculpatory or innocent information was discovered, we know that the information provided by the f. B. I. And these renewal applications for this fisa warrant, they were not corrected. Well, the Inspector General failed to resolve whether the fisa was improv issued was improperly issued. The fisa court is considering this question, as well it should. Ive never sat on a fisa court, but ive spent 13 years as a state court judge. When you lie to a judge, that judge takes it seriously, and they have contempt powers and other recourse when that happens. So it is essential that the fisa court weigh in. Let me say once again, no american should be subjected to this kind of abuse of power by their own government. Thats why we need to restore the Public Confidence in the f. B. I. I believe director chris wray has begun that process and make sure that she is types of egregious errors and intentional acts do not become the norm. Director wray sent a letter to the department of Justice Office of Inspector General detailing actions his agency will take to strengthen the fisa process and make these documents less susceptible to errors or intentional alterations. I appreciate the directors acknowledgements of these problems. Under the agencys previous leadership and his commitment to preventing similar errors and alterations. Mr. President , that brings me to another concern. This has to do with something called the defensive briefing. This is something that Loretta Lynch, the former attorney general, said was routine in Counter Intelligence matters. Let me explain for a minute. The f. B. I. Provides many different functions. Most familiar with its Law Enforcement function, they investigate potential crimes and present that to the department of justice, then decides whether to charge a person with a crime. Thats one of the most Important Roles the f. B. I. Plays, but it plays an Important Role when it comes to Counter Intelligence. That is countering the maligned activities of foreign measures like russia and china and the threats those present to our National Security. But what Loretta Lynch told us is these defensive briefings are fairly standard. Its an opportunity for the f. B. I. To advise the target of these threats by of foreign influence so they can take steps to protect themselves. And we know that both candidates, Hillary Clinton and donald trump, received something that was called a defensive briefing in august of 2016. The defensive briefing for the Trump Campaign lasted 13 minutes, according to this report. It was a check the box perfunctory defensive briefing. Im confident the f. B. I. Did not come in and tell President Trump, thencandidate trump the russians are checking the doors and the windows, and theyre trying to break into your campaign, and you need to tell these people who are affiliated with your campaign to keep their eyes open and to knock off their association with these likely russian intelligence officers. At the time the f. B. I. Believed the russians were infiltrating the Trump Campaign, and the f. B. I. Should have told them that they didnt. This is different from a criminal investigation, like i said. But the f. B. I. Was presented with a couple of options when it came to advising the Trump Campaign. One was to provide as much information as possible so they could have given a real constructive briefing about known threats and sufficient information to help the Trump Campaign mitigate the threat. But thats not what the f. B. I. Did. Option two is to provide a generic briefing, no specifics, no names, no real details. Just a generic warning that Foreign Governments are actively working to interfere with the election, with maybe a little lecture about cyber hygiene and why not, change your passwords, maybe to get dual authentication when it comes to accessing websites and email, and not click on those phishing emails that we all get from time to time that could unload a trojan horse or some other malware on to your computer. But thats not what the f. B. I. Did here either. Somehow the f. B. I. Managed to come up with a third option, as documented in this report. They used this briefing not as a way to alert the Trump Campaign of potential threats from Russian Intelligence Services. They used this as an opportunity to conduct an investigation against general flynn who worked on President Trumps campaign. They were even so bold as to insert one of those investigatory agents. Part of the Crossfire Hurricane Investigative Team into that briefing with President Trump and his campaign. Now knowing that the f. B. I. Did that in this case, i cant imagine many campaigns that would want a defensive briefing because you frankly couldnt trust the intentions of these officials. Would you believe that they were there to share intelligence and help you protect american National Security or conduct an investigation . Unbeknownst to you. You cant in the process destroy Public Confidence in all of our institutions, including the f. B. I. I want to be clear, im glad director wray addressed these defensive briefings yesterday, among other matters. I have confidence in director wray, and i think the new leadership and the f. B. I. , since all of this terrible period occurred, has been encouraging. Director wray has clarified what his predecessors clearly missed, saying the f. B. I. s role in this briefing should be for National Security purposes and not for investigative purposes. Mr. President , this report has left me with a number of questions and a lot of concerns. And im glad well have the opportunity to ask Inspector General horowitz more about this report tomorrow in the Judiciary Committee. Its important we get to the bottom of concerted efforts to deceive the foreign Intelligence Surveillance court and the use of salacious and unverified materials in order to justify the issuance of these very sensitive fisa warrants. I believe some of the actions the Inspector General identified undermine Public Confidence in our Public Safety and National Security measures. And thats something we should all be willing to fight for. Mr. President , i yield the floor. A senator mr. President. The presiding officer the senator from oregon. Mr. Wyden mr. President , when the Trump Administration comes to an end, it is going to leave behind a host of sad and i would consider shameful legacies. And right up near the top of the list will be the shocking number of children who have lost Health Care Coverage under this administration. Now, mr. President , im sure folks cant really see the specific numbers here, but this trend line is what is important. Taking figures from the census department. People who are not political, not democrats or republicans, what this chart, based on census data, shows is that for year after year after year we saw the number of uninsured kids in america go down. That was something that i think was important for our country. It said a lot about our values, and it certainly said a lot about our health care system. This year were going to spend more than 3. 