vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 74, the nays are 18. the motion is agreed to.

mr. portman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator for ohio. mr. portman: i would like to talk today about a couple topics. first i want to thank my colleagues on the senate commerce committee for approving legislation very recently to rename the nasa plumbrook station in ohio after a true american hero, the late-neal armstrong. i ask that it legislation be taken up and we get it passed. there is an identical bill in the house and we hope to get both of them to the president for his signature. it is a state-of-the-art testing facility near sandusky, ohio. it is doing a lot of the testing right now both for nasa and some private-sector companies. it is part of the nasa-glenn complex. it is an impressive operation. the one that is most impressive right now is the artifice

project. this is to put astronauts back on the moon by 2024, including the first woman. this will will lay the groundwork for a manned mission to mars. it is exciting stuff and at plumbrook they're already testing critical components of the rocket engines scheduled to carry artimas astronauts very soon. very soon they will test the spacecraft itself. it will undergo about four months of testing. my colleague, senator brown, and i introduced this resolution to rename the facility after neil armstrong this past summer and we did so on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the apollo moon landing where neil armstrong became famous as the first person to walk on the surface of the moon.

but neil armstrong was initially a test pilot. he's veteran of the korean conflict and just an amazing individual. humble, smart, very patriotic individual. and how appropriate that as a test pilot, which he was during his whole post-fighter pilot career until his time as an astronaut, it's perfect that plumbrook be named after him. neil's family agreed with that, as does nasa, as do others we've talked to. so we're hoping that this would be a fitting way to the honor a man who for all of his accomplishments saw him first and foremost as a patriot. who pushed the boundaries of flight and, therefore, the test facility is very -- it was very dear to him. i talked to him about this -- i talked to him about this test facility. i went to see him at his home and told him about the progress they were making and at that time they were trying to revamp

some of the facilities there. and he was really excited about it. he's a very modest man and did not want things named after him. he viewed his service to his country as the reward. that's all he ever wanted in life. so that makes it all the more fitting that we in fact do name this after him has a great model for young people and certainly for those interested in avionics and spacecrafts and being astronauts. he's a person who his example is one we should all look up to. so i hope when this comes to the senate floor for a vote, all my completion -- all my colleagues will support it and i hope that will happen soon. i ask unanimous consent that my next statement be made in a separate part of the "congressional record." the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i'm here today to talk about a very troubling report that was issued this week by the permanent subcommittee on investigations. this is a tough subject.

it's de-- it details in this report for the very first time how taxpayer dollars have been used really over the past 20 years to fund scientific research that has been misappropriated by one of our global competitors, china, to fuel their own economy and their military growth. what do i mean by that? what happened? well, every year federal grant-making agencies like the national institutes of health or the department of energy's energy labs or the national science foundation, gave out taxpayer dollars for research, actually about $150 billion a year. this is a good thing for us as a country. it leads to new breakthroughs in science and technology, health care, weapons systems and so on. this money goes into research grants primarily to universities and other research institutions across the united states. this investment has been very helpful to making the united states the world leader in scientific innovation. and again it has resulted in

some amazing breakthroughs. our u.s. research is built on some principles here in this country. one is transparency. another is collaboration. integrity, peer review, merit-based system. in fact, the open and collaborative nature of the research that's done here in the united states is one of the reasons we attract some of the best and brightest scientists and researchers from all around the world. and that's a good thing. but without proper protections, this research is vulnerable to theft by other countries, and that's exactly what has happened. the permanent subcommittee on investigations which i chair, along with ranking member tom carper, conducted an eight-month investigation into how american taxpayer h. funded research has been taken by china, effectively stolen, to assist their own economy and their own commitment. -- and their own military. china has been very open about its own goals to surpass the

united states as the world leader in science and technology by the middle of this century. at middle of their effort is talent recruit programs. china has systematically acquired knowledge and technology from researchers and scientists in the united states in both the public and private sector. in the in the course of our investigation the f.b.i. shared with us that china plans to spend more than $2 trillion between 2008 and 2020 towards improving human capital which includes recruiting and developing researchers and scientists. the thousand talents program which was the focus of our investigation is now in its 11th year of operation and is probably china's most prominent talent recruitment program. however, there are about 200 or more other talent recruitment programs as well. launched in 2008, china designed this thousand talents plan to recruit 2,000 high-quality overseas experts and to get their knowledge and

their expertise and their research. by 2017, china had exceeded that initial goal by recruiting more than 7,000 of what they call, quote, high-end professionals, end quote, including many from american research institutions. some of the u.s.-based researchers, of course, also receive taxpayer-funded federal grant money we talked about earlier to do the same research right here in the united states. in exchange for spending part of every year working in chinese institutions, the thousand talents plan recruits are rewarded with generous salaries, research budgets sometimes even exiegd their pay -- exceeding their pay at the american research institutions but where in practice they are working. these researchers often also get access to what's called a shadow lab in science. in other words, they provide them not just with funding, but also say we'll provide you lab space in china. at our hearing yesterday the department of energy witness testified that china offered

some of its researchers hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars to join a talent recruitment program. for a researcher here, the thousand talents plan might seem like a good opportunity, but it's certainly not a good opportunity for the united states, especially because embedded in the language of some of these contracts these researchers signs are troubling provisions to prevent these recruits from disclosing their participation in the thousand talents plan even though disclosing foreign payments is required by u.s. regulations. not only is this dishonest but it's also a clear violation of the american regulations that require researchers that apply for these grants we're talking about, $150 billion of taxpayer money, it requires researchers applying for those if they're receiving money from a foreign source to disclose it. in effect, what is happening with the thousand talents plan is that it is incentivizing these program members to lie on grant applications to u.s. grant

