Mike Lee

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. I am very late for another meeting, but, yes, I will, because I like my friend from Delaware.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, for reasons articulated by Justice Scalia in his classic opinion in Morrison v. Olson, the prosecutorial authority of the United States belongs in the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice answers to the President of the United States. Its principal officers consist of people appointed by the President, serving at the pleasure of the President, after being confirmed by the U.S. Senate. This is a fundamental component of our liberty. The separation of powers protect us. That doesn't mean we are always going to agree with what every President in every administration does. But as Justice Scalia explains, we cannot convert an office like this one--an office like the previously existing Office of Independent Counsel--without creating a de facto fourth branch of government, fundamentally undermining the principle of separation of powers that is so core to our liberty. On that basis, I object.

Mr. LEE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, earlier this month, Utah lost one of our very finest--former Congressman Jim Hansen, a great leader, an amazing husband and father, and a fantastic, loyal friend. It is my privilege to honor his life today. Jim's first and most important rule for getting involved in politics was ``get involved because you have a cause, and not simply because you want a job.'' In fact, his own motivation to first run for local office was with the objective of improving the local water system in his small town of Farmington, UT, where the water supply was sometimes dirty and sometimes even nonexistent. Though he had lived in Farmington, UT, for only a few years at the time, he was elected to the Farmington City Council in 1961, and he oversaw the installation of a new utility system--no small feat for that small town. That water system allowed the community to grow and to flourish, just as it continues to do to this very day. Thus began Jim Hansen's 42 years in public service. After serving on the city council in Farmington for 12 years, Jim was elected to the Utah House of Representatives in 1973. He worked hard and eventually rose to the position of speaker of the house during his final term. It was then that Jim launched his congressional bid for Utah's 1st Congressional District, defeating five-term incumbent Gunn McKay in 1980. He got right to work in representing the citizens of Utah--this time at the Federal level. Among his proudest accomplishments were serving on the Base Realignment and Closure Commission and on the House's Natural Resources Committee. Jim took great pride in helping save Hill Air Force Base, in Northern Utah, from closure. Whenever he would hear a jet roaring overhead at a decibel level loud enough to break the windows, he would tell his children, predictably: That is just the sound of freedom. You are lucky to hear and live under that sound every day. A great lover of the outdoors, so too was he proud of saving the environment from environmentalists, as he would say. Jim often sparred with environmentalists about wilderness issues and championed multiple- use policies for public lands, although he was also a sponsor of the 1984 Utah Wilderness Act, which designated wilderness in U.S. forest areas. Ever a staunch Republican and always a man of humor, Jim Hansen delighted in reciting his own version of Proverbs 22:6. He would say: ``Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will vote Republican.'' Yet Jim was always known for being able to work across the aisle and was well respected by his Democratic colleagues. He served as the chairman of the House Ethics Committee during a partisan crisis among House Members over the investigation into former Speaker Newt Gingrich. Both parties, at the time, trusted him to handle any investigations fairly and impartially. For 22 years, he tirelessly served the First District of Utah in the U.S. House of Representatives, becoming Utah's longest serving Congressman. After he announced his retirement in 2002--still at the top of his game--he said in an interview that he wanted to leave behind a legacy of hard work. Indeed, Jim Hansen did. Not only was Jim hard-working, but he was also immensely generous. He did not keep his success for himself but for years offered mentorship to anyone who sought to navigate the political waters. I myself was lucky enough to call Jim a mentor and a friend. When I first considered running for the Senate in 2010, he met with me at length and gave me a whole lot of very helpful advice and encouragement. Even though I was a newcomer with very little chance of success, he couldn't have been more generous with his time, with his wisdom, or with his words of support. When I announced my candidacy, he stood by me and offered his full endorsement. So many others were also blessed by Jim's friendship and his loyalty. A lesser known story that illustrates the quality of Jim's character involves his longtime friend Norm Bangerter, with whom he served in the State legislature. In 1978, both men had their sights set on the house speaker's post. They didn't want to run against each other, so they made a deal that Norm would step aside so long as Jim agreed to step aside in the future if they were ever interested in running for the same position again. Jim hoped to become Governor of Utah. In the 1980s, after Jim had been serving in the House of Representatives for a few years, there was an opening for a Republican to take back the governorship, and everyone expected Jim to make a play for it, except that Norm wanted to run. So what did Jim do? Well, he stepped aside and allowed his friend to run for and to eventually win that position--a position that Norm Bangerter then held for 8 years. That was the caliber of Jim Hansen's character. He was a man of humility and integrity, who honored his word and always put others before himself. I would be remiss if I didn't also mention Jim's piety in the truest, purest sense of that word. In addition to having a deep loyalty to his country and to his State, he had a deep loyalty to his family and his church. Jim married Ann Burgoyne in 1958, which he considered wisely to be the smartest choice he ever made. Their family grew to include 5 children and eventually 14 grandchildren and 1 great-grandchild. Grandpa Jim was the center of their family, and his love for them animated so much of his life. His grandchildren fondly remember his jokes, stories, and genuine, unmistakable zest for life. His granddaughter Anna recounted that on Jim's 80th birthday, when he insisted on going water-skiing, he had waded into the lake while wearing his slacks and socks, with his grandchildren sloshing behind him, to fish out the ChapStick tubes and Tic Tac packs that were floating out of his pockets. That, of course, was Jim Hansen--full of life and spirit until the very end. Before his involvement in politics and after he served in the Navy during the Korean war, Jim went on a mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for 2 years. He also served as the bishop of the Farmington 2nd Ward and as the president of the Davis Stake. One of his jobs as bishop was to supervise the Farmington South Stake Center, which is where loved ones and dignitaries gathered to honor his life just this past week. It is only fitting that we pay tribute to this honorable man, who so faithfully and nobly served God, family, and country throughout his entire life. Jim Hansen will be sorely missed by his family, friends, Utahns, and all those whose lives were touched and changed for the better by him. I have no doubt that his legacy will live on for many years to come. War Powers Resolution to End Unauthorized U.S. Military Involvement in Yemen Mr. President, the U.S. Constitution makes unmistakably clear the fact that in order to declare war, one must go through Congress. There are good reasons for this requirement. Whenever we go to war, we are making the greatest of moral decisions--decisions that will imperil the lives of those involved in that war, including and especially the brave young men and women who represent us in uniform and who fight to protect our freedom. The costs of war--and I speak not only of the economic costs but especially of the deep human costs associated with war--are such that these decisions should never be made lightly. It is for this reason that the Founding Fathers wisely put this power into the hands of those occupying the branch of government most accountable to the people at the most regular intervals. You cannot declare war without going through Congress. Sadly, over time, some of this power has been neglected--neglected by the very Congress to which the power properly constitutionally belongs. Under the Constitution to which every Member of this body has sworn an oath to uphold, to protect, and defend, it is wrong to go into war without Congress's directing it, ordering it, declaring it. Yet, sadly, tragically, unconstitutionally, I believe, the United States has been involved as a co-belligerent in a civil war half a world away in Yemen, involved in connection with a Kingdom of Saudi Arabia-led coalition against the Houthi rebels. What, one might ask, is the interest of the United States in this war? What is it about this particular civil war in Yemen that is important to keep the American people safe? That is a question that has never been fully answered. In fact, it is a question that has never been answered by the only branch of government that is capable constitutionally of making that assessment, of answering that question. We have never answered it. It is not just a mere formality that we go through when we require Congress to declare war. It is about the debate that that starts, the conversation that occurs among the American people, the accountability that each Member of the Senate and each Member of the House of Representatives has to his or her constituents. It is about the fact that we have to be able and willing to look the American people in the eye--even our own constituents, our