5 trillion on health care. If you were to divide that up into 320 million americans, you could send every family of four a check for 40,000. So were spending enough on health care, but were not spending it in the right places. And in particular, mr. President , i wanted to come to the floor and im glad to see my friend, the president of the distinguished body who has worked with me on a variety of health care issues. It got some areas were going to be talking about in the days ahead. To me, one of the areas in health care until recently we could all take pride in was this chart which nobody could really see, but it would show this trend line that the number of uninsured kids was going down. And unfortunately in the Trump Administration, that trend line of years and years and years of more kids getting Health Care Coverage has been reversed. And now more kids are uninsured. Now how did the trump people do it . Theyre not going to stand up in the front of a Government Agency and say, oh, we just dont like kids. But what they did is they hurt those kids and they hurt those parents and their parents, by keeping them in the dark for years while there were efforts, bipartisan ones. My friend who has joined the finance committee recently knows that our previous chairman, chairman hatch, worked with me for a recordsetting extension of the Childrens Health insurance program. The effort to expand coverage for kids was always bipartisan. Always, going back for really decades. Now particularly on the finance committee, i think of the late senator john chafee, late senator john heinz, people i have admired so much and always wanted to find Common Ground, democrats and republicans working for children. But now the Trump Administration in the dark has come up with proposals that have made it harder for parents to sign their kids up, harder for them to stay enrolled, harder for these families, parents with young kids, to even know about their rights, their rights to health care. And so now as a result of the Trump Administration reversing this trend, years and years of expanded coverage for kids, weve got hundreds of thousands of parents clinging to the hope their kids dont get hurt on the play ground, catch flu in the classroom or worse. And we know this is hardest on families balancing the tightrope, balancing the fuel bill against the health care. And one injury, one illness could be financially devastating for these kids and their families. And it can be a major setback for kids for years, if not for the rest of their lives. How is a sick kid supposed to succeed in school and get ahead if they are unable to see a doctor when they have a serious illnesses . Now, mr. President , ive mentioned that i know the two sides, this side of the aisle and that side of the aisle, can Work Together to find Common Ground on Childrens Health care. At the end of his service, chairman hatch, who has my colleague, the distinguished president of the senate, knows cares greatly about kids, was very involved with the late senator ted kennedy and others in coming up with the Childrens Health plan. He said we want to set a record, that we want to get a tenyear extension of the Childrens Health insurance program. And we managed to do it. But if you cut the services for people to find out how to get enrolled and to stay enrolled and if there are changes in programs, those changes in policy, which took place when the Trump Administration came to washington, ripple through very quickly to communities across the country where vulnerable americans depend on getting goodquality health care. And i just think its unconscionable, as i mentioned earlier in my remarks, that for a country with the Resources America has, that it wouldnt step in if you saw this trend of progress, fewer uninsured kids, suddenly be reversed. And it really happened very quickly, when the Trump Administration took over, youd say hey lets get democrats and republicans together here and pull out all the stops to fix it and get the trend lines going in the right direction again with more kids getting Health Care Coverage. We would have had to take on the Trump Administration here in the congress. We would have had to take on all those programs to make it harder where the Trump Administration made it harder for kids to get enrolled and to stay enrolled. But it would have been the right thing. It would have been the right thing for democrats and republicans here in the congress to step in and take on the Trump Administration and say, look, we understand there can be debates, differences of opinion, but you dont score points by attacking the services for children available under the Affordable Care act. Sew, madam president , im going to keep working to reverse this crisis. My colleagues have been coming from this side of the aisle all through the day to talk about this scourge, the reversal of the trend in this country with respect to Health Care Coverage. We used to be expanding it for kids, now its going the other way. The amount of coverage is being reduced. And i just want to say, madam president , as the ranking democrat on the Senate Finance committee, which has jurisdiction over many of the Health Care Programs that are most important for kids and families on an economic tightrope, i