to my preconceptions. thank you. [ applause ] >> the house will be in order. >> for 40 years, c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events from washington, d.c. and around the country. so you can make up your own mind. created by cable in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in on this thursday morning. senate lawmakers expected to continue work on executive nominations, including the nomination of president trump's pick to head the white house budget office information and

regulatory affairs branch. a vote on advancing the nomination is set for 11:00 eastern today. and now live to the senate floor here on c-span 2. ... the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will open the senate with prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal father, who extends daily to our lawmakers compassionate love, we praise your holy name. in a fragile world, where we

often find ourselves waiting to exhale, you remain our shelter for every storm. lord, relieve the shadows of gloom as we face a world endangered by selfishness and sin. bring our senators from the fatigue of despair to the buoyancy of hope. make their lives unflickering lights that scatter the darkness in our nation and world. give them an unflinching certainty that you are

sovereign. we pray in your great name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask permission to address the senate for one minute as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: over the past

year, the iranian regime has been increasingly aggressive, attacking oil tankers in our persian gulf, shooting down a u.s. drone, seizing a british tanker, attacking a saudi oil facility, attacking u.s. military bases in iraq, and storming the u.s. embassy in baghdad. the u.s. response to iran's increasing provocations had been too measured to the point that we risked iran's leaders mistaking restraint on the part of america for weakness and encouraging further escalation. another attack that risked many american lives was in the works

when president trump ordered u.s. forces to take out the terrorist mastermind of the iranian regime. now, think about it. sometimes you have to stand up to a bully to get him to back off or else we might be inviting further aggression. i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: first this morning i want to associate myself with the statement made yesterday by one of our distinguished colleagues about the house democrats treating impeachment like a political toy. here's what the senator said. if it's serious and urgent, send them over. if it isn't, don't. that, madam president, was our democratic colleague, the senior senator from california, the

ranking member of the judiciary committee. and she wasn't alone. quote, it's time to get on with it. that's our democratic colleague, the junior senator from delaware. quote, at some point, it's appropriate to send them and pass the baton to senators, our democratic colleague, the senior senator from connecticut. quote, i think the time has passed. she should send the articles, our democratic colleague, the junior senator from connecticut. now, this is a challenging time to create bipartisan agreement in the senate on any subject, but the speaker of the house has managed to do the impossible. she's created this growing bipartisan unity here in the senate in opposition to her own reckless behavior.

senators may not agree on much, but it appears most of us still recognize a threat to our institution when we see one. article 1, section 3, says the senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments, period. the house can begin the process and speaker pelosi's majority has certainly done that, but the senate alone can resolve it. and yet for weeks now the house majority has blocked the senate from fulfilling our constitutional duty in a display of partisanship. the speaker has refused to let her own allegations proceed normally to trial unless she gets to hand design various elements of our senate process. in other words, the house democrats have already spent 12 weeks undermining the

institution of the presidency with an historically unfair and subjective impeachment, and now for a sequel, they've come after the institution of the senate as well. that's where we are. the dwindling number of our senate democratic colleagues who remain complicit in this must realize what they are doing. should future house majorities feel empowered to waste our time with junior varsity political hostage situations? should future speakers be permitted to conjure up this sword of damocles at will and leave it hanging over the senate unless we do what they say? of course not. this week a majority of the senate stepped forward to make it perfectly clear that this conversation is over. a majority of this body has said definitively that we are not ceding our constitutional authority to the partisan

designs of the speaker. we'll not let the house extend its precedent-breaking spree over here to our chamber. there will be no unfair, new rule book written solely for president trump. the basic organization of the first phase of this trial will track with phase one of the clinton trial, which all 100 senators voted for in 1999. i've said for months, that is our preferred route. and, by the way, madam president, that is exactly what the american people want. 77% told a harvard-harris survey that the basic outline of the clinton trial -- reserving the witness question until later in the proceedings -- ought to be good enough for this president as well. fair is fair. in the same survey, 58% of americans said they want speaker

pelosi to do her job and send the articles to the senate rather than continue delaying. and it makes sense, madam president, that american families have lost patience with this act, just like we senators have lost patience with it, because this is not just some intermural tip between two houses in a bicameral legislature; this recklessness affects our entire country. when you take a step back, what has really happened over the last three weeks? what has happened? when you take a step back from the political noise and the pundits discussing leverage -- by the way, that never existed -- what have house democrats actually done? this, madam president, is what they have done. they have initiated one of the most grave and most unsettling

processes in our constitution and then refused to allow a resolution of it. the speaker began something that she herself predicted would be so divisive to the country and now she is unilaterally saying it cannot move forward to resolution. it's bad enough that house democrats gave in to the temptation of subjective impeachment that every previous house for 230 hours had managed to resist. however unwise, that is their constitutional prerogative. they get to start it if they choose, but they do not get to declare that it can never be finished. they do not get to trap our entire country into an unending groundhog day of impeachment without resolution. alexander hamilton specifically warned against a procrastinated

resolution of impeachments. in part, that is because our duly elected president deserves a verdict, just like every american who is accused by their government deserves a speedy trial. but, look, this goes deeper than fairness to one individual. this is about what is fair to the entire country. there's a reason why the framers did not contemplate a permanently unsettled presidency. that is true under any circumstances, but consider especially the circumstances of recent days. even as the democrats have prolonged this game, we have seen iran escalate tensions with our nation. we live in a dangerous world. so, yes, the house majority can create this temporary cloud over

a commander in chief if they choose -- if they choose -- but they do not get to keep the cloud in place forever. so, look, there's real business for the american people that the united states senate needs to complete. if the speaker continues to refuse to take her own accusations to trial, the senate will move forward next week with the business of our people. we will operate on the assumption that house democrats are too embarrassed -- too embarrassed -- to ever move forward. and we will get back to the people's business. for example, the senate continues to process president trump's landmark trail deal, the usmca, through our committees of jurisdiction. it passed the senate finance committee this week by a landslide vote of 25-3, a major victory for the president and for working families. now our other committees will continue their consideration.

and there is more. the epidemic of opioids, fentanyl, and other substance abuse continues to plague our nation. some completion have signaled they may -- some colleagues have signaled they may raise the war powers act. so while the speaker continues her irresponsible games, we'll continue doing the people's business. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, executive office of the president. paul j. ray of tennessee to be administrator of the office of information and regulatory affairs, office of management and budget. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: are we in a quorum? the presiding officer: we are. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the unanimous quorum cae dispensed with. yesterday the senators receiving a briefing on the recent military operations that killed iranian general soleimani. nearly the entire senate attended, but only 15 senators were able to ask questions before the administration decided they had to go. as many as 82 senators were he left hanging in the balance without a chance to answer their

questions. it was a sight like none i've ever seen in my time in the senate. this is a be crucial issue, war and peace. these were the five, five of the leading people involved in the decision-making, past, present, and future. if they couldn't stay to answer questions in a classified briefing, that is the ultimate disrespect to the senate. i have to tell you it was not just democrats who were upset and not just on the republican side -- senator paul and senator lee -- who were upset. four or five senators came over to me when in that room i made the request that they come back and said please count me in on that. as secretary pompeo was practically running out the door, i asked the white house representatives if they'd come back and finish the briefing. pompeo said no on his behalf, but the white house representative assured me the group would be back in short order. i said within a week.

he said in the room, in the skiff, he said they would definitely come back. this morning the white house told me they'd explore coming back. they're already backing off, as usual. this is imperative. we are asking in as polite a way as we can right now, democrats and republicans, that these five leaders -- head of d.n.i., head of the c.i.a., head of the joint chiefs, secretary of defense and secretary of state -- come before us within a week and answer the questions of the 82 senators who are on the list, who wanted to ask questions but couldn't. the scene at yesterday's briefing was unacceptable as members of both sides of the aisle have attested. 82 senators -- chairs, ranking

members, appropriators, authorized -- were snubbed by this administration on a matter of war and peace. they must return. again, this administration's thwarting of the exquisite balance that the founding fathers put in place between the congress and the presidency is just something that would make the founding fathers turn over in their grave and strikes at the core of what america is all about. and why is it important we have this briefing? well, because the danger of war is still very real. there seems to be a sense that iran's missile strikes on u.s. installations in iraq which resulted in no u.s. or coalition casualties was a signal that our hostilities between our two

countries are deescalating. if that's true, it would certainly be a good thing. but we all know that iran has many different ways of causing trouble in the middle east. over the last decade iranian proxies have exported terror, fomented civil strife throughout the region, and we know they may seek to strike the u.s. in many different ways, like through cyber attacks. undoubtedly there is still a danger iran will retaliate for the death of general soleimani in other ways not only in the next days, where it's possible they could, but in the next weeks and months. in a speech yesterday, the iran supreme leader said the iranian missile strike was just one slap. such military actions, he continued, are not enough as far as the importance of retaliation is concerned. so we have good reason to worry

that iran will do more, particularly given the fact that they are a regime that has many hard-liners who hate the u.s. and will try to do us as much damage as they can. and for other reasons as well. the risk of confrontation with iran has grown more acute, some of it because of president trump's actions. at the president's order, we now have at least 15,000 additional u.s. forces in the middle east, more forces than we had at the beginning of last summer. 15,000 more. the iranian public, which only weeks ago was protesting its own political leaders, has rallied behind the regime and is directing its entire ire at the united states. iran has also announced that it will no longer abide by any restraints on its nuclear

program that were imposed by jcpoa signaling possible intent to pursue a nuclear weapon. for all these reasons that clearly iran is still a great danger and the risk of war still looms, we need senator kaine's war powers resolution more than ever. the president has made several erratic and impulsive decisions when it comes to foreign policy that have made americans less safe, put even more american forces in harm's way, more american troops are now headed to the middle east. we're not reducing our troop load. we're increasing it. iran is no longer constrained by limits of its, on its nuclear program, and we find ourselves even more isolated from allies and partners from around the world who are shaken by the recklessness and inconsistency of the administration's foreign policy. the donald trump cannot even complete a congressional

briefing -- the trump administration cannot even complete a congressional briefing. congress unequivocally must hold the president accountable and assert our authority over matters of war and peace. that's what senator kaine's resolution would do. we'll have a debate on the floor of the senate and i urge my colleagues to support the kaine resolution. there are many different ways we can make to ensure we don't go into a war recklessly and without check. senator sanders today is introducing legislation of which i'm a cosponsor that will hold back funding for such a war. and we democrats will continue to pursue ways to assert our constitutional authority and make sure that before the administration takes any actions because so many of their actions tend to be reckless and impulsive, that they have to get the okay of congress.

now, on impeachment. first, i have to respond to leader mcconnell's hyperbolic accusation tion the speaker is trying to determine tate terms of the senate's trial. the speaker must be upset he cannot exert total control over this process, but speaker pelosi has done just the right thing, and i can understand why leader mcconnell is so frustrated. if the speaker had sent the articles of impeachment over to the senate immediately after they passed, senate republicans could have moved to dismiss the articles. there was a lot of talk about that a while ago. there wouldn't have been a fair or even a cursory trial, and they might have even tried to dismiss the whole articles before christmas. instead over the past few weeks not only have they been prevented from doing that, there have been several crucial disclosures of evidence that appear to further incriminate

the president, each disclosure bolstering the argument we democrats have made for a trial that features the relevant witnesses and documents. that has been speaker pelosi's focus from the very beginning. that has been my focus from the very beginning. getting a fair trial that considers the facts and only the facts. as i've said repeatedly on this senate floor, as joe friday said in "dragnet," just the facts ma'am. the speaker and i are in complete agreement on that point. and because the republican leader has been unable to bring up the articles and dismiss them or stampede through a trial over christmas period, the focus of the country has been on witnesses and documents. leader mcconnell will do everything he can to divert attention from that focus on witnesses and documents. he knows that his senators are under huge pressure not to just

truncate a trial and have no evidence, that it will play very badly in america and back home in their states. and he's a very clever fellow, so he doesn't just say no. he says let's delay this for awhile and see what happens. but i have little doubt most people who follow this, most republicans probably quietly have little doubt that leader mcconnell has no interest in witnesses and documents, no interest in a fair trial. and when we say fair trial, we mean facts, we mean witnesses, we mean documents. so when the impeachment trial begins in the senate, the issue will return to witnesses and documents. it has been out there all along but will come back even stronger. that question won't be decided, fortunately, just by leader mcconnell. every senator will have to vote

on that question, and those votes at the beginning of the trial will not be the last votes on witnesses and documents. make no mistake, we will continue to revisit the issue because it's so important to our constitutional prerogative to hold a fair impeachment trial. the american people believe overwhelmingly and regardless of partisan affiliation that the senate should conduct a fair trial, and a fair trial means that we get to hear the evidence, the facts, the truth. every presidential impeachment trial in history has featured witnesses and documents. the trial of the president should be no different. the leader has accused the speaker of making up her own rules. mr. leader, you're making up your own rules. every trial has had witnesses. do you support this trial having witnesses or are you making up your own rules to serve the

president's purpose of covering up? the argument in favor of witnesses is so strong and has such common sense behind it that my republican colleagues cannot even argue against it on the merits. they can only say we should punt the question. maybe we'll decide on that later after both sides finish making their cases. as already explained over and over again, but it's worth repeating, that position makes no sense from a trial perspective. have both sides finish their presentations and then vote on whether there should be evidence. the presentation should be based on evidence, on witnesses, on documents. it should not be an afterthought. but i say to my republican colleagues, this strategy of voting on witnesses later lives on borrowed time. to repeat, once the trial begins, there will -- there will -- be a vote about the question of witnesses and documents, and the spotlight will be on republican senators

who at any point just four could join democrats and form a majority in favor of witnesses and documents. four republicans could stand up and do the right thing. four republicans could make a difference between a fair trial and a cover-up. four republicans could do what the founding fathers wanted us to do, hold a fair trial with all the facts. all leader mcconnell can do right now is try to divert attention, call names -- he's good at that -- and delay the inevitable. but he can only delay it. every single one of us in this senate will have to take a stand. how do my republican friends want the american people, their constituents, and history to remember them? we shall see. i yield the floor.