funding agencies to avoid disclosing their funding from chinese institutions. what's worse, in many of these contracts researchers are often required to transfer to china the technological break it throughs, the research developed in american labs with american grant money. there are lots of examples we found in our eight-month study. let me talk about a couple quickly. in one we learned a thousand talents plan recruited the delaware delaware lab used the -- recruited the department of energy used the money to file for a u.s. paternity effectively stealing the research. another member illegally downloaded more than 30,000 files from a national lab. this is connected with the department of energy funding, without authorization, right before returning to china. once china has it, some of this research could be used to threaten the national security of the united states. as an example, the state department witness testified at

our hearing yesterday that, and i quote, the chinese communist party declared the chinese university system to be on the front line of military, civilian fusion efforts for technological acquisition for weapons research and the expansion of key scientific and engineering talent to drive chinese innovation. end quote. that's pretty obvious. that's what all of our witnesses in essence said. this is not a new problem. we found out through our investigation that the federal government should have known about this issue for almost two decades but has yet to do anything substantial to stop it. it's unacceptable that we've allowed this to go on as long as we have. these talent programs are a win-win for china and a lose-lose for the united states. first, the chinese government and their research entities are getting research that is paid for by us. second, it's not used for us. it uses that research in china

to improve their own economic and military status. so why has it taken so long for us to do anything about this problem? i think there are a couple of reasons. first, the u.s. research community didn't fully understand the thousand talents plan and the threat it poses, even though this one program is more than a decade old at this point it wasn't until last year that the f.b.i. began organizing a unified federal reap responsible -- response to the threat it's been posing to our universities and research institutions. we've been slow to focus on this issue and, therefore, it's continued. i appreciated the f.b.i.'s candor at the hearing yesterday, by the way, when the f.b.i. assistant director testified that he had wished, he wished the f.b.i. had, quote, taken more rapid and comprehensive action in the past. end quote. i do too. second, i think one reason this hasn't been stopped is that the coordination between the grant making agencies is almost as bad as the coordination with the federal law enforcement folks,

meaning they aren't talking to each other about problems they have had, about particular instances, about some of the research that's been taken. as i've said, we're talking about more than $150 billion of taxpayer money every year that goes to these agencies. but once these funds are in the agencies' hands, we found no evidence of a unified and coordinated tracking and monitoring process to ensure the money did not go towards the thousand talents plan participants or other programs. the national science foundation, for instance, doesn't seem to have anyone who handles grant oversight in this regard. these research entities need to share information on these issues. but other organizations are at fault too. we found that the state department is on the front lines due to its responsibilities to vet visa applications for visiting students and scholars but it very rarely denies visas under that process. quite frankly, the research community here in the united

states bears some responsibility too. there's been a collective failure by our universities and our research institutions to vet researchers for these conflicts of interest with other countries. again, this is made worse by the fact that many of these researchers are receiving taxpayer funds to conduct their research here. so it's going to take a comprehensive strategy across the federal government to better protect our research against this threat. our report makes a number of recommendations that combined will go a long way toward strengthening the security of our research networks while providing the shared culture of transparency and fairness. it's a balance, of course. we want to continue to be the top place in the world for research, and that means that we have to be able to share and have transparency and openness, but it also means that we need to do a much better job at protecting this information from being misused. we of course need to do better at getting the word out to universities, research institutions and the general public about this threat being posed by the thousand talents

plan and other foreign talent recruitment plans. this means better coordination between law enforcement, the intelligence community, and grant-making agencies so the government is on the same page about this threat. we also need to change the research culture to preserve its openness and innovative spirit while making sure foreign researchers are properly vetted by this sponsoring organizations. n.i.h., n.s.f. and other grant making institutions need to standardize how they do applications and members of the research community need to develop best practices to follow so they can determine if receiving funds from a foreign country would compromise our principles of research integrity and threaten our national security. finally, we need to help the state department do a better job in its visa vetting process for foreign researchers. we immediate to be able to do a better job of detecting conflicts of interests of foreign individuals who don't have the best interests of the united states at heart start

using our taxpayer dollars. in the coming months i will introduce bipartisan legislation that will help address some of these challenges. i look forward to working with senator carper, the ranking member on this subcommittee and other colleagues to get those initiatives to the president's desk. let me conclude by saying we don't want to exclude china from contributing to scientific innovation, not at all. advancements in the fields of robotics, medicine, energy, weapons systems, and more are things that are very important, and many of these can benefit the entire globe. but we want to have fair and transparent processes in place as we conduct this research. and our taxpayers don't want to be the ones to pick up the tab as china misappropriates our research to build up its own economy and a military designed to rival ours. my hope is that this report is the start of a productive dialogue with china and here in congress on how we can better build a more secure research system that continues to reward

those who come to our shores to discover new breakthroughs in science while keeping china and other nation-state competitors from taking that research for its own purposes. thank you, mr. president. i yield back my time. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted to retired army captain jonathan ing, the he the department of defense fellow serving in my office for the remainder of this session of congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, before i start my remarks, i want to underscore how valuable the department of defense fellowship program is to our individual offices. i can tell you firsthand that captain ing's presence in my office has given me capacity to deal with issues concerning appointments that i have and the issues that are pending in congress of a military nature. for those of us who have never served in the military service, having someone like cap ping in