own friends and neighbors, even and especially those who are the parents and loved ones of the men and women who will be at the battlefront and will be asked, potentially, to pay the ultimate price for defending freedom. We have to be willing to do that. Yet we haven't because, for the last 4 years, we have been fighting someone else's war without a declaration of war by Congress, without an authorization for the use of military force by Congress. What, then, is the remedy? There are a number of things that we could do and that we should do. Among them are the procedures outlined by and provided in the War Powers Act. The War Powers Act gives us the ability to halt our military involvement where Congress deems it inappropriate. A few months ago, Senator Sanders and I ran a resolution to do precisely that--availing ourselves of the benefits of the War Powers Act. Sadly, that measure was narrowly defeated; it was tabled; it was halted from moving forward. It has been filed again. We are going to have an opportunity again very soon, perhaps as early as tomorrow, to vote on that yet again. In the meantime, what has changed? We have continued to fight this war still in an unconstitutional posture, still without the American people having been adequately consulted, still without the American people's elected Senators and Representatives having made a decision to go to war, still without the opportunity for us to look in the eye our neighbors, our constituents, and the parents and family members and loved ones of our brave men and women in uniform who are asked to fight these battles and to tell them why it is that we are asking for this potential sacrifice of American blood and treasure. We have not done those things. Since that time, we have seen some very unsettling realities unfold within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, with credible intelligence regarding the Crown Prince's involvement in and ordering of the death of Mr. Khashoggi. We now have not only the eyes of the American people on Saudi Arabia--more importantly, we have the eyes of people all around the world on the United States of America. It is not just about the death of Mr. Khashoggi, but Mr. Khashoggi's death and the way it came about and the way it is alleged and supposed to have been ordered by the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia says something about us if we proceed undeterred in our fighting of an unconstitutional war on behalf of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is not just what the American people think about Saudi Arabia or about us in Washington; it is also about what the rest of the world will think about the United States of America if we turn a blind eye to this and if we continue to fight an undeclared, unauthorized, unconstitutional war that has no apparent connection to the safety of the American people, to the security of the American homeland. This is why I respectfully--and with all of the urgency I am capable of communicating--implore my colleagues to support this resolution, to support the resolution to get us out of fighting Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen. It is not our war, not our security, not on our watch. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to honor the extraordinary life and service of Utah Army National Guard MAJ Brent Taylor. Major Taylor gave the ultimate sacrifice on November 3, 2018, while deployed to Afghanistan. He is survived by his wife Jennie and his seven children Megan, Lincoln, Alex, Jacob, Ellie, Jonathan, and Caroline, to whom he was a devoted husband and father. Major Taylor's record of service demonstrates his willingness to go above and beyond the call of duty to both his country and the State of Utah. He joined the Utah Army National Guard in 2003 and received a commission as a second lieutenant from the Brigham Young University Reserve Officer Training Corps in 2006. He distinguished himself in multiple specialties with the Utah National Guard, including intelligence and military police. Major Taylor was continuously ready to take up the call to arms and deployed four times on missions to Iraq and Afghanistan. He held a variety of roles, including platoon leader, combat adviser, and chief of staff to the Special Operations Advisory Group. Throughout his tours of service, Major Taylor received several awards for his courage, sacrifice, and leadership; he received a Bronze Star in honor of his ability to calmly and safely lead his men through miles of treacherous territory and a Purple Heart for wounds received during an IED attack on his vehicle. His love of his State and his country was also evident beyond the uniform. Major Taylor gave his time and energy to his community, serving tirelessly as a member of the North Ogden City Council from 2010-2013 and as mayor of North Ogden after being elected in 2013. He was a known to be a hands-on leader, attentive to and beloved by his community. Last Christmas morning, when snow had fallen all night, Brent was with his city employees plowing roads, so that other families could safely celebrate together and these friends could get home to theirs. He stood as an example to me by continually representing how to best serve your fellow man. For him, service was the best way to show discipleship to God. After being reelected in 2017, he took a leave of absence from the mayor's office in 2018 and headed back to the battlefield, deploying to Afghanistan. When he announced his leave of absence to the people of North Ogden City before departing for Afghanistan, Major Taylor told them that he felt called to serve his country there and that ``service is what leadership is all about.'' At that time, I presented a flag to Major Taylor and expressed my gratitude for ``Utahns who carry our flag into harm's way for the cause of freedom.'' I pray it was a reminder to him of the love and support our State has for him. I am confident that he stood as an example of the best our flag represents every day of his deployment. Following Major Taylor's tragic passing, Major Abdul Rahmani, an Afghani pilot with whom he worked, sent a letter to Major Taylor's wife describing the great impact of his life; in his words, he was a ``loving, caring, and compassionate man whose life was not just meaningful, it was inspirational . . . he died on our soil but he died for the success of freedom and democracy in both of our countries.'' Not only that, but Major Taylor exemplified to him the importance of family: ``Your husband taught me to love my wife Hamida as an equal and to treat my children as treasured gifts, to be a better father, to be a better husband, and to be a better man.'' While meeting with Jennie and their children this last week, I was deeply moved to hear story after story about this great Utahn. These stories held consistent themes of family, faith, patriotism, and service. His legacy will continue to bless countless people and will continue to encourage and inspire me. To honor his life and memory, a group of friends, law enforcement officials, and volunteers gathered to carry an American flag to display in Coldwater Canyon on Veterans Day. Members of the North Ogden community and Utahns across the State have all come together to commemorate his life, as is only fitting. Major Taylor's life will be remembered as an embodiment of courage, sacrifice, and service and love of God, family, and country. It is my privilege to honor him today and to call him friend. Thank you.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I come before this body this evening after having heard several remarks from a number of my distinguished colleagues, whom I like, whom I respect, whom I admire, and with whom I greatly and substantially disagree on many matters discussed tonight. Just in the last little while I have heard arguments presented first by the Senator from Maine, a good friend of mine, who made some arguments that he put into roughly four categories. He opposes Judge Kavanaugh on the basis of judicial philosophy, on the basis of his refusal to agree anticipatorily to certain types of recusals, to the absence of documentation he claims was available to the committee, and to Judge Kavanaugh on issues of demeanor. I would like to address each of these allegations in turn. First, with regard to judicial philosophy, my friend from Maine--who truly is a friend--explained that, in his view, Judge Kavanaugh was unacceptable because, among other things, he counts among those he admires, among his judicial role models, the late William Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States. The reason that is apparently a bad thing, according to my colleague from Maine, is that this somehow indicates that he would view himself sort of as an umpire, calling the balls and the strikes, reading the law on the basis of what it says rather than on the basis of what he or anyone else might wish were the law. Jurists, you see, are not philosopher kings, not even when they get onto the Supreme Court of the United States. They are not there to impose will but judgment. You see, as Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 78, there is a difference between the type of government activity that goes on in the judiciary and the type of government activity that goes on in the legislative branch. In the judiciary, they exercise judgment; that is, they read the law. They figure out what the law says. When two or more parties come before the court's proper jurisdiction, they interpret the law on the basis of what the law says. That, Hamilton explains, is judgment. Will, on the other hand, is deciding what the law should say, what policies are best for the U.S. Government. That is the prerogative of this branch. That is the prerogative of the political arms of the Federal Government. That is not the prerogative of our friends across the street who wear black robes. So I was surprised to hear that my colleague from Maine, the junior Senator from Maine, Mr. King, was saying that he objects to the judicial philosophy of Judge Kavanaugh on the basis that he says he would call the balls and strikes as he sees them. It seems to me that this is the essence of what Federalist 