mr. thune: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. thune: madam president, is the senate in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we're not. mr. thune: madam president, i think it's safe to say that most republicans here in the senate expect that at some point we will be receiving articles of impeachment from the house of representatives, at which time

we will conduct the senate's business. we will give the president a fair opportunity to be heard, something that was lacking in the house of representatives. i heard the democratic leader's suggestion that the reason the house had to sit on this is if they sent this over to the senate, that somehow the senate would dismiss this early or immediately or something along those lines. i have no idea where that comes from. that's never been the intention here from the republicans in the senate. the republicans in the senate know full well that we have a job to do under the constitution, in which we hear the case, hear the arguments, ask questions, consider the possibility of additional evidence being presented, and we've said all along that that's how we intend to treat this. but we want to make sure that it is a fair process, a process that isn't rushed, a process that isn't partisan, as it was in the house of representatives. and we have gone so far as to suggest that the precedent that be used be the clinton

precedent. in other words, the press was used -- the precedent that was used during president clinton's impeachment process back in 1999. at that time, there was 100 votes in the senate -- 100 votes, republican and democrat, supported that particular process, which as i pointed out, allows for both sides to make the arguments, the managers in the house of representatives to come over and make their case for the president and his team to have an opportunity to respond to that, and then for senators to propound questions, which it seems to me at least is a fair process. so far we haven't seen the articles, nor have we seen any cooperation from the senate democrats about a process that we do all the things i just mentioned. so the democratic leader's suggestion that this -- you know, they needed to wait all this time because they have to somehow ensure that republicans were not going it dismiss this is -- that is just a false argument. and i would argue that the house of representatives sitting on

this and stalling it undermines the very point that they made about why it was so important that they do this. if they rush it, that they not hear some of the witnesses, that they not subpoena some of the witnesses. some of the people they want the senate to subpoena and hear from are some of the people they could have subpoenaed and heard from. while at one time we just had to get this through because this president is such a clear and present danger to the country, we've got to do this fast, we've got to do it with a sense of urgency. now all of a sudden the brakes have been put on and for no apparent reason other than, i i would argue, they see political advantage in doing that. but at the same time the senate will proceed, if they receive the articles. and then we will allow the senate to do its will. and whatever 51 votes in the senate decide is ultimately how this will be disposed.

career to the assertions of the -- contrary to the assertions of the democrats, i believe people across this country are very weary and exhausted from having this thing drag on. there are so many important issues that we need to deal with. we have a trade agreement that is teed up and ready to go that i hope we can vote on in the united states senate that has real relevance to the american people. there are farmers and ranchers in my state of south dakota and across this country that desperately need to expand in open markets. we have low commodity prices in both grains and live stocks and we need to create some opportunities for these farmers to get back on their feet and restore profitability. and instead of that, instead of of that, we are waiting for the impeachment articles to come here. and assuming that they do we will spend who knows how long on processing that at a time when there are so many pressing needs that the american people care deeply about, not to mention the

fanning that, you know, in november of this year -- not to mention the fact that, you know, in november of this year, we have a presidential election, congressional elections where the people of this country can weigh in, where they can have their voices heard. that's how we ought to decide the differences that we have in this country. you have a difference with the president of the united states, you have an opportunity to go vote in november of this year. and if you decide you don't like him and you want to vote him out of office, you can do that. but that's where the american people, i believe, think this should be decided, not in a long drawn-out process here in washington, d.c., where a number of members of congress who should be working on important issues like the economy and wages and things like that are bogged down over this impeachment process. and so i believe, madam president, that the american people are weary, and i think they know that starting in about three weeks in iowa they're going to start voting. we've got a presidential election that's under way, and

it seems to me that the people who have views that they want to express can make their voice heard in an election rather than having a long drawn-out impeachment process, which as i said earlier, the house of representatives initiated in such a hurried way that they came up with some pretty week tea-type articles of impeachment and in a rush to try to get it over here, now they're stalling it and not delivering it and we will -- so the senate is not going to act obviously until the house acts and sends those articles over. but when they do, we will enshould you are that unlike the way they've -- we will ensure that unlike the way they've conducted themselves in the house of representatives, it gives the president of the united states a chance to respond and defend himself. madam president, it's safe to say that pretty much every american has been subjected to annoying and illegal robocalls. who hasn't picked up the phone

to discover it is an automated message telling you you have won a trip to the bahamas which you can secure by providing information so your account won't be closed? these calls are a major nuisance and too often more than a nuisance. every day americans fall prey to ever-more scammers. individuals who fall prey to many series can spend months or years struggling to get back -- to get their lives back. madam president, i have been working on the issue of robocalls for several years now. i worked with senator markey to lobby the federal communications commission to create a single comprehensive database of reassigned telephone numbers so that legal callers could avoid contacting people who hadn't signed up for messages. i've spent a lot of time trying

to discourage illegal robocalling. while chairman, i held a hearing with a notorious caller. his testimony made clear that current penalties were not sufficient. illegal robocallers have been building the costs of fines into their activities and so far there has been no effective mechanism for prosecution. based upon abramovich's testimony and testimony from federal enforcers,i developed the telephone robocall abuse criminal enforcement and deterrence act, or what we call the traced act, along with senator markey. at the end of december, the president signed our bill into law. the traced act provides tools to discourage illegal robocalls, protect consumers and crack down on offenders. as i mentioned earlier, criminal prosecution can be difficult. scammers are frequently based abroad and can quickly shut down shop before authorities can get to them. but i believe we need too make

sure there is a credible threat of criminal prosecution and prison for those who use robocalls to prey upon the elderly and other vulnerable americans. to that end, the traced act convenes a worked act of individuals from the department of justice, the federal communications commission, the consumer financial protection bureau, states attorneys general and other to identify and prosecute illegal robocalling. and in the meantime it expands the window in which fines can be leveed from one year to four years. the bill also makes clear for your cell phone carrier to block calls which will ultimately help stop scammers frommest going through to your phone. the traced act also tackles the issue of spoofed calls where scammers make the call appear as if it is coming from a known number. it also addresses one-ring scams

where international scammers try to get individuals to return their calls so they can charge them exorbitant fees. and it directs the federal communications commission to convene a working group to address the issue of illegal calls being made to hospitals. which disrupts critical lines of communications for hours. will the traced act completely solve the problem of illegal robocalls? no, but it will go a long way toward making it safe to answer your phone again. and it will help ensure that those who exploit vulnerable individuals face punishment for the their actions. i am grateful to senator markey for partnering with me. "the washington post" praised the traced act as an example of, i quote, good, old-fashioned legislating, end quote. and i am proud of the bipartisan support it received from both houses of congress.

i look forward to monitoring the implementation of the traced act and continuing to work to protect americans from illegal and abusive robocalls. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. peters: i ask that i and senator johnson are able to complete our remarks prior to the cloture vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. peters: today i rise to speak in opposition to the nomination of paul ray to be the next administrator of the office of information and regulatory affairs, more commonly known as oira. though not many people outside of washington have heard of oira, this office wields an important amount of influence over regulations that impact families and businesses and communities in countless ways. if confirmed, mr. ray would be responsible for reviewing health, labor, environmental,

and many other protections from the safeguarding our source of drinking water to ensuring the cars we drive are safe. in michigan, communities like flint cannot drink water from their own faucets without fear of ingesting toxic chemicals like lead or pfas. in aest mooing with mr. ray, i addressed the need to have protections for clean water and preserve our great lakes. i appreciated that mr. ray listened to my concerns. he is clearly very smart and passionate about administrative law and the rule-making process. however, mr. ray is relatively new to federal service and has relied primarily on his recent tenure at the agency to demonstrate his qualifications. given his prior role, the best way for us to understand what mr. ray will do, if confirmed,

is to take a closer look at what he has already done. in order to thoroughly examine his qualifications, we asked mr. ray to provide information about his tenure, which included reviews of proposals that would weaken critical protections for workers, for veterans, for children, disadvantaged communities, and the environment. unfortunately, the nominee and the agency's office of general counsel have refused to meaningfully respond to committee members' requests for information or fully participate in the senate's efforts to meet our constitutional responsibilities. while mr. ray expressed a commitment to transparency, his inability to ensure compliance with the committee's request, including for material that is routinely provided to the public in response to the freedom of information act, raises serious doubts about whether he will cooperate with congress, if confirmed.

given the unprecedented actions taken by this administration to roll back safeguards, it would be irresponsible to confirm mr. ray to oira without the opportunity to thoroughly evaluate his record. i have sought to carefully consider mr. ray's nomination, but due to the serious lack of transparency, i cannot support his confirmation. for that reason, i will be voting no, and i urge my colleagues to do the same. i yield the floor. mr. johnson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. mr. johnson: mr. president, i rise today asking the senate to confirm the nomination of mr. paul ray to be the administrator for the office of information and regulatory affairs at the office of management and budget. oira, as this office is commonly

called, is the federal government's principal authority for reviewing executive branch regulations, approving government information collections, and overseeing the implementation of government-wide policies related to the information policy, privacy and statute cal practices. the oira administrator is responsible for reviewing and approving rules to ensure agencies conduct appropriate cost-benefit analysis. under president trump, oira has conducted between 200 and 400 rule reviews each year and has made it an administrative priority to reduce regulations and control regulatory costs. that includes the important work of reviewing existing regulations to identify those that are outdated, harmful, or counterproductive, and achieving this administration's initial goal of eliminating at least two regulations for every significant new one added.

the good news for our economy is that the administration has far exceeded this initial goal by eliminating 22 outdated or harmful regulations for every new one added in 2017, and achieving a rate of seven and a half regulations removed for each new regulation over the course of the administration. this has saved american families and businesses billions of dollars in compliance costs, allowing businesses to spend that money and concentrate their efforts on growing their business and creating new products, services, and good-paying jobs. i continue to believe this administration's dedication to regulatory reform and reduction is the single most important factor in the success of our economy, record low levels of unemployment and growing wage levels with wage growth strongest at the lowest end, the lower end of our income

spectrum. it is important to note that mry role in this regulatory rationalization and its resulting economic success. having previously led oira as its acting administrator as well as the associate administrator, mr. ray has demonstrated the ability to carry out the office's multifaceted mission. in addition to his direct leadership experience at oira, he currently serves as the senior advisor to the director of regulatory affairs where he advises on regulations and the regulatory process. he also served as counselor to the secretary of labor where he had a similar role. prior to these public service roles, mr. ray was an associate at an l.l.p. and served as a law clerk to samuel alito as well as deborah livington at the circuit court for the seventh circuit. mr. ray graduated magna cum laude from hillsdale college and

harvard law school. because of his background and demonstrated enthusiasm for dealing with regulatory matters, mr. ray is uniquely qualified to serve as the next oira administrator. i am grateful to mr. ray for his willingness to serve and i strongly encourage my colleagues to vote yes on his confirmation. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: 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 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of paul j. ray of tennessee to be administrator of the office of information and regulatory affairs, office of management and budget, signed by 16 senators. 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 paul j. ray of tennessee to be administrator of the office of information and regulatory affairs, office of management and budget, shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are yawned under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. -- the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: 15, the nays are 45. the motion is agreed to. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, it's

now been three weeks -- more than three weeks since the house passed two articles of impeachment against the president of the united states. it was a big day for them at the time and one they'd been dreaming of and speaking of since the president was inaugurated nearly three years ago. for as long as house democrats have been wanting to impeach the president they only spent a fraction of that time on the impeachment inquiry itself. they rushed head long into a partisan impeachment process and now they are trying to make up for the mistakes that chairman schiff and speaker pelosi made in proceeding in the house in the first place. for example, they now want to relitigate things like executive privilege and whether testimony of other witnesses should be included in the senate impeachment trial. in other words, the house wants to tell the senate how to conduct the trial. well, the house had its job to

do, and frankly mishandled it, but now they have no say in the way the senate conduction the impeachment trial when and if speaker pelosi decides to send them over here. 12 weeks was all it took for house democrats to come up with what they believed was enough evidence to warrant a vote on articles of impeachment. i think they are experiencing some buyer's remorses. during the 12 weeks we repeatedly heard how house democrats say how urgent the matter was, seemingly using urgency as an excuse for a slapdash investigation that they did that they now regret. so when the house concluded that their rushed investigation and passed two articles of impeachment, we all expected those articles to be sent to the senate promptly. now, this is only -- will be the third time in american history where the senate is actually

convened a trial on articles of impeachment. so this is kind of a new novel process for most of us here in the senate. i think there were only 15 senators who were here during the last impeachment trial of president bill clinton so most of us are trying to get up to speed and figure out how do we discharge our duty under the constitution as a jury that will decide whether to convict or acquit, and if convict, whether the president should be removed. this is serious stuff. and here we are about 11 months before the next general election. you know, it strikes me as a serious matter to ask 535 members of the united states congress to remove a president that was voted into office with about 63 million votes. this is very serious.