our office is incredible important. i want to underscore that and thank all of our defense fellows for the services that they are performing to our country. mr. president, on may 22 of this year, i stood before this body expressing my deep concerns about the media reports that president trump was considering granting pardons to certain u.s. military personnel who had been convicted of committing war crimes in both iraq and afghanistan. now six months later president trump has followed through with setting a very dangerous precedent pardoning three military personnel of war crimes, two who were found guilty under the u.s. military uniform code of military justice and one whose trial never concluded. president trump's pardons significantly disrupts the foundations of our own institutions, particularly the u.s. military. first, president trump's pardon caused confusion for our

military service members on what actions are acceptable on the battlefield, an already difficult task given the complexity of war. second, he undermines the military justice system. finally, these pardons degrade america's global standing and influence. steven preston, a former general counsel of the department of defense, wrote in the department of defense law of war manual in june of 2015, and i quote, law war is part of who we are. the laws of war shaped the united states armed forces as much as they have shaped any other armed force in the world. the law of war is part of our military heritage. owe -- obeying it is the right thing to do. self-control under stresses the combat is the same good order and discipline necessary to operate cohesively and victoriously in battle, end quote. the law of war manual goes on to outline the five interdependent

principles that serve as the foundation of the law of war. one, military necessity. two, humanity. three, proportionality. four, distinction. and five, honor. these principles are pillars of american values, and the guideposts we expect american sons and daughters to operate within so they remain trusted and respected by all citizens of the world. president trump's ill-advised pardons have placed those pillars on shaky ground. he has blurred the lines of morality for our troops and has disregarded the constitutional values of the founding fathers have set forth. by virtue of their oath and training, members of the u.s. military are accountable for their individual and collective actions through the uniform code of military justice. the department of defense policy states each member of the armed services has a duty to, one, comply with the laws of war in good faith. and, two, refuse to comply

with clearly illegal orders to commit violations of the law of war. two of these military personnel president trump pardoned were found guilty of violating the law of war through the prescribed department of defense investigative and judicial processes. they violated international and domestic law and they failed to uphold their constitutional order. president trump's pardon of war crimes erode the trust, confidence and the legal and moral authority of the military justice system. he never gave the military justice system a chance to work and determine all the facts surrounding the third individual whom he pardoned. our own commander in chief has now compromised and degraded the integrity of the u.s. military judicial system, a system america relies on to maintain good order and discipline within the ranks of our millions of uniformed service members. perhaps most important and most damaging, president trump's actions have eroded america's

moral standing in global influence. that erosion emboldens our adversaries to cite our actions in committing and justifying their own war crimes. have we become a country that now justifies and embraces the type of acts that occurred during vietnam or abu grab? iraq? will we continue to allow horrific acts by actors who did i minimum nish -- did diminish's america's global standing? by the multiple treaty obligations with other countries. our nation cannot tolerate crimes committed by rogue actors who violate their oaths and turn their back on american laws and values. if our government does not hold that's individuals accountable for their actions, the united states will never recover. under no is is adopting the behavior of

our worst adversaries ever justified -- ever. just as we seek to hold foreign actors accountable for war crimes, we also have an obligation to hold ourselves accountable. we cannot allow our institutions or the individual whose serve them to deviate from the laws and standards of conduct that underpin our great nation but that is precisely what president trump has done. our former colleague, senator john mccain, suffered many years of torture at the hands of the north vietnamese captors. nonetheless, he stood in this chamber to decry our use of the same tactics. he said, and i quote, this question isn't about our enemies. it's about us. it's about who we are -- who we are -- and who we aspire to be. it is about how we represent ourselves to the world. our enemies are without conscience. we must not. senator mccain was correct.

great power competition with our adversaries is not just about who wins on a battlefield. ultimately it's about preserving internationally recognized norms and values that uphold the rule of law, individual freedoms, and human dignity. if the u.s. fails to be global champions of global values, then our adversaries will replace those values with their own ideology predicated on intimidation, fear, and violent oppression. the united states must not willfully commit or condone war crimes. we must bring those who do commit them to justice, regardless of citizenship, affiliation, or background. even in the fog of war, especially in the fog of war, we must so act. we must always endeavor to act with moral clarity and preserve the international norms and values that took so long and have cost so many american lives to establish. mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, over the last few months, our friend and colleague, the minority leader, has railed about the lack of legislative progress here in the senate. he believes the senate should spend time taking up ultra part sang bills that have passed the house of representatives, but the truth is we respectfully decline to take up those bills, which in some instances would infringe americans' constitutional rights, send taxpayer dollars to political candidates, and move us closer

and closer to socialized medicine. now, our colleague likes to call these dead-on-arrival-partisan bills part of the legislative graveyard. but our colleague from new york has opened up a graveyard of his own. only his isn't full of partisan legislation that could never pass the senate let alone become law. no, our friend, the democratic leader's legislative graveyard exclusively caters to bipartisan bills. now, it's full of commonsense and critically important legislation would actually make the lives of the american people better if only our friend from new york would stand down. today we'll have -- we had a chance to kick the can down the road once more when it comes to federal funding because our colleagues across the aisle have

put government funding bills six feet under. over the summer, as you'll recall, we came to a bipartisan agreement on spending caps, a bicameral agreement to guide the appropriations process. we had a deal. it provided a road map for negotiations this fall, and we all promised to work hard and in good faith and stay away from poison pill policy rider. but, unfortunately, that promise was not kept. and our colleagues can't seem to put politics aside long enough to even fund the government. and why? because of a disagreement over .3% of federal spending, 0.3%. they have twice blocked vital funding for our military. they have blocked funding for mental health programs, for border security, for grant