78 was talking about, about the difference between will and judgment. Hamilton explained that if ever the judiciary started exercising will instead of judgment, it would upend the entire constitutional order. That, we cannot have. That is not how it should be. Next my colleague from Maine went on to explain that Judge Kavanaugh's association with the Federalist Society was somehow a problem, that the Federalist Society is somehow some sort of demonic conspiracy to overthrow the U.S. Government--or something to that effect. I embellished slightly his characterization of it, but you would think from what some of my colleagues say about the Federalist Society that there is something terribly wrong with it. Let me tell you about the Federalist Society. I have been aware of the Federalist Society for most of my life. I attended my first Federalist Society event while I was still in high school. I mean, what teenager doesn't want to attend a Federalist Society event at a nearby law school? That was something we considered to be a lot of fun in Provo, UT. At every Federalist Society event that I have ever attended, starting when I was in high school, all the way through college, through law school, throughout my career as an attorney, and since then in my career in politics, one thing has been consistent: The Federalist Society, when it puts on an event, allows for all sides to be represented. You will see views that are widely divergent. You have people, such as Nadine Strossen, former president of the American Civil Liberties Union, who have long been affiliated with the Federalist Society and participated in their symposium. This, you see, makes the Federalist Society rather unlike most American law school experiences, wherein one side is presented--not both. The Federalist Society prides itself in focusing on open, robust, honest debate. So if some people want to criticize the Federalist Society or those who, heaven forbid, have ever attended a Federalist Society event, what they are doing is criticizing academic freedom, criticizing a robust discussion of law and public policy. We should all be grateful for the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. This is an enterprise that really represents the core of what the American people should value--certainly what those who study and admire and respect the law should value. This is not something people should be criticized for participating in. Last I checked, academic freedom and robust discussion of what the law says and which branch of government ought to exercise will and which ought to exercise judgment--that is something to be rewarded. That is part of America's bedrock. Its core institutions of civil society are people who are willing to come together, not under the auspices of government, not under the control of some bureau or bureaucracy, but rather on their own to discuss and debate things that will inure ultimately to the benefit of the people. Next, my colleague from Maine, Senator King, referred to Judge Kavanaugh's refusal to agree anticipatorily to a recusal in certain cases. As Judge Kavanaugh very capably explained in his hearing, this is not the kind of judgment a person makes before taking the Bench, before assuming a particular judicial office to which he or she has been nominated. It wouldn't be appropriate for him to anticipatorily agree to recuse himself in a type of case that he has even yet to see. I am not sure why some of my colleagues wanted to put him on the record as taking himself off of a certain broad category of cases, but that, nonetheless, seems to be what they were after. That, in most circumstances, is improper, just as it would be improper to get Judge Kavanaugh to agree in advance of his confirmation as to how he would vote in a particular type of case. This, too, many of my colleagues find troubling, by the way; yet this, too, is part of the canons of judicial ethics. We don't want people campaigning as if on political issues to get onto the Supreme Court of the United States. We will get back to that a little bit more later. Next, Senator King referred to the supposed lack of documentation from the Bush administration where Judge Kavanaugh worked--the lack of documentation, meaning the lack of documents coming out of the White House. It is important to know that Judge Kavanaugh doesn't own the documents in question. No, those are owned by the Bush administration. They own the privilege, and under the Presidential Records Act, which Congress itself has enacted, there are terms set. There are agents identified, agents who get to assert certain privileges and decide when, whether, and to what extent certain documents will be released and available for our review. I am not sure what it is that they are so terrified might be out there, but whatever it is, it is in a document that doesn't belong to us, a document to which we have no access, to which we have no rightful claim, but a document that in all events is not Judge Kavanaugh's call. It is not his call to decide what happens to those documents--when, whether, under what circumstances we receive them. It is not his fault. It is not under his control. He has no say on that. Do not hold that on his head. That is not his burden. Then my colleague from Maine went on to address Judge Kavanaugh's demeanor. Senator King is not a member of the Judiciary Committee. I am. Senator King acknowledged to have viewed some of the hearings from a television while in other parts of the Capitol Complex, sometimes with the volume on, sometimes with it off. He said something to the effect that if he were watching from another planet, he would conclude that this man is not fit for office. Maybe he wasn't watching the same hearing I was, but I know one thing: Senator King wasn't in that room; I was. Let me tell you what I saw. I saw a man who has devoted most of his adult professional career to public service; a man who volunteers his time to feed the hungry, the homeless; who coaches his girls' basketball team, which he has done for a very long time; who teaches; and who supervises those whom he employs. His law clerks over the last 12 years--by the way, men and women of every background in the United States--rave about him, call him the kind of boss that every American would want to have, that every young lawyer would dream of working for, for the simple opportunity of learning under his tutelage, for the opportunity of serving in a judicial apprenticeship of sorts under a true master of the law. I don't know what Senator King was referring to, but he wasn't in that same hearing I was. He certainly didn't see the same thing I saw, which is someone who was seeking sincerely to defend his own record of public service and his own private conduct against great adversity, moreover, in circumstances in which he and his family have been dragged through the mud by no choice of their own. As to the suggestion that he was somehow leveling a threat when he uttered the words ``what goes around comes around,'' I was in that room. I understood that to mean one thing and one thing only, which is to say that when we mess with the process, that process might well remain messed up. That is all he meant. He was not making any threat. That was apparent to anyone watching that meeting with anything approaching an open mind. Anyone watching that with an open mind would have understood what that meant in context. He was simply stating the obvious: When we allow politics to come into play excessively in the process of naming and confirming people to the Supreme Court of the United States, it messes it up. It messes it up now and messes it up for the future. We should all be concerned about that. I also heard comments from my colleague, the distinguished junior Senator from Illinois. She said, among other things, that the investigation conducted into allegations involving Judge Kavanaugh were ``a sham.'' A sham. Think about what that means. It means that she is suggesting that those investigating didn't want to get to the truth. I don't know what documents she has reviewed, but I can tell you the documents that I have reviewed. Those compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and those compiled by the very faithful investigative staff on the Senate Judiciary Committee were thorough. We are talking about hundreds of pages of transcripts, to say nothing of the more than 30 hours of testimony provided by Judge Kavanaugh himself before the Senate Judiciary Committee. We have been thorough in what we have gone through, and to call this a sham is simply disingenuous. It is inaccurate. It is inconsistent with anything I have seen. I heard my colleague from Illinois also refer to what she characterized as untrue statements made by Judge Kavanaugh in connection with Judge Kavanaugh's alleged participation in the development of the so-called torture policies in the Bush administration. As has been stated over and over again by Judge Kavanaugh and those who worked with him, he wasn't even cleared, didn't even have access to that program, was not involved in that program's creation. The documents to which they refer in claiming otherwise show only that he was asked about certain arguments that may be presented in court, which is completely different from the question they are talking about-- whether he had anything to do with the development, the design, the creation of that program, which he did not. So to say that he lied about that is completely dishonest, it is not borne out by the facts, and I find it shameful that this accusation would be made. It is completely contrary to the evidence. Next, my colleague from Illinois referred to concerns about what she referred to as healthcare outcomes--outcomes in particular cases involving healthcare. She went on to extol the virtues of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare, and spoke at length as if to suggest that Judge Kavanaugh were being considered not for a judicial position but a position involving lawmaking, policy- setting. He has, after all, been nominated to a position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, not policymaker. His exercise of judgment, of interpreting the law based on