well, despite house leadership and members stating time and time again before the christmas holidays how pressing the matter of impeachment was, there hasn't been an inch of movement in the house since those articles of impeachment were voted on. so here we are more than three weeks later and speaker pelosi still is playing her cat and mouse game with these articles of impeachment. last night the speaker appears to have dug in her heels even deeper when she sent a letter to our democratic colleagues about the delay. following the majority leader's announcement that every republican senator supports using exactly the same framework that was used during the clinton impeachment trial, the speaker, as you might imagine wasn't particularly happy because her gambit didn't work.

she has zero leverage and zero right to try to dictate to the senate how we conduct the senate trial just like we have zero leverage and zero input into how the house conducted its responsibilities. speaker pelosi told her caucus that the process was both unfair and, quote, designed to deprive senators and the american people of crucial documents and testimony. clearly she doesn't think those documents and testimony were crucial enough to be included in the house investigation in the first place, but i digress. the speaker is trying to make the most out of a very bad situation of her own creation and intentionally trying to mislead the american people into thinking this framework prevents any witnesses from testifying, which is a false impression -- it is demons trily false.

this is -- in the clinton process witnesses were introduced out of sworn testimony that was then presented by the parties. so in 1999100 senators agreed to this model. you would think if this is fair enough for president clinton it would be fair enough for president trump. but to apply a different standard would be just that, a double standard. well, all 100 senators agreed during the clinton impeachment trial to allow the impeachment managers to present their case to allow the president's lawyers to present their case and then to permit the senators to ask questions through the chief justice and to get additional information and then, and only then, decide whether additional witnesses would be required. under the clinton model, and now under the model that will be

used, the clinton model we'll be using in the trump impeachment trial, if members felt like they needed more information, they could vote to hear from additional witnesses. that opportunity is still available to them under the clinton precedent that will be applied in the trump impeachment trial. and that's exactly what happened in the clinton impeachment trial after the -- after the arguments and evidence was presented, senators voted to hear from three additional witnesses who were then deposed and whose sworn testimony was then offered. you know, it makes me a little crazy when people say this is a question of witnesses or no witnesses. there are about 17 witnesses, as i count them, who testified in the house impeachment inquiry. all of that evidence, such as it is, is available to the impeachment managers to offer here in the senate and if, in fact, the senate decides to do,

as the senate did in the clinton impeachment, authorize subpoenas for three additional witnesses or more, that still is the senate's prerogative, which is not foreclosed in the least by this resolution. well, the intelligence committee alone held seven public hearings with 12 witnesses that totaled more than 30 hours. presumably, they're proud of the product, the evidence that was produced during the course of those hearings or else they wouldn't have conducted them in the first place. so this isn't a matter of witnesses or no witnesses as some of our democratic colleagues and the media attempts to characterize it. this is a matter of letting the parties to the impeachment decide how to try their case. i've had the great honor over a period of 13 years of serving as a state court judge.

i presided over hundreds of jury trials during the course of my experience as a district judge. never have i seen a model where the jury decides how to try the case. the jury sits there and listens to the evidence presented by the parties, and that's exactly what we are proposing here. so this idea of letting senators decide how to try the impeachment managers' case or the president's case is something totally novel and unheard of. well, setting the rules on who we hear from, when and how as the speaker wants to do on the front end makes no sense. this is -- let me try annal -- an analogy, mr. president. it would be like asking an nfl coach to outline every play in the superbowl in order before

the game actually starts. well, that's not possible. having this discussion over speaker pelosi's demands on witnesses completely ignores the fact that this is simply not her prerogative. now, i know the speaker is a powerful political figure. she rules the house with an iron fist, but her views simply have no weight whatsoever in terms of how the senate conducts its business, including an impeachment trial under the constitution. so this has all been diversion and, frankly, a lot of disassembling and misleading arguments about things that just simply aren't true. the constitution outlines a bicameral impeachment process with each chamber having its separate and independent responsibilities. as i said, just as the constitution gives the house the

sole power of impeachment, that's a quote from the constitution, it also gives the senate, quote, the sole power to try all impeachments. close quote. nowhere is found a clause granting the speaker of the house of representatives supreme authority to decide this process. yes, she's been very influential leading up to the vote on the articles of impeachment over which the senate had no voice and no vote. but now her job such as it is done but to send the articles of impeachment to the senate. her refusal to transmit the articles unless her demands are met is a violation of the separation of powers. and it's an unpress derchtsed power grab -- unprecedented power grab. i must say i have some sympathy with the speaker's position.

last march she said impeachment was a bad idea because it was so divisive and unless the evidence was compelling and the support for the articles of impeachment was bipartisan, it wasn't worth it. well, that was in march of 2019. obviously, things changed and the best i can tell is she was essentially forced by the radical members of the house democratic caucus to change her position, and now she finds herself in an embarrassingly untenable and unsustainable position. so this isn't entirely her fau fault. while she's been playing games, though, with the articles of impeachment, she's been infringing, i believe, on the president's constitutional right to due process of law. due process is based on a fundamental notions of fairness. that's what we accord everybody

in a civil or a criminal proceeding, due process of law, the sixth amendment, for example, guarantees the right to a speedy trial for every american and it doesn't exempt certain cases no matter how high or low profile they may be. now, while the sixth amendment right to a speedy trial may not, strictly speaking, apply to a -- to an impeachment trial because this isn't a civil or criminal case, the whole tbd notion -- the whole fundamental notion of fairness does apply, a right to a speedy trial. and it's clear that while speaker pelosi dangles these articles of impeachment over the president like a sword of damocles, this is not fair to the president. it's not fair to the senate. it's not fair, most importantly, to the american people. this distraction, this

impeachment mania has consumed so much oxygen and attention here in washington, d.c. that it's prevented us from doing other things we know we can and should be doing that would benefit the american people. i've come here on two occasions to offer a piece of bipartisan legislation that would lower out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs by eliminating some of the gamesmanship in the patent system only to find even though it's a bipartisan bill, voted unanimously out of the judiciary committee, the only person that objected to us taking it up and passing it was the democratic minority leader. so those are the sort of games that unfortunately give washington and congress a bad name and a bad reputation. and i must say, mr. president, this is not just this side of the aisle that thinks the time

is up for speaker pelosi to send the articles of impeachment over here. there is bipartisan agreement here in the senate that it's time to fish or cut bait. speaker pelosi's california colleague, our friend senator feinstein from california said if we're going to do it, she should send them over. i don't see what good delay does. well good for senator feinstein. our friend and colleague from connecticut, senator blumenthal said, we are reaching a point where the articles of impeachment should be sent. senator murphy, his colleague from connecticut, said i think the time is passed. she should send the articles over. and i think we all share the sentiment expressed by senator angus king from maine. he said, i do think we need to get this thing going.

he has a gift for understatement. mr. president, it's high time for the speaker to quit using these articles of impeachment as a way to pander to the most radical fringes of her party. the members of the house have completed their constitutional role. they launched their inquiry. they did their investigation such as it was. and they held a partisan vote. that's their prerogative. i don't agree with it, but that's their prerogative. and they've done it. so, mr. president, the speaker should send the articles of impeachment to the senate without further delay so we can perform our responsibilities under the constitution in a trial. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, this is an interesting time. i'm thinking that over the holiday break, i was home and i

had talked to many vermonters. these are vermonters, republicans, democrat, independents across the political spectrum. all of them expressed concerns about how the senate will handle the impeachment of president trump or the trial. he has been impeached but now the trial. and i suspect that all 100 senators had similar conversations. i have been asked not just about president trump's actions in ukraine but also about how the senate will conduct their trial and whether the senate is even capable of holding a genuine, fair trial worthy of our constitutional responsibilities. i'd remind senators that at the

start of an impeachment trial, we each swear an oath to do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws. now, during my 45 years in this chamber, i've taken this oath six times. i take this oath extraordinarily seriously. but i fear that the senate may now be on the verge of abando abandoning what this oath means. the majority leader has vowed a quick acquittal before we hear any witnesses. he's boasted that he is, quote, not an impartial juror, and he has pledged there will be no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this. ignore the fact the united

states senate is a separate and independent body. it's actually what the majority leader has said is tantamount to a criminal defendant being allowed to set the rules for his own trial while the judge and jury promise him a quick acquittal. that's a far cry from the impartial justice required by our oaths and the united states constitution. given this, i understand why the speaker did not rush to send the articles of impeachment to the senate. a sham trial is in no one's interest. i say a sham trial is not even in the president's interest. a choreographed acquittal exonerates no one. it serves only to deepen rifts within the country. it eviscerates the senate's

constitutional role. now how the senate conducts the trial will be up to each of us. it's not up to one or two senators. and it's certainly not up to the president. the duration and scope of the trial including whether to call witnesses or compel document production will be decided by a simple majority of the united states senate. i know that many on the republican side have said that we should postpone any agreement on witnesses. they argue that the senate did that for president clinton's trial so why not now. and that argument sounds reasonable unless you look at the facts. facts are always troublesome things. today following president trump's instruction, nine key witnesses, key witnesses with

firsthand knowledge of the allegations have refused to cooperate with the house investigation. because of president trump they were told they're not allowed to testify. now compare that with the clinton trial. then every key witness includi including, including president clinton provided testimony under oath before the trial. indeed, we had a massive record for the independent counsel to consider. 36 boxes of material covering the most intimate details of the president's life. just think that every witness testified as compared to the trump impeachment where he wouldn't allow any key witness to testify. and even though he said he wanted to testify, of course he never did. now, even with all that, even with those 36 boxes of material,

the senate did end up hearing from three witnesses during the clinton trial. let me tell you how that worked. these were three witnesses that already had given extensive, voluminous testimony. senator blumenthal, he testified before the grand jury for three days. vernon jordan, he testified before the grand jury for five days. and ult -- ultimately was deposed by the independent counsel and monika lewinsky testified for two days before the grand jury was deposed by the independent counsel and was interviewed by the independent counsel 20 times. now, let's be clear. i remember these days very, very

well. even republicans at the time acknowledged they did not expect to learn new information from these witnesses. i know republicans and democrats picked a small group of senators to be there for the three depositions. i was one of them. in fact, i presided over the lewinsky disposition. and one of the house managers, republican managers, said that if the witnesses are consistent, they'll say the same that's in here, referring to the previous testimony already before the senate. another told ms. lewinsky, obviously you testified extensively in the grand jury, so you're going to obviously repeat things today and the third house manager told mr. jordan, i know that probably about every question that could have been asked has been asked, and i might say answered.

indeed, those republicans were correct. we did not learn anything material from these depositions. now, unlike the claims made on the other side, the situation today could not be more different. the senate does not have any prior testimony or documents from four key witnesses, john bolton, mick mulvaney, robert blair, and michael duffey, all people who have significant information about what donald trump has been charged with. we don't have a single document. we don't have a single minute of testimony under oath. and why? because the president directed them not to cooperate with the house, not to testify under oath, not to say anything, and if these witnesses had performed

their legal duty, having been subpoenaed, if they cooperated with the house's inquiry, we wouldn't be in this position. now, there's no question that all senators, republicans and democrats alike, will benefit from hearing what those witnesses have to say. all of them have direct, relevant information about president trump's actions with respect to ukraine. and there's no good reason to postpone their testimony. take just one, the president's former national security advisor john bolton. so my question for all the senators is this -- we already know according to mr. bolton's lawyer he was personally involved in many of the events, meetings and conversations that have not yet been discussed in the testimonies thus far.

we already know that includes a one-on-one conversation with the president about ukraine aid. we already know that mr. bolton described the president's aid effort as a drug deal and we now know he's willing to talk to us for the first time if asked. now, how can we say we're filling our constitutional duty if we don't even ask? how can we ignore such critical first-hand testimony? no matter how each senator ultimately votes on guilt or innocence, the decision of whether to keep both the senate and the american people in the dark to effectively make the united states senate explicit in a coverup, that would fall on the senate and that would shape

our system of checks and balances for decades to come. it will haunt both democrats and republicans. senate republicans must not close the senate's eyes and cover its ears. we should be senators. we should follow our oath to uphold justice. now, i recognize, of course, that this is an era of deep partisan acrimony, but that was true during the clinton impeachment trial, it was true during the johnson impeachment trial. the question each of us has to answer now is whether we'll allow the label of democrat or republican to matter more than our constitutional role as senators. we are first and foremost united states senators. there's only 100 of us to represent over 300 million

americans, and that's why i believe that the senate itself is now on trial. i've never seen a trial without witnesses when facts are in dispute. i've tried many, many, many cases both in private practice and as a prosecutor. i've never tried a case where there are no witnesses, and more to the point, the senate has never held a presidential impeachment trial without hearing from witnesses. the senate and the american people deserve to have the full story. we shouldn't be complicit in a coverup. now, i would not suggest to any senator that his or her oath requires at this time a specific verdict. that's going to depend upon the trial. but i strongly believe that our oath requires all senators behave impartially, that all

senators support a fair trial, one that places the pursuit of truth above -- to this or any other president -- set the rules for the time come. the senate has a job to do and it's not to rig the trial in favor of or against president trump. impeachment is the only constitutional mechanism that congress has to hold presidents accountable. whether or not the senate ultimately votes to convict, if the senate first enables a coverup with a sham trial, then it means it's placing one president above the constitution , and in doing so the senate would eviscerate a foundation of our democracy that

has thus far survived 240 years. no one -- no one is above the law. madam president, i yield the floor. i see other are senators are waiting to speak. i will just yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: the president of the united states is summoned by his or her national security team and informed that he or she has a limited window of opportunity in which to prevent an attack that could cost the lives of dozens, if not hundreds of americans or u.s. troops. they -- they are advised this by their national security team, the entire team in unanimity. what would you do? that is the most fundamental and difficult question that should be asked of anyone who seeks the office of the presidency.