want to say that i, and i know my colleagues on the finance committee, several of whom have spoken over the last few days on this subject, we would be glad to work with any republican here in this senate who wants to turn this around. If any republican is listening to this and wants to come to the floor and say im interested im interested in turning around this ominous trend, im interested in turning around this trend where Health Care Coverage for kids is going down and i want to work with democrats to do it, i will commit, as the ranking democrat on the finance committee, to say, thank goodness. Weve got to get on this. This is too important to our country and to our future to just sit idly by and say were going to reduce the number of kids who are getting Health Care Coverage because were not going to give parents the opportunity to find out how to get enrolled and stay enrolled and know what their rights are. A country as strong and good and as rich as ours ought to be looking at every possible opportunity to help kids get ahead in life. That, in my view, madam president , starts with access to health care and right up at the top of the list it starts in my view by saying this trend line, which after years and years of showing more kids were getting covered is now going the other way and fewer kids are getting covered that we are going to say as a body here in the United States we are going to change that. And in a country as strong and good and rich as ours, those vulnerable families are going to be able to get health care again. Madam president , with that, i yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call wyden wyden id ask mr. Wyden madam president , i ask that two members of my team be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the congress. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Wyden madam president , i would now note the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call a senator madam president. The presiding officer the senator from tennessee. Mrs. Blackburn are we in a quorum call . The presiding officer we are. Mrs. Blackburn i ask that we suspend the quorum call. The presiding officer without objection. Mrs. Blackburn thank you, madam president. It has been so interesting to hear our colleagues talk about the things weve done this year, things that we have to get done before the end of the year that havent been addressed yet and then things that need to be addressed this next year in 2020, and i will tell you, 2019, for me, i look at it as i would successes and stalls and then some Forward Motion on some really important pieces of legislation. But to get there we really have had some fairly intense debates which have prompted our constituents and those back in tennessee to have their own discussions about what they think is or is not happening here in washington, d. C. My hope is that their debates around the Kitchen Table are sometimes less heated than ours and certainly i hope that their thanksgiving table debates were less heated than some of these that you see taking place here. Tennesseans, like a lot of americans when they end up talking about what we are or are not doing here in congress, they revert back to first principles, and i cannot tell you the number of times over this past holiday that i heard people say, look, for me, it is all about freedom. It is all about defending the freedoms that we have, protecting that life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. They are looking at that. You know, it is fair to say, madam president , they think in the long term while many times i think the media here in d. C. Just follows that shiny object story of the day. Whatever is generating clicks and likes and headlines, thats where they are, but tennesseans, they are not focused that way. What they would like to see is for our actions here in washington to be taken in a way that are going to keep them and their neighborhoods and their friends safe and secure and healthy and free and keeping them out of the reach of government overreach, if you will. As someone said to me last weekend, i just want the federal government off my back, out of my pocketbook. I want to be able to keep working, keep growing my business. A lot of people are there. Now, we have Seen Movement this week and a very good thing that has happened is the National Defense authorization act. And, madam president , i know that you have worked tirelessly on this, as have i, for all of our military Community Members in tennessee. And we have been very pleased that were going to see Fort Campbell and the divisions that call Fort Campbell home getting the funds and equipment they need in order to protect themselves and to do their jobs, whether it is shanucks or more training capacity or equipment and also emphasis on making certain that we are keeping their homes safe so that those families are safe in that military onpost housing, that Privatized Housing while their loved ones are deployed. And while we are looking at other components of the ndaa, tennesseans have been very concerned and are very pleased, i will say, about what has transpired with Oak Ridge National labs and y12. Oak ridge is a treasure for our nation, and much of the research in super computing and hypersonics is being done there. Also in the senate this year we have were paying attention to the implementation of legislation very important to our songwriters. I know, madam president , youve heard me say time and again that middle tennessee he, nashville, is middle tennessee, nashville is one of the most creative places on earth and home to more songwriters than anywhere on the face of the earth and the music modernization act will make sure that nashvilles songwriters will be paid fairly for the songs they are creating. These are all the things that we have worked hard on and we see these as priorities. When it comes to a legislative agenda that has taken much of my time, i started this term in the Senate Working on some things that protect the unborn, much as i had done in my service in the house. The first bill i introduced over here was the title 10 Abortion Provider prohibition act. And