what it says rather than on the basis of what he wishes it said, is his role. It is unfair to compare him to another standard. Moreover, if we are going to compare him to that standard, she has to acknowledge that when we are talking about the Affordable Care Act, he actually wrote an opinion upholding it. That is beside the point here, but if she is questioning his judgment and his ability to handle the law and apply the law on the basis of how he views the law and to do so objectively, she ought not to be concerned. If she is concerned about the outcome of cases relating to the Affordable Care Act--which I don't think she should be--as separate and apart from the judgment part of his role, then she ought to be consoled by the ruling that he made upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In any event, it is simply not fair to compare him to this standard and to say that because they fear--because my colleagues fear that he might reach a different policy outcome than she might prefer, she is attributing to him political views that he doesn't have, that he isn't allowed to have as a jurist, and that he has not expressed. If you can point to any one of his 300 written published opinions in the Federal reports, bring them to me--any one of those that suggest that he is incapable of being impartial in healthcare or in any other arena, please bring them to me. I would love to see them. Yet they can't, they won't, and they haven't, because such opinions do not exist. That is why they resorted to other things. That is why they are talking about policy. That is why they are trying to smear this man's character and destroy his good name, because they have looked through those opinions, and they can't find a dud among them. My colleague, the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, also spoke. She regretted the fact that, in her view, there hadn't been a full investigation into the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh and suggested that additional evidence would have been helpful and that additional evidence exists corroborating the allegations made against him. Well, having reviewed hundreds and hundreds of pages of transcripts of interviews resulting from the FBI investigation and from our competent Judiciary Committee staff, I don't know what she is talking about because the only potential corroborators in this case--that is, the alleged eye witnesses to the accusations in question--those allegedly present in the circumstances in question, say that they can't remember any instance in which anything like this happened--not just the underlying bad acts themselves as alleged but the events in which they allegedly occurred. That is what we call corroboration. You cannot have a statement you describe as corroborating unless there is someone who at the time saw or heard or was otherwise made aware of something at or around the time it occurred. That is what corroborating evidence is, and that is what is noticeably absent in this case. She also claimed that the FBI was not allowed to conduct a serious investigation. I do not know what she means. What I do know is that what the FBI was asked to do involved conducting a supplemental investigation into current credible allegations of sexual misconduct, and that is what they did. We, the Senate Judiciary Committee, didn't put guardrails around that, didn't tell them they couldn't follow up on leads they deemed significant, didn't tell them they couldn't look past a certain witness, didn't tell them they couldn't follow up on something that might shed light on this candidate's credibility or his eligibility to serve in judicial office. That leads to another point. This man has now endured 7 FBI background investigations, with over 150 people interviewed during that time--150 people interviewed extensively about what they know about him and about what they know about his character. Those interviews and the report that was produced back up this man's character. And separate and apart from the fact that there is no corroborating evidence for these allegations, these independently backed him up. My colleague from New Hampshire, like my colleague from Illinois, also brought up the Affordable Care Act, as if assuming from the outset that, on the basis of policy, Judge Kavanaugh would rule a certain way in this or that aspect of anything having to do with healthcare. Here again, we have characterizations that would be much more fitting in a political debate for a political office, but, alas, that is not what we have here. My colleague from New Hampshire referred to the Mueller investigation. I don't know how that is tied to the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, but somehow she tried to make that an issue. I don't know what she is talking about. I don't know how that could possibly be relevant here. She made the argument--the very serious accusation--that Judge Kavanaugh somehow believes that the President of the United States is above the law. I challenge my colleague from New Hampshire to tell me what evidence she has that he believes that. This is a serious accusation and one that should not be made lightly. I have never ever heard of Judge Kavanaugh having said or written anything suggesting that the President of the United States is above the law. Yes, Judge Kavanaugh acknowledged, as he has repeatedly on a number of occasions in a number of settings, that there is a dispute among scholars as to the timing and manner of liability that might be faced by a current sitting President of the United States, but he has never said the President of the United States is above the law--never-- never hinted at it, never concluded that, and it is therefore unfair to attribute that view to him. Finally, my colleague from New Hampshire characterized Judge Kavanaugh as being someone who is without character and sort of the antithesis of being an impartial arbiter. I think the very best way we can view that with regard to his character is through his life of public service, through the way he has interacted with those he knows, those who have truly known him not just over the last 36 years but for his entire lifetime. The best we can evaluate his ability to be an impartial arbiter is to review the 300 published opinions he has written while serving as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. I challenge any one of my colleagues to bring me any one of those opinions or any combination of those opinions that show that he is incapable of being impartial or that he is in any way challenged as to impartiality. They can't do it. They won't do it. They haven't done it because such opinions don't exist. Judge Kavanaugh is a good man. He is eminently qualified to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. I endorse President Trump's nomination of him. I was pleased to vote in favor of cloture, and I look forward to voting for his confirmation in the coming hours. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is an understatement to say that the last few weeks have been unusual in Senate history. I have never seen anything like it in the 8 years that I have been serving in this body. Every day when we show up to work, as we walk to our offices, we have to walk through a sea, a mob, of angry protestors, people screaming, shouting, yelling things at us--not pleasant things. In many instances, Members have to be accompanied as they walk to and from their offices, to and from the Senate floor where they cast their votes, to and from their committee hearings, in and out of rooms where they have to conduct their business. This is unusual. It is unpleasant. It is relatively unprecedented, certainly, in the time that I have been here. It is unfortunate and unnecessary. You see, this is not how the process is supposed to work. This is not what the Constitution contemplates or requires in connection with the confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee. It doesn't need to work this way, but in this case, it did. It did because a lot of people, starting with a small handful of people, made a deliberate choice to depart from the norm, to depart from rules, practices, and operating procedures that are designed to protect the innocent and the guilty, designed to protect accusers and the accused, designed to protect the privacy of people who come forward with allegations as well as those who have been nominated to serve in high positions. The allegations brought forward by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford were serious. I still remember and will never forget the precise moment when I was briefed on the nature of these allegations on September 13, 2018. I was briefed by a small handful of Judiciary Committee staffers who had clearance to read to me an FBI document they had just received. I wasn't allowed to share the details of that communication with anyone-- not even members of my own staff--because at the time they were confidential, couldn't be discussed with the public, and couldn't be discussed with anyone who hadn't received specific clearance from the FBI to do so. At the time these allegations were brought forward, I was able to tell my staff only the following: The allegations raised by this individual--I didn't know her name at the time--are serious. They are serious to the point that I will not support this nominee. I cannot and will not vote to confirm this nominee if these allegations are true, but the allegations are of such a nature that they could be looked into. We can discern whether or not they could be corroborated. We can interview witnesses in an effort to get to the truth. Over the last roughly 3 weeks, that is what has happened. We have undertaken everything we know how to do to get to the truth. We have had FBI agents interviewing witnesses. We have had witnesses interviewed by committee staff. We ourselves have interviewed Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. It was at the hearing where we heard from Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh when we learned for the first time that Dr. Ford's attorneys--I will just state here parenthetically--were oddly recommended by the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. But