it's one of the most important things we need to know about those who seek the office and those who occupy it. it is the per verbal 3:00 a.m. call. it is also describes what happened to president trump a few days ago. you wouldn't know that after hearing some of the rhetoric and the speaker of the house just tell a press conference in which the message the strike on the terrorist soleimani was the act of a reckless madman, a reckless and irresponsible escalation. the alternative argument is, and by the way, he should have consulted with us before doing it. so i reiterate, the entire national security team of the president, including the chairman of the joint chiefs, general milley, has been unequivocal both privately and publicly that he agreed with the assessment and he believed that this strike was necessary in order to protect the lives of

americans from a near-term attack. and so i want to be frank. anyone who left a briefing or goes around saying, well, i don't think that that was true, frankly, is not questioning the president. the questioning of 40ers yao of military service that general milley has rendered this nation and, frankly, questioning the judgment of the entire national security apparatus of the united states of america, that question has been answered clearly by them. it's interesting, too, that had the president not acted and, god forbid, american lives could have been lost, we could very easily could be here this week the president should be removed, a third article of impeachment for refusing to listen to the experts, for refusing to listen to his military advisors. ironically enough, before the senate had an opportunity to be briefed, i had a colleague say

everything will be fine if the president will listen to general milley and the military experts. but he did. isn't that ironically at the crux of a lot of these arguments about ukraine that all of the experts, the career experts, the uniformed experts disagreed with what the president is doing. yet, when he listens to what they say, it's somehow the act of a reckless mad man. i think that speaks more to the hysteria that has overcome our politics and reached into the realm of national security. it's also important to note when people say these things that those who walk around talking about intelligence sometimes are not consumers of it on a regular basis or don't understand how it works. it's never about one piece. it's about patterns and trends and known capabilities and known intentions and windows of opportunity. that's an important point to make. as far as culting with -- consulting with congressional leadership before taking action,

that is not how this develops. very rarely do you have the luxury of time. there is no legal requirement. the president of the united states has no legal requirement, and in fact, has an imperative to act swiftly and appropriately to the threat of lives against americans, especially american troops that he or she has sent abroad to defend this country's interests. number two, it's unrealistic and not possible. oftentimes these windows of opportunity do not allow you the opportunity of reaching a congressional leader in the middle of a ski trip or christmas break. and even if you could, there's always the risk that that information would be disseminated and the window would be closed. so i'm not sure what they are asking for is even possible. the other thing that is possible, if you listen to the rhetoric, the only two options with iran is full-scale diplomacy and ka capitulation to

what they are doing or all-out war. it's a false choice. the president said it, and said it clearly again yesterday, that he's ready for serious, serious and real talks towards how iran becomes a normal nation and its clerical leadership behaves in a normal and civilized way. in the meantime he has an obligation, this president, future president, and past presidents to protect america's interest and more importantly to protect american lives and do so in active deterrence. what does that mean? it means the people who want to harm you decide not to because the cost of harming you is higher than the benefit of harming you. that is an important point. because the strike on soleimani was not just about preventing an imminent act, but that was enough, and the second thing that is important is re-establishing the act of deterrence. for whatever reason the iranians

determined that they could go further than ever before which by directly attacking moneys or -- americans or using their proxies to attack americans, they breached our embassy compound and our military personnel station there had and tried to. and they could have and want to launch lethal attacks to ill kill as many americans as they possibly can. because for whatever reason they con included they could get away with it and could tolerate it. it was critical to the national interest and the lives of the men and women in uniform deployed abroad that we restore active deterrence. time will tell how much was restored, but clearly i believe some of it was restored and even the comments today of an iranian commander that, well, we shot missiles, but we didn't try to kill anybody are indicative of a desire to deescalate at least for the time being.

but the other thing i hear is that the president has no strategy. that's the problem, there's no strategy. i think you could argue they haven't done a good enough job of outlining a strategy but i don't think it's fair to say they have no strategy. the strategy begins with the goal. the goal is pretty straightforward, a prosperous iran that lives in harmony with its neighbors and does not continue to support terrorism that. is the goal. how do you achieve it by no longer standing up these terrorist groups that have been killing americans and trying to harm americans, israelis and other allies. how do you achieve it? by imposing crushing economic sanctions while leaving open the door for real, not fake, not talk for the sake of talk, real diplomacy, but at the same time making it abundantly clear that you will deter, repel, and act

against any effort to harm americans. all this talk about military conflict and u.s. actions overlooks the fundamental fact that what is happening here is that iran has decided to respond to economic sanctions with violence. their response for chick sanctions is can we get one of these terrorist groups to get weapons to kill americans. can we put mines on merchant ships. can we attack the saudis? that has been their response to economic sanctions is violence. and so presidents don't have the luxury of bluffing. you can't go around saying if you kill americans, there's going to be consequences and then they try to kill americans or in the case of iran did and do nothing about it. because now what you have done is you have invited a committed adversary to do more of it. not just tragically kill one

brave american contractor, but kill dozens or hundreds of americans in various spots throughout the world. the last point i want to make is all this talk about an authorization for use of force. i want to begin by saying my personal view. i believe the war powers resolution is unconstitutional. i think the power of congress resides in the opportunity to declare war and to fund it. every presidential administration, republican and democrat alike has taken the same position. that doesn't mean we should never have an aumf. i think our -- our actions are stronger when it is clear that it has strong bipartisan support from both houses of congress. i also think all this talk about aumf is completely and utterly irrelevant to the case in point. number one, under the constitution of the united states and the war powers resolution, by the way, the president of the united states not only has the authority to act in self-defense but an obligation to do so, an

obligation to do so. that's number one. number two, it is especially true in this case where the lives and the troops that he sought to protect were deployed to iraq on an antiisis, antiterrorism mission approved by this congress through an aumf. an aumf that states very clearly one of the reasons we are allowed to use military force as authorized by congress is to defend against attacks. i don't believe there is a single member of congress who has the willingness to stand before the american people and say i think when we deploy troops abroad, they should not be allowed to defend themselves. so not only does -- do you not need an aumf or congressional authority to act in self-defense but the troops that were defending themselves here and the troops that we were defending in the soleimani strike and preventing an attack against are deployed pursuant to a congressional authorization.

so honestly what i see here in addition to the arguments that i've already discussed about how ridiculous it is to portray this as the act of a reckless mad hahn who's escalating things is an argument about when you might need an aumf. give us some hypothetical scenario in which you might need an aumf but the hypotheticals they are posturing are ones that this administration has never, never proposed, frank b frankly haven't even contemplated. no one is talking about an all-out invasion of iran. if you're telling me the president is putting plans together to remove the ayatollah and install a new government, i would say all right, that's something that there should be a debate about. but no one -- who's talking about that i haven't heard anybody propose that? and yet somehow the house today is going to spend time on this. people filed bills on this. and, look, this -- we can debate anything you want. people can file any bill they

want. that's a privileged motion. it comes to the floor. great. no one -- by the way, no one said don't go around talking about this, just be quiet. perhaps it should have been stated more artfully but the point that was being made, which is a valid point, is that when the iranians analyze responses to the united states, one of the things they look at is does domestic politics and differences of opinion and divisions among american officials, does that restrain what the president could do against us. and you ma i not like it but i want to be frank with you. they believe that our political differences in this country and that our disagreements constrain the president's ability to respond to attacks. they believe it limits his ability to deter. now, hopefully the strike on soleimani may have reset that a little bit. that doesn't mean we shouldn't debate it. i don't think we should ever tell congress not to discuss these things. we have a right to and frankly everybody here has been elected by a constituency and so people can choose to raise whatever

issue they want. but i also don't think it's invalid to point out that these internal debates we have in this country do have an impact on what our adversaries think they can get away with. doesn't make anyone an appeaser or traitor but it's a factor people should recognize. in closing i would say, there was a time -- i'm not one of these people that opine to the golden era. i hear people talking about the clinton impeachment trial, oftentimes people say to me in the good old days, back in the 1990's when everybody got together, congress was all friends. i don't know what it was like because i was not here but i remind them in the golden days we talk about, we were impeaching bill clinton around here and they didn't do it on social media and twitter and 24-hour cable news at the time. there has always been friction in american politics. the one thing i can say that's evident is that there was a time in american politics that i hope we can return to, and that is a

time in which when it came to issues of national security, there was some level of restraint because we understood when it came to that, the people who would ultimately pay the price for overpoliticizing any issue, for reckless talk, for unnecessary accusations are not the political figures. you know, presidents and ayatollahs don't die in conflicts like these. you know who dies? the young men and women we send abroad, the innocent civilians caught in the middle, the refugees who are forced to leave their homes as a result. there are real world life and death implications. and that's why it has long been an american tradition that when it comes to issues of foreign policy and national security, there were always -- they were always treated just a little bit differently with some difference. and even if you disagreed, you sort of tailored it in a way that you thought would not harm

those interests. and i think that's been lost probably on both sides. i still make it a habit when i travel abroad not to discuss or criticize u.s. leaders at home. i understand times have changed. but i would just say in this particular case and i know that this nation remains conflicted about the conflicts that led us into iran, afghanistan and keep us in the region to this day, valid, valid debate. i just don't think this looks anything like it. this is -- this is about a strike that every single member of the president's national security team including the chairman of joint chiefs believes was necessary in order to prevent a near-term attack against americans that could be lethal and catastrophic. this is about restoring active deterrence, effective deterrence against future strikes. and i hope that we can bring that debate back to where it belongs so that on matters of

this importance, we can figure out solutions and not simple rhetoric. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: madam president, first i want to extend the thanks of all members of the united states senate and the american people to the men and women who are serving our nation at the national security agency base at fort meade, maryland, the defense special missile and aerospace center. it's been in existence since 1964. it's a 24/7 operation. and i mention that because it was the work done here in the state of maryland -- and i'm proud to represent that state -- that gave the early warning information that allowed us to get information to our american forces in iraq and to the iraqis that literally saved lives. so i want to thank them for their dedicated service.

we have the best intelligence information and the best trained people protecting our nation. and i just wanted to pause for one moment to thank those that are serving at the national security agency that are keeping us safe. madam president, i would ask that my remarks now appear in a separate section. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: shortly we will be considering the united states-mexico-canada, -- united states-mexico-canada agreement, the usmca. it replaces nafta. i supported the usmca and supported it earlier this week where it passed the senate finance committee on a strong 25-3 vote. this strong vote was possible because of the hard work of democrats in the house and senate to make this agreement the strongest fully enforceable pro-environment, pro-labor trade agreement the united states has ever entered into. first, let me talk about why i think trade is important.

madam president, i would point out to my colleagues that the maiden speech that i gave in the house of representatives when i was first elected was on trade and the importance of trade agreement. i recognized how important the port of baltimore was to our economy and how important free trade and trade was to the port of baltimore. so clearly trade agreements are critically important to the people of maryland and it's important to people of this country. first, international trade can lead to better economic outcomes. leveling the playing field for american businesses to ensuring our trading partners have adequate labor standards to make competition fair, trade can be the catalyst for these outcomes. second, trade can raise the standard of living for citizens in this country. tireless -- can disproportionately harm lower income americans. if the cost of things like milk, soap, school supplies goes up because of higher tariffs, it doesn't mean these families will

stop buying these essentials. it means that they will have less to spend on other essentials they depend on to keep their families safe and healthy, like clothes and medicine. trade agreements allow us to ensure a zero or low-tariff price for these items on which americans depend which raises the standard of living on all -- for all of us. third, trade is important to u.s. foreign policy. the world can be better, safer, and a fairer place when we are working with our allies. trade agreements ensure the rest of the world starts to act a little bit more as we do with our values. this administration's harmful nonstrategic trade policy has strained our relationship with our allies, including canada and mexico. i think it has been misguided and damaging to the future of our country but this agreement has the potential to begin a healing process with our north american neighbors canada and mexico. as we move forward with trade agreements, it's important that our values are represented in

those agreements, that we strengthen american values. i support good governance and protecting workers and our environment, and i ap pleased they are included -- and pleased they are included in the agreements. in more than 25 years since enactment of nafta, our economy has changed dramatically. from the internet which has changed how businesses can easily be connected to the rest of the world to how consumers shop, compare prices and buy goods and services from all around the world, it is clear that nafta is a trade agreement that didn't foresee these changes with our two largest trading partners. in addition action over time we identified weaknesses in nafta and other free trade agreements that needed to be addressed. all that is to say that nafta is overdue for an update. for the past two and a half years, the administration, congressional leaders and our trading partners have been engaged in a process to update nafta to be a trade agreement for the 21st century.

in late 2018, an agreement was reached between the united states, canada, and mexico. importantly, reaching this agreement alleviated the threat of this administration to unilaterally withdraw from nafta. the agreement reached in 2018 was in my view incomplete and largely just continued the existing nafta but it did have some provisions important to me and my constituents in the state of maryland. maryland is home to a thriving poultry industry. the agreement includes new market access to canada for u.s. poultry. maryland farms produce $1 billion worth of chickens in 2017 surpassing that milestone for the first time. our poultry industry production grew 12% from 2016 to 2017. the growth and value came even as the amount of chickens produced on the eastern shore declined by about 10,000 pounds to about 1.84 medical pounds. maryland is -- 1.84 million

pounds. maryland is the ninth largest producer. it's good for maryland's poultry industry because it means more poultry produced in maryland will make its way to canada and mexico, creating jobs and supporting the economy here locally. the agreement also included a few provisions that are very important for small businesses. most important to many small businesses is a provision which raidses the -- raises the level of the so-called -- the de minimis system is an important -- is important to small businesses. for example, small sellers who list their goods on ebay or amazon or frequently shipped to consumers not in the united states. under the system if it crosses border, it enjoys an expedited custom and lower tariff treatment than larger shipments would. under this agreement, the united states agreed to increase its customs de minimis level to $800 for exports to mexico and canada and they have made favorable changes to their system.