programs, for schools -- all over these petty disputes. so here we are almost two months into the fiscal year, and we haven't sent a single appropriations bill to the president's desk. not one. well, with the government set to shut down at midnight tonight, at least we passed a bill to keep the trains run fog one more month -- running for one more month. maybe this was the least bad choice we had in light of these broken promises. the stopgap funding bill will carry us through december 20 and provide another opportunity for our colleagues across the aisle to make good on their august commitments to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year using the normal appropriations process. i hope that good-faith negotiations can resume and we can fund the remainder of the fiscal year by christmas because

the last stocking stuffer we want to give the american people is another government shutdown, and it's particularly important for us to fund our military in an increasingly dangerous world where weakness is indeed a provocation for the bullies and authoritarians who want to take advantage of the lack of american leadership -- in this case because congress simply refuse to $its job to -- refuses to do its job to fund the military. well, i'd be wrong to say it's all bad news, mr. president. i am an optimist by nature. it reminds me of the story of the little boy who comes down christmas morning and finds a pile of manure under the christmas tree and he asks, where's the penny? i'm an optimist by -- where's the pony? i'm an optimist by:30. yesterday we did manage to make some small progress when we

unanimously passed a bipartisan bill that i introduced with senator merkley you the senator from oregon, to bang the sale of riot-control material to the hong kong police force. as freedom-seeking protesters on the other side of the globe risk life and limb for the freedoms we too often take for granted, we cannot condone police brutality. admittedly, this is a small but it is also an important step to show we stand with the people of hong kong. but i find this ironic. the minority leader is fine with passing incremental bills to support the people of hong kong, but when it comes to passing incremental bills to support the american people, he objects. i think the best example is the legislation that i've introduced to bring down prescription drug prices. last week i came to the senate floor with my friend and

colleague and cosponsor, senator richard blumenthal of connecticut, to ask that our bill to reduce drug prices be passed. no one else had an objection other than the democratic leader. the premise of the bill was pretty simple -- prevent drugmakers from gaming the patent system to monopolize the market. our bill strikes a delicate balance of protecting innovation while encouraging competition, and it would be a win for every american who has felt the pain or sticker shock at the pharmacy counter. this bill, amazingly, passed the judiciary committee unanimously. i've served on the judiciary committee my entire time in the senate, and it is famous for its contentiousness, and we passed it unanimously. every republican, every democrat voted for it. and so you can imagine my optimism, my hope that the bill

would sail through the senate, meet up with welcoming arms in the house and then get to the president for his signature. but i guess i should have known better. our democratic colleagues have continued to throw up roadblocks for things as critical as funding the military, so why would they let this bill that would bring down prescription costs for consumers, why would they let it pass? so right on cue the democratic leader came to the floor and he objected. he was the only person out of 100 senators to object. he didn't object because of the substance. as a matter of fact, he called it a well-intentioned and good bill. but he objected. he certainly didn't object because it was a partisan bill. the bill has six democratic cosponsors, including the minority whip, the senator from illinois, and the ranking member of the health, education, labor, and pensions committee, senator murray from washington state.

so the only reason i can think of that he would object is because he doesn't want to see anyone whose name happened to be on the ballot in 02020 score a win. well, how unworthy of the united states senate is that sort of thinking. we shouldn't be thinking in terms of who's going to win or lose politically if we pass good legislation. we ought to be doing the nation's work and working together in a bipartisan basis, not trying to bring the 2020 election near here -- here to the senate floor. this bill is not the only one subject to these kinds of politics, critically. critological legislation to support victims of sexual violence and sexual assault has also gotten caught up in this way of thinking. after months of bipartisan negotiations to reauthorize the violence against women act, our

democratic colleagues simply walked away from the negotiating table. rather than reaching a compromise, building consensus on a bill that could pass both chambers and become law, once again our democratic colleagues chose the partisan path and walked away from the table. they've introduced a near replica of the partisan house-passed bill for vaw averages the violence against women act, which they know doesn't stand a chance of passing here in the senate because it's not a consensus product. that's not news to our friends on the other side of the aisle. they understand that this is more about the issue than it is solving the problem. the political issue. i think they've turned their back on bipartisan talks, not because they had a better solution, which is what we ought to be about, but because our friend, the democratic leader, doesn't want to give any republican colleagues who are

leaving the negotiation -- leading the negotiations, like the senator from iowa, senator ernst, allow her to get a win. well, this is really, again, unworthy of the senate to think in those petty sorts of terms. i think we should concentrate on who would win if we passed a violence against women act, which would be the victims that -- the many victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. we ought to be thinking about them and whether they would win if we pass bipartisan legislation. now, i believe the senator from california, senator feinstein, wants to come back to the negotiating table. she told me that herself yesterday. but i also believe the democratic leader probably isn't going to let that happen. like me, senator ernst is on the ballot next year and, again, the minority leader has demonstrated his focus on politics rather

than substance and doing what actually will help the american people. no bills to lower drug prices, no bills to support victims of domestic violence -- nada. he can't afford to let any republican bills pass because it might just hurt his chances of becoming majority leader after the 2020 election. i think it's a shame that the part sanship in the house has now infected the senate and prevented us from passing bills that would make the american people's lives party. i hope our friends on the other side of the aisle have a great thanksgiving break, and i hope they use that time to reconsider why it is that they are here in the first place, why we are all here. we are all here to make the senate work for the benefit of the american people and not to engage in these unworthy, petty political games leading up to

the 2020 election. mr. president, on another matter, before election year politics completely halt the work of the senate, here we are one year before the election. one item i'm really hoping we can deliver for the american people in addition to the ones i've mentioned is the usmca, the u.s.-mexico-canada trade agreement. this trade agreement, as we know, will replace nafta, the north american free trade agreement, and help drive our trade relationship with mexico and canada in the 21st century. when you consider the number of american jobs that depend on trade with mexico and canada, the chamber of commerce cites a figure of 13 million jobs. 13 million jobs depend on that trade with mexico and canada. when you consider actions being taken by china to counter our interests all around the world, our reliance on north american partners is becoming increasingly important.