this is something that tennesseans wanted to see done, to make certain that tax dollars would not be used to fund or support Abortion Providers. It would not go to those clinics. And what tennesseans wanted to see was those tax dollars be put to work into Rural Health Care in an able access to health care for women and for individuals that did not have access to basic health care needs. And our state has been hit hard by rural hospital closures and thousands of tennesseans are now forced to drive miles out of their way to seek basic care, and i will tell you this is concerning especially for the People Living in the most remote areas of the state for whom there is no such thing as a quick ride or a quick ambulance trip to the hospital. It is miles of travel. Sometimes when those minutes are very precious and they feel that time is passing quickly and it is critical to get to that care. So as part of my work this year, i have worked on the and developed a Rural Health Agenda which has earned bipartisan support here. I thank senator durbin for his work with me on this, and i will tell you, this is legislation that, yes, it has bipartisan support here, but its got a lot of support scattered around the country. What this will do is support the establishment and expansion of medical facilities in rural areas. It will help doctors and other medical practitioners set up shop outside of the more convenient and lucrative urban bubbles. It also will enable telemedicine so that you are taking health care out to these areas that have a difficult time getting in. And speaking of the urban bubble, a lack of access to health care isnt the only thing that is causing headaches right now in rural america. Here in washington we dont have to worry about having a reliable phone signal or an internet connection. Were really fortunate in that regards. We know when we click on its just going to work. But outside of americas metropolitan areas, communities that lack these resources are falling behind. My Internet Exchange act will ensure that rural areas are able to build and maintain the infrastructure needed to support highspeed Internet Connections which will in turn support Business Growth and ecommerce and encourage investment from outside corporations looking to expand. You cannot have 21st century education, economic development, health care, or Law Enforcement without access to highspeed internet. Continuing to close that Digital Divide is a priority and i thank my colleagues for the Good Progress we have made this year. Of course that connectivity comes with a price. Opening ourselves up to the online world means opening ourselves up to the possibilities of Cyber Attacks. Now, this is a problem we have to approach as a matter of National Security as well as on the corporate side and in our homes. In addition to funding for military pay raises and upgraded equipment, this years ndaa, that National Defense authorization act includes support for the assessment and expansion of our cyber war fighting capabilities. But as i said, thats only one very important part of the equation. And while i was serving in the house and before i came to the senate, i have worked on legislation that will get consumers all the information they need in order to make a decision about how they want to share their private information, who they want to give access to that information. Once passed, my bipartisan browser act will give consumers more control over how big tech uses their personal data. You, the consumer, should be able to own your virtual you. You should be able to protect your presence online. Just as you are able to protect your being, yourself in the physical space. In return Tech Companies will be free to innovate and use that data to build their platforms and thats what helps make them profitable. New innovations. They can do that as long as they respect your wishes on how you want them to use your data. As head of the Judiciary Committees tech task force, and i do thank senator feinstein for her leadership in leading this group at Judiciary Committee, ive had the privilege of bringing both sides together on this debate to the table to have productive discussions on how so responsibly regulate big tech. And i look forward to continuing that in the new year. So, madam president , as we draw to a close, i would remind my colleagues that in tennessee, people remind me regularly that we are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And as we talk about things that have been done this year, things that we need to do before the end of the year, things like getting vawa passed, we need to remember that for all of the shiny object stories that circulate around here every single day, the people back home are saying your responsibility is to care for the issues that are important to me. That is where they would like to see us spending our time. I yield the floor. The presiding officer the senator from iowa. Mr. Grassley ive got one very short remark i want to make and then longer remarks to my colleagues. House democrats announced theyre moving to impeach President Trump for, their word, abuse of power their words, abuse of power. When all this started, democrats said that the president committed a quid pro quo. But that didnt poll very well among the American People. At that point the House Democrats switched to an accusation of bribery against the president. Now maybe that didnt poll well either or maybe they discovered that history doesnt support their definition. So finally theyve settled on abuse of power. Its kind of like a goldi goldis impeachment. The quid pro quo bowl was too cold and the bribery bowl was too hot. But apparently abuse of power tastes just right. While the American People are increasingly getting a bad taste in their mouth about the democrats partisan impeachment story. Now i want to comment on the horowitz report out yesterday. On monday of this week, the Justice Department Inspector General released his report on the Justice Department and the f. B. I. Investigation into the debunk theory that the Trump Campaign colluded with the russian government. I have pushed to shine a light on the