as ranking member of the small business and entrepreneurship committee, this was a welcome change to ensure small businesses aren't bogged down by unnecessary red tape. the agreements small business chapter also includes support for small businesses to promote cross border cooperation, tools for small businesses to identify potential opportunities, and increase competitiveness and public sharing tools to promote access to capital. these are important issues to highlight foresmall businesses. finally, the initial agreement included a landmark achievement for the first time in u.s. trade history. it included a full chapter on the one hand anticorruption -- on anticorruption. during 2015 when the senate was considering the so-called fast-track trade mow proceedings authority, i authored a principal negotiating objective in the trade promotional authority legislation that requires any trade agreement the

ustr negotiates to emphasize human rights and the rule of law. these are our values and these values need to be reflected in our trade agreement. it's an important step towards a level playing field for trade with the united states, for our farmers, our producer, and our manufacturers. we know our system is a fair system, but in so many other countries that we deal with, that is not the case. this principal negotiating objective really represents an enduring theme in the way that i approach trade. i believe that we should use our economic power of the united states to advance human rights and good governance in other countries and and i also believe that we should not have favorable free trade agreements with countries that do not agree that human rights and good governance are important to uphold. back in 2015 and thanks to the ustr ambassador robert lighthizer, the.

sta is the first agreement that includes such a chapter and i anticipate that this will be the template for any future trade agreement. -- involving the united states. the usmca's anticorruption chapter includes a number of commitments on transparency, integrity, accountability of public institutions and officials. first, an anticorruption loss. countries are required to outlaw embezzlement and solicitation of bribes by public officials and must make it a criminal offense for anyone to offer bribes to public officials, to influence their official duties, 0er to officials of foreign governments or international organizations to gain a business advantage. madam president, i know that sounds like a no-brainer. why wouldn't countries already have those types of laws? but the reality is that they don't. reality is that many of our trading partners have corrupt systems and that puts american

countries at a disadvantage but also we should be using our economic power to advance our values. this chapter carries that out. second, on transparency and accountability, under the usmca, countries must take proactive steps against corruption by implementing and maintaining accounting and auditing standards and measures that prohibit the creation of false transaction records and off-the-book accounts. third, the usmca requires parties to create codes of conduct and procedures for removal of corruption officials as well as adopt measures requiring officials to disclose outside activities, investments, and gifts that could create conflicts of interest. under the usmca, countries also must agree to promote the engagement of the business community, ngo's and civil societies is through information campaigns, developing ethics programs, and protect being the freedom to publish information about corruption.

and finally, on good regulatory practices, under the usmca, countries must also follow a transparent regulatory rule-making process, which includes publishing the proposed regulations with its regulatory impact assessment, an explanation of the regulations, a description of the underlying data and other information and contact information of responsible officials. usmca further requires parties to follow the u.s.-like system of notice and comment periods for proposed regulatory rule making, in which the regulators are required to consider comments of any interested party regardless of national, which means that americans will have input onto the regulatory process in canada and mexico, which has the direct effect on our access to their markets. they also agreed to publish an early planning document of regulations, the countries' intent to revise in the next 10

months and to ensure that regulations are i think weren in a clear, concise, and understandable manner. and then the usmca encourages authorities to consider the impact of new regulations when they are being developed, with particularly attention to the benefits and costs of regulations and the feasibility of other approaches. this is incredibly important achievement and is important as a model for achievements going forward. by including good governance anticorruption provision in the rums, we are signaling to our trading partners and the rest of the world what our values are. yes, economic values but also the type of people that we are and the principles we advance p. however, with these good achievements in the original usmca, the agreement did not go far enough. there was no dead spline to getting it done quickly, so we shows to get it done right. i wanted to see strict high

standards in the usmca on labor, environment, and more. democrats were united in this message. democrats worked behind the scenes with labor and environmental stakeholders to identify issues and create solutions that could make this agreement one we could support. do i think the usmca lives up to these standards? yes, i do. the updated usmca includes important provisions regarding labor standards which have the potential to improve working conditions and create more level playing field for u.s. workers. these changes include the brown-wyden rapid response mechanisms which enables the u.s. to take swift action against imports from individual facilities and stronger labor obligations in the agreement. the changes include a number of other important labor issues, including strengthening labor obligations, new labor monitoring mechanisms, and extra funding. it also includes resources to

ensure that the united states government effectively monitors mexico's compliance with the labor obligations. the results of these labor additions earn the support for the usmca by the afl-cio, united steelworkers, international brotherhood of teamsters. truly this is an agreement that is good for labor. it also ensures that our trading partners meet environmental standard of this country. we want a level playing field and we also want to hispanic our environment. with respect to the environment, the updated usmca is a significant improvement over the original nafta. the usmca incorporates environmental obligations into the agreement itself, which are subject to dispute settlement unlike the original nafta which only included unenforceable side agreement. usmca includes upgraded commitments on topics including fishery subsidies, marine literate and conservation of

marine species. democrats secured amendments to the agreement as well as provisions to enforbes the obligations and ensure that the parties are bound to their environmental obligations. i want to acknowledge my clerks senator corker, the ranking member of the senate environmen and public works committee, which i also sit on. together we pushed to improve this agreement with respect to the enforceability of the environmental provisions. and we were happy to see this agreement include many of the things that senator carper and i worked and pushed to have done. included in the new usmca is a new trigger mechanism to give environmental staying holders an expanded role in enforcement matters and create accountability for the administration with regards to seeking environmental enforcement actions under usmca. under the existing nafta, any person and nafta country can make a submission and

intergovernmental organizations established by nafta to address environmental issues, alleging that a nafta partner is not living up to its environmental obligations. you can do that. the submissions undergoing a fact-finding process by the head of that body, which produces a factionual record if the allegations are found to have merit. here is where the problem comes in. once the production of factual record is done, there's no enforcement mechanism. we've corrected that. through this new trigger mechanism, the usmca that was developed, if a factual record is produced, a new interagency environmental committee headed by the ustr has 30 days to review the record and make a determination as to whether or not to pursue enforcement officials against the violating country. and if the committee headed by the ustr decides not to pursue enforcement hangs, the commit within 30 days of its

termination must provide congress with a written explanation and justification of its decision. this is a huge step forward and in quickly identifying and enforcement any environmental action that needs to be taken under this agreement. in addition, the agreement includes an additional $88 million of funding appropriated over the next four years for environmental monitoring and enforcement to ensure that the goals of the environmental chapter can be realized. this includes $40 million appropriated over the next four years for a new environment all sub-fund senator carper and i pushed to create under the ustr's existing trade enforcement trust fund, which will be dedicated to enforcement of the usmca's environmental obligations. as i mentioned, the united states-mexico-canada agreement establishes an interagency environmental committee led by the ustr. will coordinate u.s. efforts to

monitor implementation of its environmental goals t also establishes up to three new environmentally focused attaches in mexico city to ensure mexico is living up to its environmental obligations. and it includes new reporting requirements to regular a ssess the status of mexico's laws understand regulations that are intended to implement its environmental obligations to help ensure mexico is living up to its commitments. we believe the usmca is a strong, enforceable agreement that makes positive strides in protecting the environment. as this agreement is implemented, i will be watching to ensure that other parties to this agreement live up to the promises that they are making this this bill. madam president, in closing, i support the usmca because it will help rise the living standards for marylanders, cut red tape for small business, and unites us with our allies. the provisions of the usmca protect the environment, help labor organizing efforts, fight

for good governance, and against corruption, and is enforceable. i urge my colleagues to support the legislation when it comes to the floor. i yield the floor. mr. gardner: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. gardner: thank you, madam president. i commend the administration for taking decisive action last week in baghdad against tehran-backed terrorists planning an imminent tac on american targets. the administration's action where are to qasem soleimani balances not only decisive but was necessary and legal under long-standing presidential authority to protect american lives from imminent attack. it is our obligation, it is our duty to protect american lives, especially when our national security agencies and personnel know the imminent danger of attack. the president made the right call at the right time to neutralize the threat and to

save american lives. imagine having done nothing, having done nothing, and arizonallowing the attacks to -- and allowing the attacks to proceed. that is exactly what happened. at yesterday's briefing, general milley and our national personnel made it clear that the death of general soleimani saved lives. our duty in congress is to protect the united states, it's people, and interests, dimes, and our men and women in uniform around the globe. the actions taken by the military in the iraq undoubtedly saved american lives and addressed a clear and unambiguous threat. the world should not mourn qasem soleimani, a man whose name is synonymous with murder in the middle east, as the head of the quds force, which is designated as a terrorist organization under u.s. law, a man who personally was designated as a terrorist, balanced field commander by president obama. the quds force was the tip of

the spear for the regime and its terrorist activities abroad and is responsible for thousands of deaths across the region p. most importantly, according to the pentagon, soleimani was responsible for the deaths of over 600 american service members in iraq. as general david petraeus stated last week, in his opinion taking out soleimani was bigger than bin laden, bigger than baghdadi. in other words, president trump rid the world of an extreme and lethal american enemy, enemy of the american people, someone who was actively pursuing and had killed and taken american lives. i fail to understand how anyone can question this decision or its rationale, and i know they certainly did not -- and rightfully so -- when president obama took out bin laden. we expected an iranian response and on tuesday iran launched a ballistic missile attack against u.s. bases in iraq hosting u.s. troops. i think condemn these attacks in

the strongest terms and we are national they did not result in any casualties. the president did not take this actionness a vacuum. contrary to claims by some of my colleagues in this very chamber, it is iran that that is escalated tensions being not the united states. over the last several months and years, iran has escalated its behavior against the united states and our allies. on june 13, they attacked two oil shippers in the strait of hormuz. on june 20, they shot down an unmanned aerial vehicle. on september 14, iran sponsored an attack on saudi arabia's oil facilities, temporarily cutting off half of the oil supply of the world's largest producer. on december 27, iranian proxy group carried out a deadly attack against a base in northern iraq, killing an american civilian, killing an american. the administration appropriately retaliated against this group on december 29. then on new year's eve,

iran-backed militias besieged and damaged the u.s. embassy in baghdad for two days, forcing the administration to take prudent measures to be prevent further violence. when soleimani was caught plotting additional attacks against american targets, the administration took lawful and appropriate action. i now urge tehran to take the opportunity presented by the administration to de-escalate tensions immediately. the administration must also continue taking all necessary steps to keep our troops, diplomats, and country safe and to regularly consult with congress on next steps. it is my hope that diplomacy ultimately prevails, but we must not repeat the mistakes of the past. iran's enmity towards the united states stretches over decades, not just months or weeks. following the islamic resolution in iran in 1979, the ruling mullahs held 52 american diplomats handling for 442 days, releasing them only on january 20, 1981, the day

president ronald reagan was sworn into office. two years later on april 18, 1983, a truck laden with explosives rammed into the u.s. embassy in beirut, lebanon, killing 17 americans. on october 23, 1983, a similar attack on the u.s. marines barracks in beirut killed 231 american servicemen. overwhelmingly, the evidence led to iran and hezbollah as the perpetrator of these attacks. the iranian regime has not changed in 40 years. it targeted and killed americans during the iraq war, supported shiite militias and supplied deadly explosives used to target our troops. iran continues to prop up the regime of the murderous barb arrest al-assad in syria. the iranian regime regularly refers to the united states as the great satan and threatens our ally, israel, to wipe them off the face of the earth. the mullahs continue to abuse the human rights of their own people as evidenced by crackdowns on protesters in iran

that have claimed hundreds, hundreds of innocent lives. despite all of this in 2015, the obama administration rewarded tehran with a sweetheart deal known as the joint comprehensive plan of action or jcpoa. which paved a patient pathway to a nuclear weapon for iran, lifted all meaningful sanctions against the regime and did nothing to constrain iran's maligned behavior in the region. iran used the billions and billions of dollars that were provided in the jcpoa to dramatically increase its terror funding and its military funding. the trump administration rightly exited the jcpoa in may, 2018, and reimposed crippling economic sanctions against the regime. they have been clear with iran. the door to diplomacy remains open. if iran changes its behavior and complies with international norms. on may 21, 2018, secretary of state mike pompeo delivered a speech at the heritage foundation which clearly stated the administration's objectives. iran must enforcing owe its

nuclear aspirations, cease its support for terrorism, and respect the human rights of its people. secretary pompeo said, and i quote, any new agreement will make sure iran never acquires a nuclear weapon and would deter the regime's maligned behavior in a way that the jcpoa never could. we will not repeat the mistakes of past administrations, and we will not renegotiate the jcpoa itself. the iranian wave of destruction in the region is just the last -- in just the last few years is proof that iran's nuclear aspirations cannot be separated from the overall security picture. secretary pompeo was clear that once iran changes its behavior, it will reap the benefits, stating that the united states is prepared to end the principal components of every one of our sanctions against the regime. we're happy at that point to reestablish full diplomatic and commercial relationships with iran, and we're prepared to admit iran to have advanced technology. if iran makes this fundamental strategic shift, we, too, are prepared to support the

modernization and reintegration of the iranian economy into the international economic system. i hope the latest events have made it clear to iran that the united states will never back down from protecting our people, our interests, and our allies. so now it's in tehran's court to choose the path of peace or the path of could confrontation. it's my sincere hope that they choose the path of peace. thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor. mr. carper: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: i have come to the floor to talk for a while about the nomination of paul ray to serve as an administrator in the office of information and regulatory affairs. i will do that, but first i want to take a few minutes to set the