Dr. Ford's attorneys--those same attorneys recommended by the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee--failed to ever inform Dr. Ford that, from the outset, she wouldn't have to go through the process this way. From the outset, she could have and would have been given the opportunity to tell her story in private to FBI agents who would have met her at her home in Palo Alto, CA, interviewing her in the privacy and comfort and protection of her own home with confidentiality. That separate group of FBI agents could have and would have then visited Judge Kavanaugh and any of the other alleged eyewitnesses to this event, and at that point those reports would have been collected and eventually handed over to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee then could have and would have had the opportunity to convene a closed hearing and to investigate these allegations without having to subject anyone to the indignity of discussing very detailed private circumstances of their lives in front of the American people. It remains clear to me that Dr. Ford never wanted a circus. She never asked for any of this. She was reluctant to come forward. Ultimately, she agreed to allow her name to be released at the moment she recognized that there were enough people who were going to figure out who she was, but she didn't want to have to tell her story in public. She could have and would have and should have been given the opportunity to tell her story in private, but that is not how it happened because her lawyers didn't tell her. Even after her name came forward, even after she felt compelled to disclose her name, her lawyers apparently didn't tell her that Judiciary Committee staff would be willing to fly out to California and meet with her in private in her home or anywhere else she wanted to meet. That apparently was not communicated to her. One must ask the question why. Why didn't they tell her that? I don't know. At this point I can't know that. The conversations that occur between attorneys and their clients are typically and permanently confidential, but just as an objective witness to a lot of this and, again, not privy to their private conversations, I have to wonder whether at best her lawyers may have been neglectful in telling her that she had those options. At worst, they may have deliberately sacrificed her privacy, her comfort, and her interests in pursuit of their own vain ambitions or perhaps a political agenda. Either outcome is unfortunate. Either way we got there led to the same outcome, and we are where we are. For the last 3 weeks we have done everything we can to get to the bottom of these allegations. We have had witnesses interviewed. We ourselves have interviewed Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. At the end of this, what we see is someone who has been badly hurt. It is apparent to me that Dr. Ford was harmed and has endured deep pain. Someone hurt her, and they hurt her badly, but there is nothing to corroborate her allegation that it was Judge Kavanaugh who hurt her. Not one of the alleged eyewitnesses to this event can confirm that such a gathering ever occurred, either in the summer of 1982 or at any other time--not one. A number of the witnesses have said that not only do they not remember such an event ever occurring but that this type of event with this set of circumstances and with this combination and number of people would not have happened. This is not how they gathered. So we are left with an uncorroborated accusation against an individual who has led an exemplary life, a life of public service that includes now 7 FBI background investigations and some 150-plus interviews conducted by the FBI. Again, a lot of that was conducted prior to his appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, where he served for 12 years and published some 300 opinions, in which he has had no objective other than to find the right answer under the law. This is someone who is a model, exemplary citizen from everything we can tell. He serves his community. He feeds the hungry. He clothes the naked. He serves his fellow beings with a love and an admiration for them that is genuine, distinct, and consistent. Against this backdrop, we cannot, we will not, we must not take a single uncorroborated allegation and sink this man's hard-earned good name. The demands of justice are such that we have to hear accusers and those who have been harmed, but without corroboration we cannot assume someone to be guilty in the absence of an adequate evidentiary foundation. So I would add here that maybe we do know something more than that because other allegations have come forward. Well, yes, there are other allegations, but let's talk about the other allegations for a minute. The Ramirez allegation came forward about a week after the Washington Post announced Dr. Ford's name. A story by The New Yorker was itself debunked less than 24 hours after the story was run--debunked by the New York Times, which acknowledged having interviewed literally dozens upon dozens of witnesses in an effort to find corroboration for the Ramirez allegations. Not one person could or would corroborate the story--not one. Moreover, as the New York Times concluded, there were a number of instances in which Ms. Ramirez herself, in calling former classmates from Yale, acknowledged that she didn't know whether or not it was Brett Kavanaugh who engaged in the conduct she alleged. The other allegation brought forward by the client of Mr. Avenatti was itself on its face of a different sort than the others. This allegation was brazen in what it assumed about Judge Kavanaugh and what it asked the public to believe. It accused this man, this lifelong public servant, of engaging deliberately in a sustained criminal enterprise that had as its object the deliberate drugging and gang rape of young women. Here, again, is a story that could not find a single shred of corroboration and was severely undercut by a number of other factors, including the fact that the accuser herself was not even in high school at the same time as Judge Kavanaugh, and no one alleged to have been present had any recollection either of the parties described or of any of the circumstances surrounding these alleged events. But the timing of these other allegations coming forward was nonetheless used to smear the good name of Judge Kavanaugh and to imply some sort of guilt on the part of Judge Kavanaugh and some sort of corroboration of the Ford allegation. Again, the Ford allegation was itself serious and had a lot of indicia of credibility on its face. That is why I was so concerned the moment I heard about it. That is why we have now spent 3 weeks doing everything we can to get to the bottom of it and finding no corroboration. But here we are with these protests going on, with a sea of angry people shouting at us everywhere we go; chasing Senator Cruz and his wife out of a restaurant as they were peacefully enjoying dinner; verbally and physically assaulting Senator Perdue and his wife as they were making their way from a flight into Reagan National Airport to their vehicle, for a sustained period of 30 minutes, including a moment when Mrs. Perdue was nearly pushed down a flight of stairs. These incidents come in the wake of other unfortunate events, including a moment when Rand Paul was attacked at his home and broke six ribs, causing him excruciating pain and injuries that have the potential of affecting him for the rest of his life. This same Rand Paul was himself also the potential victim of a shooting when a crazed leftist decided to show up at a Republican baseball practice and opened fire on Republican Members of Congress simply because they were Republican Members of Congress, almost killing Congressman Steve Scalise in the process. This moment of emotional intensity came as a result of a process that some are now struggling to say is broken. I insist that it is not. The process isn't broken. There is nothing wrong with the Constitution. It certainly is not broken. To the extent something wrong happened here, it is not because the thing itself doesn't work or because it is flawed by its very nature. It is because in this instance, the left broke it. The left sabotaged it. The left deliberately impeded its ability to do what it was supposed to do. It is not as though this isn't without precedent. They have done this in the past. They have done it for decades. They did it with Judge Bork, when they converted his last name into a verb when they accused him of being a racist and a sexist. They pretended to be outraged when they found out that Judge Ginsburg had smoked marijuana. Then, a few years later, they engaged in a high-tech public lynching of Clarence Thomas. They later did it again to Sam Alito, calling him a racist. Then they did it to Neil Gorsuch, calling him a sexist. These efforts aren't limited, of course, to Supreme Court nominees. They also deliberately went after Miguel Estrada, specifically and admittedly because he was Latino. They tried to take down Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to a Federal appellate court because they considered her ``too Catholic.'' This is unacceptable. We have been asked to settle for this. It is not time to settle. It is time to expect more. It is time to demand more. It is time to demand a process that is respectful of human beings--of the accusers and the accused in the world. It is time to do this in a manner that respects this institution and allows us to respect each other. You have to remember that when we reduce our arguments from matters of policy, in which we acknowledge good faith disagreements, to simple and emotional questions of good versus evil, people are going to tend to believe that characterization. Ultimately, they are going to tend to act on that characterization. The results will not always be pretty. At some point, this descends to a moment when the victim will no longer be someone's character or reputation or pride or the quiet enjoyment of someone's dinner or the ability of someone not to be injured while mowing his lawn. At some point, this is going to be one of us or it is going to be someone's husband