origins of the f. B. I. s russia investigation. For now more than two and a half years. So you can see its been a long road. When information is embarrassing, the f. B. I. Has a way of fighting tooth and nail to keep the to keep it all secret, to keep it heavily classified. The f. B. I. Is hiding behind vague procedural excuses about protecting the integrity of ongoing investigations, all kinds of excuses not to come forth and not to let Public Information that might embarrass them. So in this case they put up a wall. And you have to keep swinging in order to crack that wall. Now i started looking into the origins of f. B. I. s corrupted Russian Investigation way back in march of 2017. At that time it became clear that the f. B. I. Had used Christopher Steeles work to investigate thencandidate donald trump. The work this was all done even though the f. B. I. Knew that steele was working for an Organization Called fusion g. P. S. Fusion g. P. S. Is an Opposition Research firm paid for by the Democratic National committee and the clinton campaign. The f. B. I. Knew that. When the f. B. I. Didnt answer my questions, i used my authority as chairman of the senate Judiciary Committee to hold up the nomination of Deputy Attorney general rosenstein. That got the Judiciary Committee a briefing from the department or from the f. B. I. It consisted of a lot of veiled after answers and associations that somehow Christopher Steele was reliable. Now we all know that he wasnt reliable. Ill give details on that shortly. In june of 2017 i asked the f. B. I. To produce all the fisa applications related to its Russian Investigation. After six months of wrangling, in december 2017 senator graham, senator feinstein, and i were permitted to review the four fisa applications in which the f. B. I. Sought authority to surveil former Trump Campaign staffer carter page as well as a number of classified documents relating to mr. Steele. I also directed my staff to look in Public Places that others were ignoring so that led us to mr. Steeles Court Filings in london. What my staff found was that mro passing some of the contents of his dossier foreignwide to media organizations. Now, that raised a very important question about whether information steele gathered was open to manipulation or just part of one big feedback loop. We also learned that according to the f. B. I. , steele had told the f. B. I. That he had not spoken to the media about his findings, and that was in direct contradiction to what he said in the court in london. After reviewing all of this information, senator graham and i wrote a letter referring mr. Steele to the f. B. I. For potential violation of 18 u. S. C. 1001. That section of the code makes charges of lying to the f. B. I. At the heart of our referral was an eightpage memorandum that laid out much of what we had learned from my investigative efforts at that point. We now know from the i. G. Report that the f. B. I. Top brass was aware of mr. Steeles statements to the British Court in spring, 2017, but the fib never accessed those filings and never considered telling the foreign Intelligence Surveillance court that its assurances about steeles thirdparty contacts were, in fact, wrong. So as soon as the referral went out, i began pushing the f. B. I. To declassify as much of those referrals as possible. The f. B. I. Resisted my efforts every step of the way because theres this is probably going to be very embarrassing to them. My fight to make information in the referral memo public was helped along very directly by President Trump who declassified a memo prepared by the House Intelligence Committee that touched a number of the same topics. So in february of 2018, senator graham and i also wrote Inspector General horowitz to call his attention to everything that we had learned and request that he conduct a comprehensive review of improper political influence, misconduct, and mismanagement of the f. B. I. s russia investigation. My efforts have been based on my investigative activity and also the overriding need for more transparency from the American Government, because transparency brings accountability. After the release of the russia report, there better be accountability. The Inspector Generals findings ought to concern every Single Member of this chamber because it concerns the American People. We, the people, have a profound deep and abiding respect for our fundamental constitutional rights. These fundamental rights have not been granted or created by the government. Our rights are godgiven, our rights are inalienable, and our rights are selfevident. The Inspector Generals report shows that despite all the checks that we have put in place to ensure that the government will not infringe on those rights without proper cause, its still possible for bad actors to lie, bad actors to withhold information, and bad actors to doctor documents in order to get around those safeguards to achieve their own goals. The Inspector General report has finally let some light shine on the wrongdoing that occurred with the Justice Department and the f. B. I. During this infamous russia investigation. So lets start then with that steele dossier. The steele dossier played a very central role, an essential role in the russia investigation, according to the Inspector General report, and those words central and essential come from the report. Before the f. B. I. Got it, they tried to open a fisa on carter page, and there wasnt enough evidence but once the dossier was acquired, that was the Tipping Point for the f. B. I. To tell the fisa court that it had probable cause that an american citizen was an agent of a Foreign Government. We now know that this central and essential document was not even a finished product. The dossier was based on a Single Source reporting, and steele wasnt even the original source. He had a primary sub source that used multiple sources that we now know didnt even have a direct access to the people that they were reporting on. And some of these sources were russia government officials. Were talking about many, many levels of hearsay. Well, the f. B. I. Got around to interviewing that