the usmca ?olt -- is not only an opportunity to strengthen north america's position on the global stage but it is important to our economy right here in the united states. earlier this year the international trade commission provided some insight into what we can expect to see if this trade agreement is ratified. the usmca is expected to have a positive impact on every sector of the u.s. economy. within six years we're looking at 176,000 new american jobs and an increase in american gross domestic product of more than $68 billion. that's bigger than the proposed transpacific partnership trade agreement. we can also look forward to more than a $33 billion increase in exports and more than $31 billion in imports. we know many of those exports and imports travel across the

border in texas because we share 1,200 miles of common border with mexico and we have many ports of entry in our state. in 2018 alone, texas exported nearly $110 billion in goods to mexico and imported more than $107 billion from mexico. with the increased trade and travel we expect to see once the usmca is ratified, we need to make sure our ports of entry through which these goods flow are prepared. we've been working with the administration on this, and i've requested funding to prioritize texas ports to make sure that they are safe and efficient. i'm also hoping that the usmca will include provisions from a bill i introduced earlier with another border state senator, our friend senator feinstein from california. this would improve the north american development bank, sometimes called the n.a.d. bank

which invests in our border communities, particularly in the infrastructure. for every one n.a.d. bank dollar that's been invested in a project, it's successfully leveraged $20 in total infrastructure investment using public and private sector dollars. throughout n.a.d. bank's 25-year history, they've taken on projects that have improved air and wall street -- water quality and increased cross border trade. n.a.d. bank brings the u.s. and mexico together to finance projects to improve trade and travel and the quality of life on both sides of the border. this legislation that senator feinstein and i have introduced would authorize the treasury department to increase its capital and provide additional authority to fund critical projects. so i hope working with my friend , the democratic

colleague from texas, congressman cuellar, we've been working to make sure these provisions are included in the final text of the usmca. my hope is we'll be able to take those provisions up as well as the entire agreement and ratify it soon. but it depends on speaker pelosi. everybody's waiting for her to show the green light and for the house to act. and i'm concerned as we get closer and close into election season that it's going to be harder and harder for the house to even pass this bipartisan trade deal. right now i read today she is not predicting they'll even be able to get it done before the end of the year. i would note that she made that comment roughly on the same day that the house adjourned for ten days. so the house does not appear to be in any hurry to be sure. in fact, they have dragged their feet for many, many months on something that's vitally important to our economy

and job creation right here in the u.s.a. mr. president, texans enjoy a strong trading relationship with our southern neighbor, and i'm confident that usmca will continue to propel that relationship forward as well as continue to grow our economy and create jobs and more opportunity for the american people. mr. president, i yield the floor and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. president. right now --. the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call. mr. van hollen: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. van hollen: that you thank , mr. president. right now as we're gathered here on the senate floor, senate and house conferees are in the process of trying to negotiate a final agreement on the ndaa. that's the national defense

authorization act. one of the key issues in the final discussions over the ndaa involves a provision designed to protect the integrity of american elections against outside interference from russia or any other adversary. it's a provision based on bipartisan legislation that senator rubio and i introduced over a year ago to deter russian interference in a future american election. the legislation is called the deter act, the idea being let's deter russia from attacking our democracy. mr. president, i would be -- i believe it would be grossly negligent for the conferees to the national defense authorization act to bring back to the house and the senate a

measure that does not include a provision to defend our democracy from russian interference, and the entire senate must share that sentiment because we unanimously voted on a resolution just a short time ago to include such a provision in the national defense authorization act. mr. president, i have in my hand a copy of that resolution. it was s. res. 330, and it instructs the managers on the part of the senate on bill s. 1790, that's the national defense authorization bill, to require certain measures to address federal election interference by foreign governments. and it goes on to instruct the conferees, the senate conferees to require the appropriate official of the executive branch

after each federal election to promptly submit to congress a determination as to whether or not the government of the russian federation or any other foreign government has interfered in such election, and a detailed assessment of any such interference that identifies to the maximum extent practicable the individual's responsible for the interference and to promptly impose sanctions on any foreign government that has been determined to have interfered in a federal election including specified individuals and entities within the territory of the government. that's what the united states senate unanimously voted on to instruct our conferees to the national defense authorization act negotiations. and what i just read, mr. president, is the guts of the idea in the bipartisan deter act that senator rubio and i

have introduced. mr. president, here's what we know. we know that russia interfered in the 2016 election. how do we know that? it was the unanimous verdict of the entire u.s. intelligence community, including the leaders of intelligence agencies appointed by this president. it was also the bipartisan verdict of the senate intelligence committee, a committee that painstakingly documented the fact that election systems in all 50 states were targeted by russia in 2016 to different degrees but in all 50 states. that senate intelligence committee report was the first public, the first public acknowledgement of how extensive

the russian efforts were to interfere in the 2016 elections. so we know the russians did this in 2016. we know that vladimir putin seized interfering -- sees interfering in our elections as a way to divide us against one another. we know that vladimir putin fears democratic forms of government and wants to undermine public confidence in those democracies. how do you undermine public confidence in those democracies? by attacking the election process so that people doubt the validity of the outcome of an election. and when that happens, mr. president, if the public loses faith in the outcome of our elections, then we have really undermined the legitimacy and confidence in our democratic system.