or wife, someone's children. Earlier this week, we received news that someone had deliberately released personal, private information regarding Members of the Senate--Republican Members of the Senate, not coincidentally--with the promise and the threat that even more information would be released, including information about medical records and histories of our children, for the specific purpose of influencing and intimidating Members into taking a particular position on this nomination. This is unacceptable. It is also unacceptable that in the response to the attack on Rand Paul, which I mentioned a moment ago, an MSNBC anchor actually referred to that horrific event for Senator Paul and his family as one of her favorite stories. That is not OK. All of this hurts real people, not just Members of the Senate, not just Dr. Ford and her family or Judge Kavanaugh and his family, although it certainly hurt them. It also hurts the Senate. It hurts the Supreme Court. It hurts our very constitutional Republic as it was set up, as it was designed. So again, we get back to this question: Why does this happen? I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that it happens because you cannot take this many eggs from the American people and put them in one basket without creating a lot of really high, intense emotions. You cannot require the American people to work many weeks or many months out of any year just to pay their Federal taxes and not have them be very emotional about what happens in Washington. You cannot concentrate this much power in Washington, DC, and take power away from the American people, where the power is supposed to be mostly exercised at the State and local levels, and move it away from them in two steps: first, from the people to Washington and then, within Washington, from the people's elected representatives, who are supposed to make law, to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats, who make law without any accountability to the people. You cannot do that without unavoidably, inevitably, and unsustainably raising the political temperature in this country. It cannot be done. It is the nature of the thing itself. Sometimes we have to stop giving in to the impulse to expand the size and scope and reach of the Federal Government because it tends to make the people less powerful. The whole system was set up so as to lower the political temperature in the country. We are a diverse country. In one way or another, there has always been great diversity within the country, among and between the States and their different populations. This was understood by the Founders; it is understood today. This is one of the reasons why, by divine design, this whole thing was set up in such a way as to lower the political temperature in Washington by keeping most decisions close to the people at the State and local levels, recognizing that there is a whole lot more unity at the State and local levels than there is at the national level. That is why most powers are supposed to remain close to the people through the States and localities. Sometimes our instincts are wrong. Sometimes our instincts lead us into danger. Sometimes we fear the wrong things. People in this country, understandably, are terrified, scared to death of rattlesnakes. I myself am scared to death of rattlesnakes. We have them in my State of Utah. We don't like them. Most people are shocked, however, to discover there are many times more people killed every year as a result of deer than rattlesnakes. Deer, it turns out, cause all kind of accidents, which, in turn, result in a lot of deaths--many more deaths, many times more deaths every year than rattlesnakes. But we fear the rattlesnake more because it looks scary. Sometimes our instinct leads us in the wrong direction. Sometimes our instinct is to do something through government that might make matters worse rather than better. It reminds me of a time when I worked across the street at the Supreme Court of the United States. I was a law clerk to Justice Alito. My co-clerks and I worked in a relatively small office. We discovered something during the summer when we started our job. The air conditioning in our office made our office unbearably cold. It was so cold as we sat at our desk and wrote memoranda to the Justices and did our jobs, sometimes our hands would get so cold that we almost couldn't feel them. What did we do? We went over to the thermostat and turned up the thermostat, thinking that would solve the problem. But after we turned up the thermostat, it didn't do any good. It was still freezing cold. At that point, we opened the window and let in the hot, muggy air that is known to inhabit and pervade Washington, DC, during the summer months. It was inefficient, but we couldn't figure out another way. We talked to the maintenance people in the building. They weren't sure what to make of it, so we moved on. As summer faded into fall and fall became winter, it got cold. We had a very similar problem, but in the other direction. When it got to be winter, when it was really cold outside, it was burning hot inside our office. It was so hot, we were sweating, so hot we felt compelled to walk over to the thermostat and turn the thermostat down, hoping and expecting, reasonably, that it would lower the temperature and alleviate our discomfort. It didn't do a bit of good. It was still burning hot. What did we do? We opened the windows. It was inefficient and created a weird feeling in the office--at times burning hot, at times freezing cold, depending how close you were to the window. After many months of this, the head maintenance inspector for the whole building came in and looked at the heating and air conditioning system within the office. After taking it all apart, he came to us and said: I think I have found your problem. Your thermostat was installed backward. Every time you were turning the thermostat up to raise the temperature, it was lowering the temperature. Every time you lowered the thermostat, it was, in fact, raising the temperature. Sometimes things have the opposite effect from what we want. I believe it has often been with the best of motives and instincts and intentions that we have taken power to Washington, DC, concentrating, centralizing more power here in Washington, DC, and then allocating it to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats, and, in some cases, Federal judges. In the process, we disempowered the American people. We disconnected them from their own government. This, in turn, has raised the temperature when it comes to things like confirming a Supreme Court Justice. This, by the way, was often done in the past by a voice vote without even the need for a roll call vote. Sometimes it was done unanimously; sometimes it was done overwhelmingly. Not every nominee was confirmed. I don't think that should ever be the case. Even in George Washington's administration, not every nominee to the Supreme Court was confirmed, but nominees were treated with dignity and with respect. This occurred in part, I believe, because the Constitution kept the temperature appropriately moderated; the Federal Government was doing only those things that the Constitution unmistakably placed in the hands of the Federal Government and of Congress, which sets policy for the Federal Government. The people, in turn, remained in touch and connected to that government, to the extent it affected them, because that policy was still being set by the people's elected representatives in Congress and not by unelected, unaccountable jurists or bureaucrats. The opposite has happened since then. It is not the case that every Supreme Court nominee in recent history has brought about so much contention. You look at the confirmation process that led to the ultimate appointment of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, of Stephen Breyer, of Elena Kagan, of Sonia Sotomayor. These occurred in recent decades. These Justices were confirmed overwhelmingly, and they were confirmed with a lot of votes from Members of both political parties. It doesn't have to be as contentious as it always is, but in this instance, with Republican nominees--with conservative nominees--the left has been unwilling to allow the process to even move forward as it should and has chosen instead to smear these individuals and to treat them in an unkind, undignified manner. No mother and no father would want to see a son or a daughter subjected to this kind of treatment, not in our country, not for a position like this. No one would want that. It does not have to be this way. If we can correct course, if we can figure out that we have in some ways been working with a broken thermostat, if we can acknowledge the fact that in trying to make things better, sometimes we make them worse by bringing more power to Washington and then handing this power over to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats and judges, we can do this. We can lower the temperature, lower the stakes in the United States of America. We live in a diverse Republic. We need to allow the people in all of their diverse viewpoints throughout the various States to work things out as they deem fit. Let Utah be Utah; let New York be New York; let Nebraska be Nebraska. We don't have to make as many decisions in Washington, DC, as we have been. I believe, ultimately, this will come down to a question like this. We have a choice to make--a choice between federalism; that is, restoring the proper balance of power between different actors within our system of government on the one hand, or contention and, ultimately, violence on the other hand. I choose the peaceful way. I choose the way that doesn't result in as much contention. I choose the constitutional way. I believe that document was written in such a way as to protect our liberty, to respect our divergent interests, and to allow the American people to flourish and prosper because not every decision would have to be made by the same people, and the government would remain accountable to the government. Federalism is the answer. At the end of this long and grueling process, I am grateful for the system we have. I hope we can return to its constitutional origins and respect the letter and the spirit of the Constitution of the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted to Sean Pugh, Marc Marie, and Jared Kelson for the duration of this Congress.