record straight on what we just heard. tom freedman who writes for "the new york times," famous author, lecturer, brilliant guy, and among the things that he has mentioned in his writings over the last three years is something called the trump doctrine, and the trump doctrine goes something like this. barack built it, i being trump, broke it, you fix it. and there are any number of examples where that has happened. press accords on reducing emissions of carbon dioxide on our planet. the trans-pacific partnership where the u.s. would lead 11

other nations in a trade agreement around the world. those 12 nations would be responsible for 40% of the world's trade. we would lead under that agreement negotiated in the last administration, we would lead that 12-nation group, 40% of the world's trade. china was on the outside looking in. this administration walked away from that. the greatest source of carbon emissions on our planet, the greatest threat we have on our planet for these young pages that i am looking at wait now is way, way too much carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, and it's getting worse, not better. the greatest source of carbon emissions on our planet are the emissions of our cars, trucks, and vans. the last administration negotiated a 50-state deal which would have reduced emissions from our mobile sources dramatically in the years to

come. this administration walked away from it, walked away from it. the last administration negotiated a rule, a regulation to dramatically reduce these emissions from the second greatest source of carbon emissions in this country, from our utilities, coal-fired utilities primarily. and the reduction -- if you add together the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions going forward from our mobile sources negotiated by the last administration and negotiated in a regulation called the clean power plan, they would provide almost half of the emission reductions by 2050 that we need, almost half. this administration walked away from both. and the last administration argued that rather than always be threatening war with iran and

doing these proxy wars with iran, maybe what we should focus on is the main thing. the main thing -- a friend used to advise me. i said tom, the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. and the reason why we negotiated the jcpoa, the iran deal with iran was to deter iran from developing -- having nuclear weapons that created the in harm's way race in the middle east and put them and i think the rest of our planet literally at risk. under the agreement negotiated with iran and six other nations including the u.s., the brits, germans, russians, chinese, under the agreement, the iranians had to agree to stand down, to slow down much of their nuclear enrichment that could actually lead to nuclear weapons. they had to agree to intrusive

inspections by the iaea, the international watchdog for atomic energy. and in return for their willingness to do those things, we would reduce the very harsh sanctions that have been put in place by the last administration, very harsh economic sanctions. the iranians did what they agreed to do. they stood down their development. they opened up their facilities to intrusive inspections by the iaea for the last three, actually four years. almost 20 different rounds of inspections, and each of which came to the same conclusion. iran, whether you like them or not, whether you like their leaders or not, kept their word. ronald reagan used to say, in terms of doing nuclear deals with the russians, he would say

trust but verify. well, what we did with the iran deal, it was mistrust or distrust. we didn't trust them, but we're going to verify that they were keeping their word. and whether we like it or not, surprisingly, they did. until this administration came along and walked away from that agreement, which was working, imposed even harsher sanctions on iran, and led us to really where we are today. again, tom freedman gave us the trump doctrine -- iraq built it, i, trump, broke it, you fix it. this is just another example of that happening. we shouldn't be surprised by the events of this past week. it didn't have to be that way. it didn't have to be that way. half -- in the country of iran, half the people are under the age of 25. half of the people are under the age of 25.

they were never born when the aye toll a, the original ayatollah was in charge and had the iranian revolution. the young people would like to have a better relationship with us. they have elections there, too. actually people can actually show up and vote, men and women, from the municipal elections, for mayors, city councils and so forth, for parliament, for their congress, they call it the parliament, for their president. and do you know what happened three years ago the last time -- it was three years ago the last time they voted? do you know who gave -- gained forces or gained votes? they don't have republicans and democrats. they have hard-liners and they have moderates. the moderates gained election victories in mayoral elections across the, in city council elections across the country. moderates picked up a lot of votes in the parliament. do you know who lost votes? the hard-liners. and the actions of this

administration in the last three years have pushed iranian voters, including a lot of young people, away from supporting the moderates in their nation and pushed them into the arms of the radical extremists, the hard-liners. it didn't have to be that way. it didn't have to be that way. i don't know how we put this mess back together again, but we need to. i'm not sure that -- i don't have a lot of confidence that this administration is going to be able to do that given their track record of the last three years, at least on this issue, at least on this issue. let me talk about paul ray. paul ray is a bright young man. he is the kind of person that most of us would say well, he ought to be in the administration. i don't care if it was a democratic administration or a republican administration. smart, well educated, good experience. he has been nominated to head up something called oira, office of information and regulatory affairs, an entity that exists within o.m.b. i've met him. he has come to my office to talk

with me. very polite young man. he has been before our committee. and i voted today against his confirmation. and i'll tell you why. the committee on homeland security and governmental affairs used object to be the committee on governmental affairs. i served on it for 19 years. we have oversight over the whole federal government. every committee we serve on including the committees our presiding officer serves on, we all have oversight. a lot of that deals with oversight of the administration as part of our checks and balances. we can only do that job so well if the administration allows us to do our job. and during the confirmation process, we, as the presiding officer knows, witnesses, nominees come before us from the administration. they have been vetted by the

administration. they have gone through staff interviews, and then they come to our committee hearing, and we ask questions of the nominees. that are relevant to the job they're going to do. every now and then you have a nominee for a particular position who is not forthcoming in the responses so we do q.f.r.'s, questions for the record, designed to give the nominee another bite at the apple to respond to the questions democrats and republicans have. a lot of times the nominees are more forthcoming, and that's good. and the nomination moves forward and they get confirmed. i've learned if nominees are not forthcoming, not responsive to the oversight questions we ask before they get confirmed, good luck after they get confirmed. it doesn't get any better. and i don't care whether you happen to be a democrat or republican, you've got to be concerned about the reluctance or the unwillingness of nominees to respond to reasonable

questions, regardless of who's in the white house and regardless of who's in the majority in this body. let me say a word or two about oira. oira plays a central role in establishing collection information policies across the entire federal government. oira receives the rulemaking process from start to finish from the proposed and final rules to managing the interagency review process to ensuring the agency makes rulemaking decisions based on sound cost-benefit analysis. the administrator of oira is a critically important position because at the end of the day he or she is responsible for assuring are the rules promulgated by agencies benefit our society, protect our quality of life, protect our health, protect our safety, protect our environment. earlier today i joined a number of my colleagues on a letter to

mr. ray asking him to review concerns raised recently by e.p.a.'s science advisory board about four specific rule makings currently under review. four. the e.p.a. science advisory board found serious concerns with the trump administration's clean car standards, that rule, with the administration's proposed mercury and air toxic rule, as well as the administration's clean water rule rollbacks and a proposed e.p.a. secret science rule which will have the effect of limiting the science that e.p.a. can actually use in rule makings. the advisory board found serious shortcomings with how e.p.a. conducted these rule-makings. either the cost-benefit analysis was deficient, or the labor

rationale under pinning the rule was faulty. in case you're wondering who selects the members of this e.p.a. science advisory board, well, as it turns out the president. in this case, the 44 members of e.p.a. science advisory board were nominated or renominated under this administration. all 44. this administration, this president. and they said the rulemaking, these four rulemaking i just mentioned, there's problems, serious problems with those rule makings. and these are not obama people. these were nominated by this president. mr. ray has served in top leadership position at oira since june of 2018 first as associate administrator and then in march of last year he was promoted to acting administrator mr. ray has presided over or

been involved with dozens of controversial rulemaking decisions in the last year and a half at oira including rulemakings outlined in a letter i mentioned we are sending him today. that is why during the vetting process of his nomination, i along with my colleagues on the homeland security and governmental affairs committee asked for information about mr. ray's background and his work in the last year and a half at this agency, at oira, within o.m.b. specifically we asked him about his involvement in many controversial regulatory rulemaking decisions put forward by the current administration. unfortunately, sadly really mr.f management and budget refused to provide the senate with the information needed to vet mr. ray's nomination. as best i can tell, they didn't even try. and unfortunately throughout the vetting process, mr. ray apparently refused to answer

senators' questions by asserting privilege or deferring to counsel more frequently than any past oira nominee who has ever appeared before our committee. something is wrong with that. something is wrong with that. i don't care if you're a democrat or republican in this body and if the nominee comes from a democratic president or a republican administration, something is wrong with that. in fact, mr. ray asserted privilege or deferred to counsel 19 times. 19 times in his prehearing responses alone. in his prehearing questionnaire responses alone. is that a lot? well, that may well be more time than any other nominee in the history of this agency. think about that. and while it might be appropriate to withhold or redact particular content in some narrow circumstances, mr. ray and the o.m.b. office of general counsel have misapplied overly broad privilege to avoid

providing congress with critical information and documents related to his work at oira. have we heard checks and balances? there's a reason why we have this oversight. there's a reason why we don't have kings and monarchs here who can do just anything that they want without a check or a balance. and this nomination process, at least for this nominee, sadly, because i think he's well qualified, he's bright, takes a thumb and sticks it in the eye of checks and balances. unfortunately, should this body vote to confirm mr. ray, his general approach of nonresponsiveness to the vetting process sets a concerning precedent not just for him, not just for nominees in this agencies but future nominees and oversight efforts to hold the executive branch accountable. mr. president, it has been my privilege to serve on the security, homeland security and

governmental affairs committee for 19 years now. we're an oversight committee. we conduct oversight over the whole federal government and not just the government but on matters important to our nation outside of the government. one of our core duties is to ensure that nominees are forthcoming and provide the senate with the information we need to do our jobs. eventually we're going to have an election. who knows who's going to win next time and who will be in the majority here in this body. but we should expect the nominees who appear before the senate under any administration, under any administration are forthcoming and provide us with the relevant information we need to adequately vet their nomination. for these reasons, mr. president, i must reluctantly note my opposition to mr. ray's nomination for now and urge my colleagues to do the same. with that, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for tennessee.

are. mr. carper: would you yield for one moment? mrs. blackburn: yes. the presiding officer: the senator for delaware. mr. carper: before you arrived on the floor i was talking about iran as many of us are and mentioned the opposition that some folks had in iran had to the quds force actually entering into negotiations with the u.s. and five other nations in the iran deal. the jcpoa, nobody as far as i can tell, nobody as as strong an opponent to iran negotiating with us and five other nations, nobody as best i can tell to doing that and trying to work things out than soleimani. we're not going to miss that guy. he was one of the strongest opponents to take a reasonable course and sadly this administration walked away from it. i thank my colleague for yielding. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. president. let me begin by saying paul ray is a tennesseean and we are delighted that he is being

confirmed to the oira. he's qualified, he will serve our nation well in the future just as he has in the past. i also want to say a few things about the situation in iran and some of the comments that we have heard here on the floor today. first of all, i think it is important to set the record straight when it comes to the iran deal. this is -- we hear people say we never should have walked away from it. let me tell you something, we should never have been in it in the first place. we should never have been in this. how in heaven's name could anybody have thought it was a good idea to put $1.7 billion of cash on a pallet, stick it on a plane, and fly it into iran? whoever would have thought that? now the iran nuclear deal was

not something that helped destabilize an issue. it incentivized iran to do bad things. the iran deal included a lifting of sanctions, a lifting of sanctions on qasam soleimani. where was the first place he went? where was the first place he went to get somebody to help to fund the quds force, to help fund all of this terrorism? he went to russia. he went to russia to his friends. this is why the iran deal was not a good thing. now you can say they had to open their facilities, nuclear facilities to the iaea. but there was a little caveat in there that doesn't get talked about a lot.

open it with notification. well, if you're going to get prior notification if somebody is coming to look at your company, to look at your operation, to look at your house, to look at your country, what are you going to do? you're going to clean it up, and you're going to hide things. and that is what iran did. they didn't stop enriching uranium. what they did was enrich it right up to the point, right up to the point, just under the mark. did they give it up? no, they didn't give it up. my colleague had mentioned the reagan term of trust by verify. and, thank goodness, we have a president who decided he would verify. and thank goodness, we have an intel community and a u.s.

military that has done the heavy lift of figuring out what needed to be done. and when you hear one of my colleagues say how do we put all of this back together? or can we ever put it back together? we have started putting it back together, and we have done it by saying, all right, folks, here is our red line. and guess what? this red line means something. this red line is drawn with the blood of hundreds of americans that have been killed by this murderous villain, and it is a red line of justice.

so let's not have happy talk when it comes to this situation with iran. let's make certain that we understand what has transpired. we know that our military and our intel communities have watched for eight months as there was escalating violence. we know that violence was orchestrated by none other than soleimani himself. intelligence provided to senior administration officials prior to the strike confirmed that soleimani had posed a defined threat to the united states. when we speak about iran in the context of conflict versus deterrence, we're not referring to a government or a military organization.

it is important to note, and for the american people to know, that iran is the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. they are the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. and, mr. president, you know who they point that terrorism to? isn't it interesting, they tend to have a little bi-word. they have say this is our goal, destroy america, destroy israel. that is what they have been up to. they have nurtured a proxy network that has helped them claw their way into the heads of original leaders who are either too weak or wholly unwilling to resist those overtures.