so that was 2016. the measure that i'm talking about doesn't relate to 2016. it relates to the future. and here's what our intelligence community just informed the country about within the last few weeks. i'm holding in my hand a statement that was released on november 5, just a few weeks ago. it's from attorney general william barr, secretary of defense mark esper, acting secretary of homeland security kevin mcclellan, actor director of national intelligence joseph mcguire, chris wray, u.s. cyber commander and n.s.a. director general paul nakasone, and others. cisa director christopher krebs. here's what they said two weeks ago.

our adversaries want to undermine our democratic institutions, influence public sentiment and effect public policies. russia, china, iran, and other foreign malicious actors all will seek to interfere in the voting process or influence voter perceptions. so this document is not about the past. this document is about the future, about our future elections, including the 2020 election which is now less than a year away. so, mr. president, we know in 2016 the russians attacked our electoral process. we now have all of the leaders of the federal government, intelligence agencies and law enforcement telling us they predict russia will do it again

in 2020. so we have a russian missile headed for our democracy, and the question for all of us is what are we going to do about it? what are we going to do to protect our democracy and the legitimacy of our electoral system? well, first of all, we should harden our election systems. we should make it more difficult for russia to break into our voter registration files. certainly we should make it very difficult for them to break into voting machines. we should also make sure we build more defenses to prevent them from using social media -- the government of russia from using social media to mislead and influence voters. we should do all those things to better defend our election system.

but i'm of the view, and a lot of folks who have followed russia and vladimir putin for a long time are of the view is that the best defense is a good offense because we can harden our systems here, but that doesn't stop russia and vladimir putin from trying to break into our election systems. it doesn't prevent russia and putin from trying to use our social media to influence our voters. the only way to prevent them from trying is to let them know in advance that there is a big price to pay if they get caught. because right now it is cost free for russia to interfere in our elections. in fact, it's a net benefit because putin divides us, putin leads voters and citizens to

question the legitimacy of our democracy. so he's winning in this current calculus. we need to change his calculus. we need to make it clear that the cost of interfering in our elections far outweigh these benefits that he's gaining, and that is what the deter act is all about. what the deter act does is set up a process whereby if we catch russia interfering in our future elections, including the 2020 elections, there will be automatic swift, and very stiff economic penalties. not penalties on a couple of oligarchs but penalties on his banking sector, penalties on part of his energy sector. so if we adopt this provision, then we are making it very clear in advance to vladimir putin that if he interferes and we catch him, there is a very stiff

price to pay. mr. president, the whole purpose of this act is not to impose sanctions, it's a tid sanctions by making it clear up front what the cost will be if putin interferes in our election. the point is to use automatic and swift sanctions to discourage and deter the russians from interfering in the first place. now, mr. president, i haven't heard anybody -- i haven't heard anybody provide one substantive argument for why we should not do this to protect our democracy, and i can think of no more important place to include this provision than the national defense authorization bill because if the national defense authorization bill is not about defending our democracy, i'm not sure what it's about.

and so the question is, why are we still debating this in the conference committee for the national defense authorization bill? i can't figure out who's opposing it other than the fact that somebody is. i was told it was the republican senate leader and the senate chairman -- the chairman of the senate banking committee that are opposing this provision. if that's the case, they really need to come to the senate floor and explain this because the senate unanimously instructed senate conferees to adopt just such a provision unanimously. that includes the senate majority leader and the chairman of the senate banking committee. they didn't object. and, yet, somehow now when we're in the middle of a conference committee on -- on defending our country, which i thought meant also defending our democracy,

we've got these folks who don't want their fingerprints on it who are trying to somehow defeat this measure. so, mr. president, here's what i interest -- here's what i have to say. if this provision is not included in the ndaa, it would be grossly neglect because we know from our own intelligence community two weeks ago that the russians are coming to attack our elections again and we're going to pass a defense authorization bill where we sit on our hands and do nothing about it. that would be outrageous. so this measure needs to be in the ndaa bill. and i'll tell you, if it's not, i'm going to be here on this floor regularly asking for unanimous consent to bring this bill up for a vote. i'm going to have the majority leader have to come down here regularly or whoever he wants to designate to object to a unanimous consent agreement for a provision to defend our elections. so i hope it's included in the defense authorization bill.

that's the place it should be. and if it's not, i will be here down here every day and the clock will be ticking down day by day toward the 2020 election. our intelligence community will continue to warn us about russian interference and i'm going to want to hear in public -- in public why some of our colleagues don't want to take action to defend the integrity of our democracy. why they want to allow putin to have his way cost free. that's a question i'll be asking every day. i hope i don't have to ask it every day. i hope we do what the senate already asked your 0 conferees to do which is to include it in the neacial -- in the national defense authorization act. i yield back my time.

a senator: mr. president. mr. sullivan: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that nadia kivikk be granted floor privileges in my office. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: mr. president, it's thursday, and i know the pages know this and many people watching know this, but it's that time of the day in the senate where i come down to the senate floor and talk about somebody who makes my state a very unique and special place.

it's an opportunity for me to talk a little bit about what's going on in alaska. right now, particularly before the holidays, somebody we refer to in the senate is called the alaskan of the week. before i get into this alaskan, i will give you a weather update. a lot of people want to know what is going on. winter has come. snow has arrived through much of the state. south central alaska has come, anchorage is covered with snow, many people are ready to undertake winter. in the northern most part of alaska, point barro, the sun rose and sat for the last time until january 23. it's going to be dark up there. they are used to that. great people. great people.