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I am a Republican because I am a conservative. I am a conservative because I believe the Constitution and the ideals that it asserts on behalf of the American people are worth protecting, worth defending, even when they are untimely, even when they are unpopular, and especially for the vulnerable, for the marginalized, and for the forgotten among us. Equal rights, equal opportunity, equal justice under the law, equal dignity under God--we fail as Americans when we violate these ideals, when we neglect them to whatever degree, when we exclude some number of our neighbors from their God-given share of our common inheritance, when we declare in the interest of expedience and in defiance of our own national creed that some people somehow are less equal than others. Such was the cruelty of our Nation through our laws, long-visited on African Americans, Native Americans, immigrants, and ethnic minorities, on women, on the disabled, and on religious minorities, including religious minorities like my own forebears as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Happily, this is no longer the case. Happily, all of these groups-- who, taken together, comprise the vast majority of all Americans--were at different times in our history affirmatively brought under the protection of our laws. This work of inclusion, of expanding the circle of legal and constitutional protection, was not a natural, organic, spontaneous, evolutionary process; it was the product of hard work--the work of vigilant citizens, activists, and lawmakers who affirmatively, aggressively, painstakingly advanced the cause of justice at every opportunity, even against the entrenched forces of the political status quo. Republicans in this Congress have undertaken such efforts on behalf of certain priorities--in particular, the tax relief and spending increases that are poised to yield a budget deficit of nearly $1 trillion this year. But no such legislative progress has been achieved advancing the right to life nor the plight of those denied it. For the second straight year of unified Republican governance--unified pro-life governance--Congress's annual spending bills will include no new reforms protecting unborn children or getting Federal taxpayers out of the abortion business. The House version of this Health and Human Services spending bill included multiple reforms. It denied taxpayer funds to the largest abortion provider in the country, Planned Parenthood. It eliminated title X family planning grants, which cross-subsidize abortion providers. It prohibited Federal funding of research on aborted fetal tissue. It included the Conscience Protection Act protecting pro-life people and groups from funding discrimination. None of these modest, commonsense spending reforms survived the House-Senate negotiations-- none of them. None was made a priority by the people empowered to set the priorities. The authors of this bill defend their $1.3 trillion compromise. And of course, this being Washington, I know, as is always the case, that in this case, it could always be worse. But before this bill passes with an overwhelming bipartisan supermajority as its base of support-- despite it being mostly unread by its supporters--someone ought to speak up for the Americans whom this legislation conspicuously leaves behind. The best measure of any government or any policy or proposal can be measured according to its impact on the least among us. Too often today, Washington acts as though ``the least among us'' refers to our most vulnerable incumbents rather than our most vulnerable constituents. This $1.3 trillion spending bill exemplifies that very confusion and fails that very test. Under this bill, neither the unborn nor taxpayers are any more protected from the abortion industry than they were under President Obama and a unified Democratic Congress. I understand that fighting on contentious issues comes with a cost. I understand that it is not easy. But other things come with a cost too. It is not just this that comes with a cost--so, too, does not fighting on them, especially in the rare moments when we could win. This bill represents a significant opportunity missed--and missed at a time when we can't be sure how many more we will be given going forward, how many more opportunities like this one we might have. Some causes are worth fighting for, even in defeat--the God-given equal rights and the dignity of all human beings paramount among them. The arc of history may, as I hope, bend toward life, but only if we bend it. I oppose this legislation, but I do so neither in anger nor in sadness; rather, I do so in hope, looking forward to another bill, another time in the not-too-distant future, one that stands up for those Americans who asked nothing more than the chance to one day stand up for themselves. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, Americans know all too well the crippling costs of healthcare in our country today. On top of the daily struggles of ordinary families to put food on the table, skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs are getting harder and harder to meet. Pharmacist gag rules are only making matters worse for the American people--much worse. These contract clauses between pharmacies, on the one hand, and insurers and pharmacy benefit managers, on the other, prevent pharmacists from telling customers that they can actually save money on prescriptions by paying with cash instead of using their insurance. Pharmacists are actually prohibited under these clauses from helping their customers to get the best price for their medications. This is absurd, and it is harmful. According to a recent study, about 23 percent of all drug claims in 2013 involved overpayment, amounting to more than $135 million. Who pockets those extra dollars? It is not ordinary Americans. It is, of course, the insurers and the benefit managers--in other words, the pharma middlemen, you might say. We all agree that this is a problem. It is only further evidence of our broken drug pricing system that is unnecessarily hurting the American people. We all agree this is a problem that needs to be fixed. What we must consider is how best to address the problem, who is best equipped to do so, and whether and to what extent some of it has already been fixed. Senator Collins' bill mandates that gag clauses be prohibited under all health insurance plans, including individual and group plans that are currently administered by the States pursuant to State law. The Federal Government can and should prohibit gag clauses within the plans it administers and within those plans it oversees, but it cannot and should not intervene in plans that it does not. Many States already have made some significant progress on this issue. In fact, 26 States have already passed laws banning gag rules, and another 11 States are currently in the process of trying to pass them. I applaud them, and we ought to leave space for them to do that very thing. Some have suggested that this State action and increased attention to the cost of prescription drugs has more or less solved this problem and greatly limited the use of gag clauses already. Bear in mind that the study that I previously referenced looked at practices from 5 years ago. The States were more directly involved because they had more directly witnessed this problem, and they were able to nimbly and quite capably address it. However, even if gag clauses are still in use, where they are, we must recognize that it is not always the role of the Federal Government to regulate everything. It is not the role of the Federal Government to regulate entities under the jurisdiction of the States. However well intentioned, when Congress oversteps its authority like this, we can end up doing more harm than good. We also end up undermining the very oath we took to uphold the Constitution, which has as a structural foundation the principle that not all power is invested in Congress. Only those powers given to the Congress are vested here. Those that are not vested under the Constitution in the Federal Government are reserved to the States, respectfully, or to the people. The amendment I am offering would narrow this bill to what I believe would be its proper scope. Instead of the bill applying to all health plans, my amendment would limit its application to only self-insured groups plans that are exempt from State regulation. This would close a loophole where States are unable to provide Americans additional transparency surrounding the cost of their prescription drugs. Again, while I very much support the overall goal of the underlying bill and applaud my friend and colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, we have to remember that it is neither the role nor the duty nor within the power of the Federal Government to regulate all aspects of commercial activity within the United States or all aspects of the lives of the American people. The way to help ordinary American citizens with high drug costs is not to further concentrate power within Washington, DC. The Federal Government's intervention in healthcare has already caused huge distortions in the market for which Americans pay a steeper price every single year. If we truly want to protect the American people from abuses like gag rules, we should fight to preserve federalism and our vision of our Constitution so that States are empowered to directly and efficiently protect their citizens from the injustices they face. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to complete my brief remarks.