relationships with russia, with bashar al-assad in syria, these have kept iranian leaders a part of mainstream conversations about national security. hezbollah and lebanon, close friend of iran and supported militias and houthi rebels in yemen, that adds to the aura of chaos around iran's activities. and so what does all of this have to do with a targeted strike on one man? that one man has spent a lifetime doing exactly what he was doing the day he died, using violence and intimidation to bring shiite ideology into prominence and to quote the notorious ayatollah khamenei, in the corrupting presence of

america in the middle east, end quote. that's what they thought. that's their comments, their words, not mine, not the president's, not the military, not the intel, the ayatollah's. that's what he said. soleimani took to the front lines with the revolutionary guard in 1979. that may trigger some thoughts of jimmy carter, ronald reagan and american diplomats and citizens that were held hostage. soleimani was not a new arrival to the terrorist community. sometime between 1997 and 1998 he was named commander of the quds force. under his leadership, the revolutionary guard has gained control over 20% of iran's

economy and the quds force has extended its force to lebanon, syria, iraq, afghanistan, and central asia. he controlled iran's intervention in support of assad in syria and was the primary architect of hezbollah and lebanon. they built up and trained scores of hezbollah and houthi fighters as well as shiite militias in syria and iraq and those iraqi militias killed more than 600 u.s. troops during the iraq war. soleimani made much of his militaristic role but he was a general in name only. he hid behind a uniform while designing, devising conducting and advising terror plots. and that is what earned him a spot on the list of people

sanctioned by the e.u., the u.s., and the u.n. he wasn't a bureaucrat. he was not one of many p respected generals -- of many respected generals. the ayatollah called him a living martyr in his lifetime, but i intend to call him exactly what he was, a ruthless terrorist and a shameless, even proud engineer of hatred, death, destruction. that is his legacy. his tendency toward violence as a default was thrown into full relief when president trump withdrew from that iranian nuclear deal, just as i said, a moment ago. in early hey of last year the intel community indicated an increased threat from tehran, and between may and september, iran and its proxies perpetrated more than 80 violent attacks in

the region -- 80, us, our allies, 80 attacks. they attacked multiple tankers and commercial vessels, they downed an american drone and took out 5% of the world's oil supply, and now we find out they've taken out a jetliner. they used their own drones to attack a saudi airport, a suicide bomber murdered four afghans and wounded four u.s. troops traveling in a convoy in eastern kabul. soleimani was very confident, but perhaps he should have thought a little harder about the increased level of vulnerability he had built into his expanding network. because he didn't die in a hidden bunker or behind the walls of a fortified compound, he died in public while

traversing the middle east, defining with impunity an even -- and even taking selfies with proxy terrorists. he did every bit of this in violation of u.n. resolutions. he died because his aggression morphed into a pattern of arrogant and violent escalation that u.s. officials could not in good conscience continue to allow. this month iranian officials lost their chief terrorist but they have gained an opportunity, and i will tell you the ball is in their court. their retaliatory strikes against our shared bases in iraq did nothing to repair their image as a belligerent and deeply vulnerable regime. if their lack of precision was calculated, no one got the

intended message. the iranians are now left with two choices, and they are theirs, pick one. we hope they choose well. option number one, they can come to the table, behave like a normal country. they are a country reach in resources, smart, educated people. come to the table, behave like a normal country in the community of nations and allow deterrence to make a comeback. option number two, they can risk being reminded that the united states will defend to the death the red line that separates justice from chaos and the american people are going to make certain that we continue to

go after monsters who crusade as the declared enemies of freedom. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president, i want to take a few moments to recognize an individual, laura oppen heimer will move on. we are all sad to see her go, but we do feel fortunate that she hasn't gone far. just over to senator jones' office on the other side of the hart building. so oregon's loss has been alabama's gain. lauren joined my team in 2015 when i was a member of the banking committee to handle that important portfolio. it was a position she was extremely qualified for having a wealth of experience working on those issues in both the house and the center for american

progress. but then a seat opened up on the foreign relations committee, and i had to turn in my credentials for banking in order to take that foreign relations position. well, we knew that that kind of undermined the vision of why lauren had come to our team to really take on that set of banking issues. it would not be an understatement not a completely thrilling day when i shared this news with her. but being the dedicated team member that she is, she willingly and graciously took on a new role with the team and a whole newport fellow -- new porlt fellow, like telecom, judicial nominations, rules reform. it might not have been the job she signed up for, but she excelled at it nonetheless. she excelled because she's

extremely smart and talented and because she is passionate about her work and threw herself into this new set of issues, and i mean it when i say she's passionate. a quick conversation about fi nt ech can last hours as she tells you about the recent developments in that emerging industry, an industry that i had hardly heard of before lauren came to my team. martin luther king jr. once said that human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable. it requires the tireless exertions and passionate concerns of dedicated individuals. well, lauren is certainly one of those dedicated and pash -- passionate individuals and throughout her time on team merkley she has helped our country move forward in ways large and small. for years she has worked on

ensuring the implementation of the volker rule, a key part of dodd-frank act which closed the wall street casino by separating old-fashioned banking from high-risk, high-leverage bets on the future prices of stocks and exchange rates and interest rates and commodities, bets that placed our entire banking system and economy at risk. lauren wrote the bipartisan safe banking act that had its hearing in the banking committee just a couple of months ago to ensure that legal can business and -- cannibis and hemp businesses have access to bank services as any business. she coordinated the senate's efforts around this issue sand she has work to ensure the integrity of our judicial system by vetting the nominations for judgeships. and in one case produced

significant insights and records that resulted in the senate rejecting the nomination of ryan bounds for the ninth circuit. and in her spare time lauren has been fighting to save our democracy. earlier this year she created my blueprint for democracy to introduce six specific bills, and she was the point person on my team for finalizing the senate version of the for the people act, a comprehensive election reform bill which takes on anti-democratic practices such as gerrymandering, voter suppression, and dark money. but beyond those accomplishments and many others that i haven't mentioned, she made one contribution that i will always remember and deeply appreciate. as many are aware i spent a

significant amount of time over the last year and a half shinning a light on the trump administration's policy of cruelty towards immigrant, refugees and asylum seekers on our southern border. even though immigration issues are not in her portfolio, it was lauren who inspired me to get involved. i was reading the speech by former attorney general jeff sessions, a speech labeled his zero tolerance speech, and the name didn't strike me as unexpected, but when i read the details, it sounded as if the plan was to discourage refugees from coming to our border by deliberately traumatizing children, to rip them out of their parents' arms, and i refused to believe that any american administration would ever actually do this. and as i was expressing the

belief that no american administration would ever resort to hurting children as a strategy to deter immigration, would not resort to a strategy to hurt children, that it is not acceptable under any moral code or set of ethics or religious standards, it was lauren who said there's one way to find out and that's to go down to the border, and so i went that next weekend, that next sunday and became the first member of congress to see the children being sorted into cages after being separated from their parents and to be turned away from any conversation in front of a former wal-mart where i had heard that hundreds of separated boys were being held. and that video of that really sent a message to the entire nation of what is this

administration hiding, but the fact that i was there at that processing center and the fact that i was there at that former wal-mart seeking to find out what was going on hundreds of boys that had been taken from their parents is because lauren said the best way to find out is to go down to the border yourself. thank you, lauren, for playing such a critical role in all of these efforts. you are such a valued member of our team, and you're still valued as a member of our team, you will always be a member of our team even as you go on to work for our colleague from alabama. our office notices the -- your absence without the energy and enthusiasm emanating from your desk and your unceasing willingness to take on new challenges and your very valuable work to mentor other team members. know that all of us on the team

wish you the very best as you continue to fight for a better world in this new chapter of your career. i'm excited you returned to your expertise, the world of banking. i know i'll be calling you up now and then to get your insights on that set of issues you know so well. all of us look forward to seeing the insights and understanding that you will help us gain from your perspective back fully immersed in the banking world. it will be valuable to all of us here in the senate and valuable to our nation. and i thank you for your service. thank you, mr. president. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: without objection. all postcloture time is expired. the question is on the nomination.

is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change your vote? if not, the yeas are 50, the nays are 44. the nomination is confirmed.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session and consider calendar number 498. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of homeland security. peter gaynor of rhode island to be administrator of the federal emergency management agency. mr. mcconnell: i send acloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the

nomination of peter gaynor of rhode island to be administrator of the federal emergency management agency department of homeland security, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the mandatory quorum call be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for florida. mr. scott: president trump is working to defend the freedom of our country. he was right to take swift and decisive action to kill one of the world's worst monsters. soleimani was responsible for the death and maiming of thousands of americans and tens of thousands worldwide. he ordered the attack on the united states embassy in iraq. he had plans to kill more americans. there are some in this body that are trying to curtail the president's authority to defend americans and defend american interests.

this is not only foolish, it is foolhardy. our president does and should have the authority to defend americans, period. but it's an authority he doesn't take lightly. president trump is right to use restraint and avoid further escalation unless iran continues their provocations. the regime in iran, a regime that chants death to america and wants to wipe israel off the face of the map, needs to know that the united states will not tolerate acts of aggression against america or our allies. and the death of soleimani was a strong warning. but they should also know that they have the opportunity to become productive members of the world community and bring peace and prosperity to their people. the choice is theirs. we all want peace. and the greatest deterrent to war is our economic and military

strength. but iran must make the choice for peace. it is a choice that is theirs alone. during this trying time, i want to pause and take a moment to remember the brave men and women of our armed forces. we often forget in washington that the people carrying out the orders of our commander in chief are just that -- people. they're not pieces on a chess board. they are fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters. i remember my father talking about his experience in world war ii, a conflict he certainly had no expectation to return from. he loved his service to our country but never forgot those that we lost. i remember friends going to vietnam and korea. i spent many hours sitting and talking with gold star parents. as governor i washed florida national guard units leave for wars in the middle east. the cost of war is great.

as ronald reagan said, freedom is not bought cheaply. we should never forget that. i am praying for our brave men and women in uniform, some of them floridians, headed overseas to protect americans and prevent an escalating conflict. and i'm praying for peace. these heroes put their lives in danger to defend our nation, and we cannot thank them enough for their sacrifice and their service. we must recognize the dangers and threats that our world faces today, and we must always stand together united to defend freedom and democracy. i yield the floor. mr. cramer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. cramer: mr. president, on the day after christmas, former senator burdick died in north at

the age of 97. joslyn served three days at the most as she filled the seat of quintin burdick. threes those three months -- during those three months she was able to cast votes as her husband would have cast them. she will forever hold the place in north dakota history as north dakota's first woman united states senator. however, her service in north dakota goes far beyond those three months she served in the senate. all of us senators know the importance and the incredible service of our spouses. joycelyn stood quinn ton's side for 32 years. throughout her life joycelyn embraced her place in public life with tremendous grace, dignity and class. she demonstrated by example how

people can be principled in their beliefs, yet, friendly, cordial, even affectionate while having different political views. and i'm honored, mr. president, i'm honored to be standing here using her desk, quinton's desk to be part of this heritage. it's a great honor for me. the impact of her life well lived can be seen in countless ways, especially as a philanthropist, as a political and community volunteer and certainly as a woman of deep faith. joycelyn's memory will remain alive in the hearts of all those who had the privilege of knowing her. chris and i join senator hoeven and many, many north dakotans in sending condolences and best wishes to the burdick family. we pray that fond memories and deep affections many people held for joycelyn will comfort them in these days and the days ahead, and i pray that god will bless joycelyn burdick's memory.

i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not.

mr. hoeven: all right, mr. president. i today rise, along with my colleague, senator cramer, to honor the former senator from north dakota josh lynn berditt. she was the first one to represent the state of north dakota in the united states senate. my wife and i were sad to hear of her recent passing and we want to extend our sincere condolences to all the verdit family. i and senator cramer introduced a resolution to honor senator verdit and her service to the people of north dakota and the united states. she was born in north dakota, and attended princ pinch a college and began her career as a radio announcer in moorehead, minnesota. she was the first woman from the

state of north dakota to serve in the united states senate. she was appointed by then-governor george sooner to fill the seat of her late husband who she served alongside during his 32 years in this body, the united states senate. their family has a long history of public service. during her time in the senate she helped to establish the indian health program at the university of north dakota, supporting health care training programs for native americans and helped to secure funding for the federal courthouse in fargo named after her late husband. she was a sunday school teacher who had been a devoted member of the christian science church. she served as president of the local parent-teacher association, recorded public service announcements raising awareness of substance abuse and drunk driving and nationally recognized for her philanthropy

on behalf of her sororitiy. i shue her had she was that fine person. i join with the people of north dakota in expressing our appreciation for her service on behalf of our state and our nation. and, with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: we are -- mr. brown: we're not in a quorum? okay. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. brown: okay. thank you, mr. president.