primary sub source, but only after, after the f. B. I. Opened a fisa warrant on carter page. Now, think about that, will you . The f. B. I. Used one of the most powerful and invasive investigative tools without first verifying the information it provided the court. The primary sub source raised the following issues steele had reliability issues. The primary sub source had not seen the dossier until it was made public. Three, steele misstated and exaggerated claims. Four, the primary sub source didnt think his or her material would be in the report. Five, much of the information in the dossier was based on rumors, including conversations over beers, were told, or some of those conversations were made in jest. And lastly and sixth, none of this material in the dossier had been corroborated. After the f. B. I. Acquired this information, subsequent fisa continued to rely on this same document. It had lost all credibility, and everybody knew it. They had relied on the steele information with no revision or notice to the court that the primary sub source contradicted steele. Simply said, thats a fraud on the court. So the f. B. I. Couldnt get a fisa warrant until they got the dossier, and then kept renewing the warrant, despite very clear evidence that the dossier was faulty. It looks to me like the f. B. I. Couldnt get their way, so they used whatever information they could, no matter if it was false or not. And all to accomplish their goal. Their goal was pursuing an inquiry into the Trump Campaign. We all know about one of structs and pages infamous exchanges. Page said this in the text. Trumps not ever going to become president , right, question mark, right, question mark. Struct said no, no, hes not. Well stop it. These are people involved with the f. B. I. With a very antitrump agenda. So we go back. The f. B. I. Had a plan, and they would do anything. The fib f. B. I. Would do anything to keep that plan going. The information loop was contaminated from the start, and nobody at the f. B. I. Seemed to give a rip about it. They just wanted to continue the investigation into trump. A part of that investigation included using defensive briefings for the trump campaigt information relative to russia investigation and the general flynn investigation. Would you believe that the f. B. I. Decided not to defensively brief the Trump Campaign on alleged russian attempts to interfere with the election, information that served as a predicate to opening this inquiry. But the f. B. I. Did decide to use the briefings as an intelligencegathering operation. Now, why wouldnt the f. B. I. Simply give the Trump Campaign a headsup on any and all threats . They were looking out for his safety. Why would they hide the ball . You know that they did so for prior president ial campaigns, so if they did it for every president ial campaign, why wouldnt they do it for trump again, the f. B. I. Had a plan, and they would do anything to keep that plan going. Another disturbing finding in the report is that the f. B. I. Reported page and papadopoulos before the fisa warrant was issued, but its unclear who the f. B. I. Used to record them. Did they work for another government . Was it a spy . In those recordings, both of these men offered both of these recordings offered exculpatory evidence that was withheld from the fisa court. The fisa court should have known this information, but it didnt. Now, what it included was denials that anyone associated with the Trump Campaign was collaborating with russia or with outside groups like wikileaks in the release of emails. And number two, that page had never met or said one word to paul man a manafort and that manafort never responded to pages emails. To that second point, the dossier said page participated in a conspiracy with russia to act as an intermediary for manafort on behalf of the Trump Campaign. Now, none of that information is accurate. The steele dossier served again these words an essential role in the f. B. I. s investigation, yet it was filled with inaccurate and very false statements. Now, its important to remember the f. B. I. Knew all of this. They knew about those faults all the time, and they did nothing to apprise the fisa court, and they had a responsibility to do that. In fact, as it turned out, the f. B. I. Actively altered documents to make a better case for themselves. The f. B. I. Altered documents. One f. B. I. Official altered an email from another Government Agency to say that page, quoteunquote, was not a source for that agency when, in fact, page was with that agency. The f. B. I. Relied on the false statements to renew the fisa warrant. That means that the f. B. I. Used pages work, apparently, for the American Government as evidence that he was a russian agent. The f. B. I. Couldnt get their way unless they literally falsified documents to the court to spy on an american citizen working for the Trump Campaign. That ought to shock everybody in this country. The conscience ought to be bothered by every citizen that the f. B. I. Can do that. If it can happen to carter page, it can happen to any one of us. The Inspector General report also specified specifically identified 17 errors and owe missions omissions during the carter page fisa process and additional errors in the woods procedures. Wrong and incomplete information was passed through the chain of command for those approving the fisa warrants. After the Inspector General interviewed within the f. B. I. Chain of command, the Inspector General had this to say, and i quote in most instances, the agents and supervisors told us that they either did not know or recall why the information was not shared with the office of intelligence, that the failure to do so may have been an oversight, that they did not recognize at the time the relevance of the information to the fisa application or that they did not believe the missing information to be significant, end of quote. Regarding that last point, that they did not believe the missing information to be significant, the Inspector General noted that, quote, we believe that case agents may have improperly substituted their own judgment in place of the in place