the community's now settled in for a bit of a dark arctic winter but they've been doing that for a little lenal. it is a -- for a millennial. i ask that everyone come up fall, winter, spring, summer, come on up. it's a trip of a lifetime. i think i come from the most beautiful state in the country, but it's also a place made up of so many important, caring, wonderful, generous, supportive people anywhere. and some of these people have had ancestors living in alaska for thousands and thousands of years. others arrived more recently, but immediately found a home in a community that they were supportive of and were supportive of them. so the let me introduce to you rose marie havish, rosy her

friends call her, an extraordinary alaskan who has done extraordinary things for our people and she is the alaskan of the week. so what has she done? what is extraordinary about rosy? let me fengs one off the top which -- mention one off the top which is pretty remarkable. fostering over 50 alaskan children with her husband evan hobson jr. i should adhere that evan is the son of the first mayor of the north alaskan burro and fought for the rights of alaska natives throughout all of his life. he deserves mention as well as his wife as a legendary alaskan. not only did they foster all of these children, they adopted three, raised five of their own children, and that's a crowded household but a kind and loving and supportive household, a warm

household, a place of love. mr. president, i could say here that the recommendation for rosy to be our alaskan of the week comes from our first alaska -- first alaskan's institute fellow, elizabeth kiviotic, who is right here with me and did a great job in my office and elizabeth is one of dozens and dozens of children that rosy and evan took into their home they love so much so they could love themselves. let me tell you about rosy, our alaskan of the week. she was born in idaho, and unfortunately she came from a broken home. her mother was battling an illness and was sometimes too sick to handle rosy and her siblings. it was one of those bouts of illness that rosy became a

foster child. that experience and the experience of visiting her mother in an institution and the kindness of neighbors who stepped up and helped during those very difficult years would form the basis of rosy's steadfast belief that helping others in your community throughout your state is a higher calling. eventually rosy moved with her family to fairbanks where she was just a young girl, and those were good years for her and her family. she thrived in alaska, went to college, became a social worker for the state. eventually her work took her to okiovic, formally barro, alaska, where she fell in love with her husband evan and her community. she found if you had a good idea and willing to do the work you could succeed with the help of others, and she did succeed. at various points during her time in the north slope burrow

of our great state, she worked as the director of the city's wreck department, director of the health department, director of the eskimo whaling commission and sat on the board of the community action plan, she was a public health service and appointed director of the north slope borough health department by two different mayors. that is an impressive resume, as you see. she now spends much of her time in anchorage where she volunteers for a group called friends servinging humanity. you can find her handing out meals and handing out food boxes often paid for out of her own pocket. mr. president, rosy gives her all to everything she does, one of her truly lasting contributions to alaska and to

her community is how she is taken in so many children across the state who need a home, who need support, who need love. she took in siblings, she took in infants, she took in teenagers, she took them from all backgrounds from all across the state and she loved them. she was patient with them. she intuitively understood and -- understood what they needed and when they needed it. some of the children she took in were horribly abused. most others were homesick. some were confused in alaska, getting running water to households across the state has long been a major challenge, one that reare still -- one we are still working on today. if you can believe this, this is certainly one of my passions in the senate. we have over 30 communities in

alaska with no flush toilets, no water and sewer. in america. many of the children that came to rosy were from these kind of households and these kinds of communities. many had never flushed a toilet in their life. she was sensitive to all this and one of the first things she did when a child came to her was to teach her how a faucet and a bathroom and a toilet worked. then she fed them. rosie's cooking is renown. she listened to them and loved them. this is how one of her former foster children described the experience of walking into rosie's home. quote, imagine coming from a place with nothing, nothing. poverty. and you walk into a normal house filled with normal things, that people and the rest of america take for granted, a warm house, a flushed toilet, food on the

stove, adults who speak to you kindly. it was like visiting a toy store for the first time. it was like visiting a different planet. it showed us what a good life could be like. mr. president, not all of rosie's kids made it out of a life of challenges and dysfunction and abuse, but many of them have. many have broken the cycle of violence in their families for the first time. some of them along with their biological children and the ones she has adopted are now doing great things for our state and our country. they are successfully running businesses. they have joined the military. they've worked at high levels of government. one of them is sitting right here next to me on the senate floor working in my office, and we're lucky to have elizabeth. but all of them regardless of

where they are now, quote, have a place in my heart, says rosie. why does she do it? why has this woman given herself to so many others? and changed so many lives? she tells a story of a time when her mother was sick and had to go back into the institution leaving her to take care of her four younger siblings. it was christmas time. and rosie literally had nothing. so the neighbors got together, left boxes of presents at the door at their house and brought over a christmas dinner when she was young and needed help. that's the way life is supposed to be, rosie said. you're supposed to recognize when people have less than you, and you're supposed to help them out. it doesn't matter if you're

looking at it through a biblical lens or karma or through buddha. giving is fundamental. that's her quote. giving is fundamental. mr. president, all the senators here today are heading home, heading back to the great states we represent for thanksgiving, which we will be celebrating next week, a uniquely american holiday that all of us love and cherish so much. i know i certainly do. rosie and evan's story and commitment to others is exactly the kind of things we as americans should be thankful for as we're celebrating thanksgiving next week. giving is fundamental. i know i am thankful for what they've done. their household will be full this holiday season.