2016, just four years ago, fall of 2016, i heard candidate trump repeatedly promise to get rid of the north american free trade agreement, either to pull out of it or to renegotiate it, fix it so that it worked better than it did. and i didn't support donald trump for president. i thinks a. been -- i think he's been a less-than-honest person. but that's not really the point. the point is that i liked what he said about getting out of nafta. i know what nafta did to the presiding officer's home state of indiana. i know what it did to dayton, ohio, cleveland, ohio, canton, ohio, and mansfield and spring feed and zanesville and every community in my state, and -- almost every community. so i welcomed the president saying that. so the reason i thought these trade agreements were so bad for our country is that they were

always written by corporate interests to serve the needs of the executives and the major stockholders in the corporations. they never -- in fact, they not only weren't written for workers, they undermined workers, they caused -- because of nafta -- and i voted against nafta. i've never voted for a trade agreement. i voted against nafta, i voted against the central american free trade agreement, one after another after another after another because i saw these trade agreements were written for corporate interests and they betrayed workers. and what happened is companies would shut down production in canton or in niles or in bryan or in lima, and they were move overseas, build factories there and sell those products about a being into the united states. that is what happened with these grade agreements. corporations liked them because they could exploit low-income workers, they liked them because their profits would be bigger, they had no responsibility for

their workers when they'd sell overseas and sell the products back. that was their mission. that's how they -- that was their -- the way that these companies did business. so i welcomed the president doing that. well, then about a year ago the president presented the new nafta -- he called it the united states-mexico-canada agreement -- usmca -- presented to the congress and it was more of the same, it was almost the same. had a few little tweaks. but fundamentally the president betrayed workers, as all these trade agreements do. the president's bill -- the president's usmca was again a giveaway to corporate interests. in fact, there is a provision in there for the drug companies that -- there was a provision in there for the drug companies that was maybe worse than i've ever seen in a trade agreement. the white house does, i admit,

look like a retreat for drug company executives except on tuesdays and fridays when it looks like a retreat for wall street executives. but the president -- so he presented this usmca to us and it was the same old, same old. it would then fundamentally mean more jobs outsourced, more exploitation. because of his usmca, companies would even more shut down in lima or zanesville or ports smith or chillicothe and move overseas to look for cheap labor, to look for weaker labor laws so they could make more money. so this president, he betrayed workers again by giving us a trade agreement that was no better than the ones he had caned -- campaigned against. but this year, speaker pelosi

and congresswoman delauro from connecticut, we all banded together and said, no, mr. president, we're not going to pass another corporate trade agreement, we're not going to pass another special interest trade agreement that sells out workers and enriches corporate executives over and over and over. we're not going to buy that again. we're saying no to that. then we said, we will support your usmca only -- only -- if you include strong lapping for workers. so we -- language for workers. so we got the browning-wyden language in this agreement. only after a year the president refused to fundamentally talk to us about t the u.s. trade represent refused to seriously include this language. after a year, they realized, wait a second. if we don't do this, we'll never get another usmca. so just a few weeks ago president trump and u.s. trade represent lighthizer finally agreed to put in strong labor language. you know what that means, mr. president? it means that the center of our

trade agreement, the center of our trade policy now is workers. workers are now at the center of our trade policy, not corporate interests that oversee -- or that send jobs overseas, not pharmaceutical companies that make even more money when they go to china, not other kinds of corporations that outsource their jobs, where their whole business plan is to undermine workers. you know what else that means it it's good news for peoples like gallipolis and zanesville and l. maine a and columbus and dayton and all of these communities in my state. it's good news for them because for the first time they can look to our trade policy and see that workers are the center of that trade policy. so, mr. president, never voted for a trade agreement in years and years here, always opposed nafta and cafta and pntr with china. last week in the finance committee, because they included brown-wyden, because workers are now at the center of our trade policy, i cast my vote for a trade agreement that will matter to help workers in my state.

it's a good move. it means not just that this trade agreement will be better. it means in the future that any president that wants to pass a trade agreement, they've got to do what we did this year, even with over the resistance of president trump, they've got to do what we did this year and put workers at the center of our trade policy. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. lankford: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: mr. president, is the senate currently in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. you are recognized. mr. lankford: mr. president, if i go back two and a half years ago, there was a lot of turmoil, a lot of conversation about the president of the united states stepping into the issue of trade, specifically in north america. it was a settled issue between canada and mexico and asking the question, should we revisit the nafta? at that time, a lot of people said, this trade agreement is complicated, it is hard. we shouldn't touch that trade agreement, leave it alone. it is what it is, don't touch it. the president instead chose to be able to step into north american free trade and say, no,

we're going to renegotiate this deal. it's 25 years old. it needs a revisit. and against many people pushing against him, he pushed through that and said, let's start all over again. in the past two and a half years, the trump team has renegotiated a deal, brought it back to congress, passed with overwhelming bipartisan support finally in the house -- they've had it sitting on their desk for 14 months before they took it up -- and finally after 14 months of taking it up, they passed it with overwhelming bipartisan support. it has now gone through the finance committee here in the senate with a vote of 25-3 and is headed to the floor of the senate and to the president's desk to finally get this issue resolved on free trade. i've had some folks stymie, why is it -- say to me, why is it such a big issue? well, canada and mexico are our biggest trading partners in the world. that is a trade -- that has a

trade relationship that is essential, not just to every border state but to states like my state. in oklahoma, canada and mexico were also our biggest trading partner and they're vital to our success and economic success and have been key to what has happened in nafta over the last 25 years. but now after all the negotiations and all of the noise, we final lay have some revised area in trade that needs to be addressed. things like intellectual property, which is a new chapter for what's now called usmca or what some people call nafta 2.0. this simple change is not so simple in trying to deal with how are we going to deal with intellectual property theft, whether it be a movie and camcorder recording somewhere in mexico co-, that they sell pirated copies out or ownership of patents and how things move from place to place and can you confiscate property that's

illegally released at each border crossing and how is that managed? trying to protect american patent owners from not having their patents stolen once they leave and go to canada or mexico. digital trade was not an issue. now it is a very i.g. issue for us. that's finally addressed in this agreement and how we're going to handle digital services and trade. something very important to my state, and that's agricultural trade, and how agricultural goods are going to move. now, the vast majority of this usmca agreement lines up exactly with nafta in the past. but there are some areas that were problems in nafta in the past that had to be addressed. one of those being wheat, for instance. when wheat moves from the united states into canada, canada downgraded that wheat to a lower grade, and so our oklahoma farmers would get less profit for that because they downgraded that wheat as it moved across the canadian border. this agreement settles that issue. that was the just canadian

protectionism. it wasn't that the wheat was less quality. it was that they were trying to protect canadian wheat on that. this is a free trade area. the tariffs and the fees go away across north america if we can have a level playing field. in areas where we don't have a level playing field, like oklahoma wheat competing with their wheat, we're taking that on. i feel confident that oklahoma wheat is going to win that fight and i have goin' that opportunity, with that new trade agreement, we get the opportunity to be able to win that. there are lots of areas in help us in agriculture. there are areas that help us in digital trade and intellectual property as well as areas of manufacturing. that's why so many groups have looked at this and have gone back to the trump administration with some of my democratic colleagues begrudgingly swallowing hard and saying this is a good agreement for america in the future. this does help us keep jobs here. this helps us continue to be able to have a level playing field for trade. so i congratulate the trump

administration and two and a half years of very hard work to be able to get to this agreement. i'm grateful that we're nearing an agreement with china, a phase-one agreement. that is much-needed because china has been a major problem in intellectual property theft. i am pleased that they've completed another part of the trade agreement with japan. long term it is important we continue to have stable trade agreements. i'm confident in the american worker. when given the opportunity to compete, we win because of the quality of our work, the quantity of our work, and the creativity of the inventions that we put out of this country. let's keep doing it that and keep winning in our trade agreements. with that, i yield the floor.

mr. sullivan: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: mr. president, it's the end of the week here, a thursday, at least on the senate floor, and it's that time of the week that i usually come down and talk about somebody who is making my state such a great place to live in. somebody who's doing great things for their community, somebody i refer to as a group or individuals as our alaskan of the week. so this is kind of exciting. the pages usually see this as the mostly exciting speech of the week because they learn about alaska. so this is our first alaskan of the week of the year. i'm sure the presiding officer is even excited about that. it's actually the first one of the whole decade, so stand by. now usually i give these speeches and talk a little bit about and update about what's

going on in alaska. i just spent a glorious holiday, new year's, christmas in anchorage and fairbanks over the last couple of weeks. we past the winter sol 'tis, the -- solstice, the shortest days of the year. it might not feel like that in alaska, but actually the days are getting longer, getting more sunlight. winter has come. in anchorage, my hometown, temperatures last weekend when i was home dropping into the 15 below zero range. now in the interior of alaska -- that's a little more north -- it hit 65 below zero in manley hot springs on december 27. mr. president, that rivals the winter temperature on mars, okay? it's cold. i was in fairbanks. that's part of the interior, beautiful fairbanks, where it's

been about close to 40 below the last couple of weeks. i took a run. i'm not sure i realized it was that cold. it was only 20 below on my run. it was cold. a lot of folks get out and enjoy the beautiful winter, beautiful temperatures. i mentioned in the interior, the school, the elementary school in the nanah, they recently posted they were going to cancel school if it hit 55 below zero. these are tough people especially having just witnessed washington, d.c. close the whole darned city because they got a half inch of snow, but i'm digressing here. but we live in extremes in alaska, but for many of us that's exactly why we live in alaska, toughing out these extreme temperatures together certainly makes us closer, brings communities together. it makes people rely on each other. we're a huge state geographically but a small,

tight-knit state in terms of population, and we get through things like these tough winters, really cold winters by gathering together in small and large places all across the state, places of warmth, particularly when it's cold outside. so, mr. president, today i would like to recognize an alaskan couple who has provided one of those places of warmth for the community of tulkitna and the surrounding areas. tulkitna is about 100 miles north of anchorage. it's a must-visit stop when it comes to alaska. it's absolutely beautiful. it's the gateway to denali national park and if you'd like a flight tour of denali it is almost certainly going to take off in tulkitna. i encourage everybody watching from the gallery, you've got to

come visit. go to tulkitna. it is a unique town, the model for the tv show "northern ex-poash" -- exposure" and its honorary member was a cat named stubs. it is a town with warm people who love their state, community, our country. our alaskans for today are doug and april moore, the owners of a store in talkeetna, a hardware store with a heart and a place for the community to gather, particularly in the winter. and it's a place that the moores run to reflect the value of families and communities that they hold so dear. so let me tell you a little bit about the moores. doug's parents and his brother moved from anchorage to talk talkeetna in 1981. when doug was a preteen his

parents wanted to move to a smaller community and wanted to own their own business, so they chose a tool store. and like many small business owners all across alaska, all across america, they got to work. hard work, long hours. that's what they did. the younger moores worked at the store when they were growing up, but doug chose to be a surveyor when he was in college and eventually he ran into april, his wife, at a restaurant in talkeetna, and because it's a small town they knew each other. they had grown up a quarter mile apart, but things clicked at that restaurant. as they got married, doug and april decided they wanted to run the family business, the hardware stoa and they -- hardwe store and wanted it to stay in the family. fast forward, if you live in talkeetna, if you want house, you need a family, nails,

their store has a staff of about 20 with more in the summer. the staff loved the place, they love the moores because they are great people, great owners, dedicated owners. here's how one employee describes working for them. you will never find anyone like them anywhere. another said they are amazing people, an amazing couple. what they do to us personally, they take care of us. they make sure we are taken care of. we have family issues, they understand and do everything that they can to help. doug recently said we're a family h.r. oriented business -- we're a family oriented people. the families of the people who work for us are very important. the kids of our employees have grown up in the business. both of their parents have been together for 50 years, and doug and april have been together 25. these are really important milestones, really important examples. as doug said, we really believe that's one of the big problems with america right now,

families not staying together, and we try to live our values. the moores are also heavily involved in the community. april was a girl scout leader and a p.t.a. member. doug was the president of the community council, a volunteer emergency medical technician, a volunteer firefighter. they help on thanksgiving with the food bank as well as the local gun club and firing range. they give where they can. they give back to the community. they are integrated into the community. mr. president, last summer a series of wildfires ravaged through south central alaska. the movement destructive of these fires -- the most destructive of these fires was the 3,700 acre mckinley fire that destroyed 51 homes, 3 businesses and 84 outbuildings. thank god nobody in alaska was killed. as one of the largest hardware stores servicing that region

where that fire was, moores hardware building stepped up donating time, equipment and hardware to people who needed help, people who needed to rebuild. we often talk about how small businesses are the backbone of our country's economy. here's the thing, they are also the backbone of our communities. in small towns throughout america or throughout alaska businesses are not just places for people to go and shop for things. they can also be places where people get together, where people give to one another. in fact, mr. president, they're often the glue that holds communities together. this is what moore's hardware and building supply is. i've had the honor of going there, shopping there, seeing this great store and community in action. one of the moore's sons, justin, is in training to take over the store when doug and

april finally retire. it will then be an official third-generation small business in the great state of alaska. what a great accomplishment that will be. justin is committed, just like doug and april, to their employees and their communities. so i want to thank the moores. in fact, i want to thank all small business owners across alaska and across the country for your hard work. and doug and april, thank you not just for that hard work but for all you're doing for the community of talkeetna, the surrounding areas and the great state of alaska. and congratulations on being our first alaskan of the week of 2020. i yield the floor.

mr. sullivan: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: i ask that the senate stand in recess subject to the call of the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate stands in recess subject to the call of the chair.

>> house speaker pelosi has yet to send those two articles of impeachment to the senate or

watch live on c-span and c-span 2 on demand at c-span.org or listen on the go with the free c-span radio app. >> this weekend book tv features three new nonfiction books. saturday, at 7:00 p.m. eastern. national constitution senate president and ceo jeffrey rosen and supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg took about his new book, conversations with

rbg, about her life and career. >> we were married in my mother-in-law's home, and she took me aside just before the ceremony to tell me the secret of a happy marriage, and it was it helps sometimes to be a little deaf. [laughter] >> which is advice that i have followed in every workplace, even in my current job. [laughter] >> at 9:00 eastern, breitbart.com entertainment editor argues that news coverage in the mainstream media benefits the political left, in his new book "50 things they don't want you to know". >> i think generally it goes back to the distrust that you see in survey after survey, the american people don't trust that the -- again, the mainstream

media's telling them the truth or the whole truth, and so i think that has actually led to the rise of new media. >> then on sunday, at 9:00 p.m. eastern, on afterwords, new york times magazine contributor discusses her book. >> porn has become the de facto sex educator for a generation of young people because we don't talk to them. we don't talk to them as parents or in school. you know, curiosity about sex is natural. you know, for that matter, it is natural and important. what's different for this generation is that what the rise of the internet and the smart phone and the dropping of pay walls on porn sites they can get anything they want and a whole lot of things that nobody wants at the touch -- you know, at their fingertips on their phone. >> watch book tv this weekend