of the judgment of the office of intelligence or in place of the court to weigh the probative value of the information, end of quote. Now, thats a very extraordinary finding. We all know about the politically charged antitrump texts that were exchanged among f. B. I. Officials. F. B. I. Officials that didnt want trump elected. And they probably hate him to this very day, including an f. B. I. Lawyer who altered documents, altered documents now, an f. B. I. Agent did this to support the fisa application. Clearly, that bias affected the decisionmaking process. Indeed, the Inspector General noted that in light of the substantial and fundamental errors in the fisa process, there are, quote, significant questions regarding the f. B. I.  chain of commands management and supervision of the fisa process, end of quote. Really, thats quite obvious there is something terribly wrong. For example, stu evans, the d. O. J. National Security Division official with oversight of the fisa process, did not even know that bruce orr, another d. O. J. Official, had been in communication with the f. B. I. About the russia investigation. He didnt know that orr had been interviewed by the f. B. I. Until he saw the grassleygraham referral. Ultimately, the Inspector General was not able to interview everyone involved in the chain of command to the extent that the Inspector General wanted to do that. For example, james comey and jim baker, the former f. B. I. General counsel, did not request that their clearances be reinstated for the interview. Quite obviously, they didnt want to be interviewed. That means the Inspector General was unable to ask them classified questions related to their conduct. Now, this is what comey claims. That hes transparent, but he clearly wasnt in this case. Moreover, clem simpson and jonathan winier, the latter a former state department official, refused to sit for any interviews at all. These individuals played key roles in the russia investigation, and its a shame that they didnt want to speak up. So cant we legitimately ask what are they trying to hide . From what ive seen, theyre trying to hide an awful lot. Now, with all that said, the f. B. I. s fisarelated behavior has been so bad that the Inspector General has initiated a comprehensive audit that will fully examine the f. B. I. s compliance with the woods procedures. In the past, when there has been evidence of our government improperly infringing on the Civil Liberties of american citizens, we as a nation have firmly rejected that course of action. Weve taken those moments as real opportunities to strengthen our resolve and to renew our commitment to the values that we all share about our godgiven liberties and freedoms. Under the leadership of j. Edgar hoover, about 1920 to 1969 when he died, the f. B. I. Would wiretap, recruit secret informants, and fix the paperwork in ways that trampled on the rights of ordinary americans as a matter of practice. In those times of the f. B. I. , it was business as usual. Lets hope it doesnt become business as usual now. Thats why during the 1970s because of the abuse of j. Edgar hoover, this chamber undertook a vigorous Oversight Effort under the leadership of the latesenator frank church to shine a light on the excesses and abuses of our intelligence bureaucracy. Based on what we learned from that inquiry 40 years ago, Congress Passed the fisa act. That legislation establishes protections to ensure that government bureaucrats cant just spy on american citizens willynilly whenever they feel like it. Minority to in order in order to surveil an american citizen, the f. B. I. Must acquire a lawful order and do it from a court of law. We give them that power along with an expectation that theyll do their Due Diligence in using it, and we find out now during this Russian Investigation that the f. B. I. This decade did not do that Due Diligence. We do it with the expectation that theyll provide the court full and accurate information, which they didnt do to the fisa court in regard to the Russian Investigation, that theyll follow the rule of law and their own internal guidelines, that theyll respect the boundaries congress has set for them instead of reverting to their freewheeling, the very heavyhanded tactics that they embraced in the past. Most of the hardworking men and women in our department of justice and in our f. B. I. Today understand and truly respect these boundaries. However, it seems old habits really die very hard. Politics has crept back into the f. B. I. s work, at least at the highest levels. The actions taken by obama and comeys f. B. I. Sound an awful lot like the ones taken under hoover. Where do we go from here . We got to learn from our past mistakes. Ive said it before and ill say it again, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Transparency brings accountability. It helps us take reasoned steps to ensure that the mistakes of the past arent repeated in the future. After what i believe was far too long a wait, im happy to have finally received this horowitz report that we call the Inspector Generals report. I thank i. G. Horowitz and his staff for all their hard work. Im pleased to see that much of the Inspector Generals report is publicly available. Once again, this is due in no small part to President Trumps unprecedented commitment to transparency. I appreciate the president s willingness to grant attorney general barr broad declassification authority, and i appreciate attorney general barrs willingness to use that authority bring much of what happened out into the open. Its an important First Step Towards ensuring accountability. Of course, there are still many, many unanswered questions. Going forward it i eagerly await going forward, i eagerly await mr. Durhams findings with respect to how the Intelligence Community handled its part of the corrupted russia investigation. That mr. Durham is u. S. Attorney in connecticut, but he has been awarded by mr. Barr the responsibility of getting to the bottom of all these problems that were im talking about now and a lot of other problems. And unlike horowitz, mr. Dunham has authority to prosecute, and hes already opened criminal investigations. So in the sense of mr. Durhams work, i view this most recent Inspector Generals report as just one part in a multipart act. Durhams Public Comments make clear that he finds issue with whether the opening of the Russian Investigation was properly predicated. His findings may prove critical to finally and fully understanding whats happened during the obama administrations fabricated investigation into trump. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call mr. Mcconnell madam president . The presiding officer the majority leader. Mr. Mcconnell i ask this further proceedings dunders the quorum calls be dispensed with. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to legislative session and proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes eached to speak up to ten minutes. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i have five requests for committees to meet during todays session of the senate. They have the a approval of the majority and minority leaders. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i understand there is a bill at the desk and ask for its first reading. Ifer officer the clerk will read the title. The clerk a bill to provide for a period of continuing appropriations in the event of a lapse in appropriations under the normal appropriations process and so forth. Mr. Mcconnell i now ask for its second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i object to my own request. The presiding officer objection having been heard, the bill will be read for a second time on the next legislative day. Pursuant to the order of november 21, 2019, the senate having received h. R. 45 of 66 from the house and the text be identical to s. 2592, the house bill is considered read a third time and the question is on the passage of the bill. All in favor say aye. Those opposed, say no. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The bill is passed. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h. R. 5363. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk h. R. 5363, an act to reauthorize mandatory funding programs for historically black colleges and universities and other minorityserving institutions and for other purposes. The presiding officer without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i know of no further debate on the bill. The presiding officer if theres no further debate, the question is on passage of the bill. All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed, say no. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The bill is passed. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. Res. 451 submitted earlier today. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk s. Res. 451, congratulating astronauts dr. Jessica yumir and Christina Koch for thest completing the first allfemale space walk. The presiding officer without objection the senate will proceed to the measure. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell now, madam president , i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its Business Today it adjourn until 9 30 a. M. Wednesday, december 11. Further, that following the prayer and pledge the morning hour deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed and the senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the vandyke nomination. Finally that all time during recess, adjournment, morning business and leader remarks count postcloture on the vandyke nomination. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell if there is no further business to come before the senate i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order. The presiding officer the the presiding officer the u. S. Senate gambling out now. Earlier lawmakers approved changes to fda overthecounter drug regulations but also continued work im judicial nominations running patrick california to be the judge in the u. S. Court of appeals for the ninth circuit. Follow life senate coverage, here in cspan2 two. Sunday night im q a, doctor author raza, professor of Columbia University talks about a row, the first cell in the human cost of pursuing cancer to the last. A victory from the rooftop right now, that we have gone from basically having the unit verse of death and then killing 60 percent cancers today. Only 22 percent of people die. Both groups, not treatable and untreatable ones, i ask a very fundamental question. The people we are curing, 68 percent, my frustration is why we still using these holistic approaches of poison and burn. We will have 200 billion of research gone. Why are we not finding better ways of treating cancer. To make sunday night at 87 im cspan q a. Our cspan2 campaign 2020 votes team is traveling across the country asking voters what issue should president ial candidates address. This Election Campaign cycle is the national debt. I dont think is talk about enough. Bring the issue to the forefront but it needs to be addressed over 22 trillion in Foreign Policy and were able to do as a nation. Because our debt is going to be a problem for our children and future generations. I think should be curtailed. I would like to see it washington some of the Foreign Policy issues with a more analytical approach. Currently please with President Trump. His choices and his actions in the area but i hope that all of the politicians would approach it more analytically. Something in 202020, the candidate should address, the crises that are going im right now in the United States mainly climate change. The crises of gun violence, figuring out the United States and overall, humidity or crossroads. There between the death asked her and a result that could work out for everyone. Push forward with resolve to make everything better for everyone, not just a few. With this from the road, im cspan, speeding up next acting white house chief of staff, nick khomeini discusses impeachment trade and deficits. He spoke of the council meeting. Were going to talk now with make about the white house expectations for this next year but there is a lot of news to cover as well. So please welcome nick. [applause] there is a bit of news [laughter] lets maybe start with the