friend, family, children. at some point this season they'll make her -- she'll make her famous applesaucage stuffing, a respect -- apple sausage stuffing, one she learned from her own mother and passed on to foster kids all across the great state of alaska. it's made with love and with kindness and thanksgiving. so rosie, thank you for all you've done from the bottom of my heart. thanks for your spirit, your generosity, your example as we head into thanksgiving weekend, for touching so many lives across alaska and congratulations on being our alaskan of the week and happy thanksgiving. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. a senator: how are you? are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: no. a senator: great. thank you, mr. president. ms. cortez masto: i have spent three years now in the united states senate, and during this time i can tell you the number

one issue when i'm home and i suspect it's in your state as well and across this country is the cost of health care in this country and that we ensure everybody in this country, no matter your party, your religion, where you live, urban or rural area, you want access to affordable health care, not only when you need it but also for preventive purposes. give you peace of mind. and unfortunately what we have seen is high costs, inability to get access to it, oftentimes when you're a rural community, and a fight here in congress. instead of working together to solve this problem, we are too far apart in preventing a solution, in coming together for a solution. you know, it is open enrollment season for health care right now, which means americans have an opportunity to get new health

care coverage or change the coverage they've got. and in nevada, the state is running a new exchange website and working hard to make sure every nevadan gets covered at nevadahealthlink.com. i want to thank our fantastic exchange director heather kavalik and her team for all they're doing. i also want to encourage all nevadans to get covered. i don't think people realize how much help there is for individuals to get coverage at nevada health link. if you want health care, please, please, reach out by the december 15 deadline to learn more about the opportunities that are available to you to be able to afford it. open enrollment is a good time for us to reflect on how far we've come thanks to the affordable care act and to take stock -- to take stock of the threats to that coverage.

unfortunately, i've watched in congress here as members of the republican party, particularly this administration, tried to sabotage the affordable care act at every turn. at the end of october, the senate held a vote on senator warner's resolution to overturn this administration's damaging and dangerous rule expanding so-called junk plans. now, my democratic colleagues voted in favor of the resolution because they know how important health care is to our constituents. yet unfortunately, nearly all the senate republicans voted against it. they voted to allow americans to buy skimpy, low-benefit plans that send us back to the dark days of health coverage in america by allowing ensure -- insurers to side step the patient protections in the affordable care act. these junk plans don't cover essential services like prescription drugs, emergency room visits, mental health care,

and maternity care. and they don't prevent insurers from discriminating against people with preexisting conditions. and there's about 1.2 million of them in nevada alone. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that these junk plans are low cost. well, they cost less than some plans, but that doesn't mean they're cheap. they may have high deductibles or exclude coverage of costly services. and by law more of the money they collect in premiums can go towards the insurer's profits. when you realize that these plans provide barely any benefits, you can see that for most people the plans are no savings at all. what's more, because insurers often use deceptive marketing practices, people who purchase these plans don't always know just how skimpy their coverage is. sometimes patients don't realize

that their plans leave out much needed procedures until after they've racked up huge bills. paving the way for junk plans is just way republicans are undermining the affordable care act. the trump administration and 18 republicarepublican state attors general are trying to get the fifth circuit court of appeals to overturn the entire affordable care act in a case called texas v. united states. this is just the latest, one of the most dangerous of over 100 republican attempts to get rid of the affordable care act in congress and the courts. now, if the fifth circuit overturns the affordable care act, americans would lose the piece of mind -- the peace of mind and protections they've told us so many times that they want. the last thing americans need is for us to turn back the clock to a time when they couldn't get health care for preexisting conditions or they couldn't get

insurance to cover essential health needs. this summer i met with ashby bellows and charlie belle, two nevadans with juvenile diabetes. both girls are doing well now. but their parents worry that when the girls are no longer on their parents' plans, that they might opt to ration their insulin. think about that. ration their insulin. unfortunately, it is a common practice among people who cannot afford the often sky high cost of insulin and it can be deadly. in fact, one out of seven americans knows someone who passed away in the last five years because they couldn't afford treatment for a medical condition. now, senate republicans have told their constituents that they will protect americans' health care and president trump has said he has a plan to provide americans with health care. well, where is it?

i mean, the only plan we've seen is an attempt to sabotage the affordable care act and rip away coverage from hundreds of thousands in nevada and millions across america. my democratic colleagues and i are fighting to ensure that everyone in this country has access to affordable health care. unfortunately what i've seen on the other side of the aisle and this administration, they're fighting to take it away. there's a clear distinction between the two, and i think the american public is tired of it. we all should be working in a bipartisan way to make sure that everyone in this country has access to affordable health care. so i will continue to vote for comprehensive and affordable health care in this country, and i'll continue pushing to strengthen the affordable care act and reduce prescription drug costs for nevadans. and i'll keep fighting to ensure that americans stay safe and healthy. and i will assure you i will keep talking to my colleagues so

that hopefully one day we are both fighting for the same thing, which is to ensure that everyone in this country no matter your background or where you live, you have access to affordable health care when you need it, when you need that coverage, and you want to protect a loved one. thank you, mr. chair. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you very much, mr. president. i rise today to express my concerns about the president's recent interference in war crimes cases involving members of the united states military and the president's inappropriate public statements regarding these cases. the president has the power to pardon, but he has a responsibility to use that power wisely, not recklessly. and the way he has gone about it in this instance does a real disservice to our troops and the

entire american military justice system. good order and discipline are critical and time-honored traits of the united states military, not only to enable military readiness and effectiveness but also to make sure military men and women remain firmly tethered to our moral ethics and principles in the most demanding wartime environments. few have argued that the president has the authority to pardon but that is a false defense. the issue is that the president's intervention in these cases and the damaging messages sends the world -- to the world, our adversaries and most importantly our men and women in uniform. the commander in chief's actions should make us safer and stronger in the world, but president trump's actions do not. the cases in which the president intervenes are far outside of the form. the president's pardon authority has traditionally been reserved for nonviolent infractions including draft division