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, a few years ago, a company in California called Hampton Creek, now known as JUST, Inc., started selling vegan-- that is to say, eggless--mayonnaise. Just Mayo was one of hundreds of increasingly popular alternative foods developed in recent decades, marketed to vegetarians, vegans, and people with food allergies or other health concerns. Understandably, as soon as Just Mayo started to win confidence, it started to attract the attention of top executives in the egg industry. Unfortunately, their intent was not to improve quality or reduce prices. It was, instead, to enlist the government in a pattern that would chill competition. Under a 1938 Federal law, the Food and Drug Administration has the power to set so-called ``standards of identity.'' Those are rules defining what does and does not qualify as a particular food product. Under these regulations, anything calling its ``mayonnaise'' has to have eggs in it. Just Mayo was being accused of being illegally labeled. It is not just mayonnaise. Just the other week, the FDA announced a proposed rule that would ban the use of the term ``milk'' for nondairy products. The FDA says milk is ``lacteal secretion . . . obtained by the complete milking of one or more healthy cows,'' and nothing else. The proposed rule change would wipe out almond milk, soy milk, and coconut milk off of our grocery store shelves. Whatever their original value, these labeling requirements are outdated and they are unnecessary. Consumers are not deceived by these labels. No one buys almond milk under the false illusion that it came from a cow. They buy almond milk because it didn't come from a cow. The amendment I am offering would protect consumers from these ``standards of identity'' requirements, and they would protect them from this kind of abuse. Specifically, the amendment would prohibit funds from being used to enforce these rules against products simply because of their use of a common compound name--such as where a word or phrase identifies an alternative plant or animal source. In other words, it would protect products like ``almond milk,'' ``goat cheese,'' and ``gluten-free bread'' from accusations of being illegally labeled. It belongs to consumers, not big agricultural companies. The role of government in the market is to protect competition, not any one competitor. The Federal Government has more important things to worry about than the fake scourge of almond milk. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 3 minutes.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I first saw this legislation literally moments ago; therefore, I haven't had adequate time to review it, but I will say this: Any legislation that comes from this body that begins with the following words will attract my attention and should attract the attention of anyone who is concerned about our First Amendment and other constitutional rights. It begins with the words: ``It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally publish. . . . '' That ought to be concerning to us--to each and every one of us--Democrats and Republicans alike. On that basis, I object.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the National Flood Insurance Program is in trouble, and everyone in this building knows it. Everyone in Washington knows it. It is fiscally unsustainable because it is by its nature structurally unsound. Yet here we are again, for the seventh straight time in just 6 years, considering a so-called ``straight'' reauthorization. ``Straight''--yes, that is the word that Washington uses. That is the word that Washington uses when Republicans and Democrats, after burning the midday oil for 2\1/2\ days a week for a few months, decide together that a dysfunctional program, $20 billion in debt, is, in fact, perfect. So we are planning to rubberstamp a continuation of its dysfunctional status quo. Swamp talk aside here, this is the opposite of ``straight.'' This is the definition of ``crooked'' and ``swampy.'' Here are the facts. The National Flood Insurance Program creates a government monopoly that insures some of the most expensive real estate in the entire world. We are talking about homes and homeowners that the private sector would be falling all over itself to insure if given the opportunity to do so. The incentives are there for flood insurance to be a vast, profitable industry, one that creates jobs and opportunity for thousands of Americans. But, no, in our unearned but infinite confidence, Congress has assured the American people: We got this. We got this. We, as in Washington. Except the problem is, we don't. Congress's answer to private insurance is $20 billion in more debt, just a few months after receiving a $16 billion taxpayer bailout. Why is NFIP losing money faster than Congress can spend it? Well, because the program doesn't charge policyholders market rates for insurance. It offers them a special, below-market rate despite the fact that we know floodplains are dangerous. That is why we call them floodplains and not puppy dog and ice cream plains. We also know for a fact that the subsidized premiums will lead inevitably to shortfalls, debt, and taxpayer bailouts. Here, one might recall the old quip: ``Insanity involves doing the same thing over and over and hoping for different results.'' But Congress isn't insane. We know exactly what we are doing and why. Recall the last time NFIP was reformed. It was about 6 years ago in its 2012 reauthorization. That bill, for the first time in a long time, reined in some of the program's worst distortions. For reformers on the left and right, it was a sign of hope. The problem was, the reforms worked. NFIP and its artificially low premiums actually started to climb toward reality-based levels, market-based levels. We of course couldn't have that, so in 2014, Congress stepped in and repealed many of those same reforms that were working--reforms that were put in place in 2012. That is the broken status quo we are being asked to perpetuate today. If this bill were any more serious, it would be written in crayon. The question is, why? If the Flood Insurance Program is so obviously and terribly flawed, why is it so resistant to reform? Why are we so resistant to reforming it? The answer is that, like most inexplicably durable programs, this is a program that quietly serves the interests of the well-to-do at the expense of working and middle-class American families. Proponents of the program would have us believe that the NFIP is essentially there to protect innocent victims who just happen to live in low-lying communities and they can't afford flood insurance. But this argument is absurd. First of all, if homeowners can't afford to insure their homes, then in reality they can't afford those very same homes. Second, many of the areas Washington calls flood plains are really just property near water. Residences there are expensive for lots of reasons, but as anyone who knows anything about real estate can tell you, the biggest reason is location, location, location. These homes are expensive because lots of people want to live there, among them wealthy people who bid up the price. ``Wealthy people'' is another way of saying people who can afford high-risk insurance premiums without taxpayer subsidies covered by Washington, DC, over and over and over again. In fairness, other flood plains are not necessarily home to multimillion-dollar beach houses, but simply normal neighborhoods in low-lying locales. But in either case, the potential for flooding makes living in these areas more dangerous and more expensive. So in both cases, it is unfair to ask taxpayers to make expensive, dangerous homes--25 percent of which are vacation homes--artificially more affordable. It is unfair, and it is unsustainable for hard-working, poor, and middle-class American families. The failure of the Flood Insurance Program is not an economic theory; it is not a matter of ideological speculation. It is, in fact, a fact. No amount of money will change that. The problem with NFIP, as with almost all wasteful Federal programs, is not the pricetag itself but the underlying policy. It doesn't work as currently structured because it can't. Yet, despite decades of failure and folly, NFIP remains unchanged as nothing more or less than a subsidy for people to live in places we know are probably going to get flooded. It is tempting to call this a recipe for losing money. But as we know, Federal programs never actually lose money. Whether it is waste, fraud, or abuse, someone somewhere pockets that money, and in the case of the NFIP, as with so many other government programs, the winners are--well, see for yourself. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the median value of an NFIP-insured home is about twice that of the average American home. A 2015 study by the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth found ``an inverse relationship between insurance premiums paid . . . and total property value.'' In other words, ``The greater the average property value, the lower the average premium paid.'' Likewise, a 2016 study from the University of Michigan Law School found data ``suggesting that zip codes with higher-valued homes receive higher per-policy subsidies.'' We all know there are worthy and sympathetic beneficiaries of NFIP, as there are for every government program. But in the aggregate, in the big picture, the NFIP simply redistributes money from nonwealthy people to wealthy people, from less wealthy people to more wealthy people, and to believe otherwise is to indulge in what might be called an actuarial science denial. This isn't alchemy. This isn't voodoo. Actuaries already know how much flood insurance should cost. Of course, they also know how much ObamaCare, Medicare, and Social Security are going to cost, and Congress is getting terrifyingly good at ignoring actuaries--and actuarial science in general. But as with our entitlement programs, politicians just want to pretend that NFIP can magically charge less, spend more, and not leave future taxpayers holding the bag. It is long past time to set aside this farcical, magical type of thinking. Neither former President Obama nor King Canute a thousand years ago nor the NFIP today has the power to stop the rise of the oceans. What we can do is prepare--through mitigation, through insurance, and through proven platforms of success. Senators Heller and Tester have a bill that would allow private insurers to compete with NFIP. I wholeheartedly support their bill and can cite Utah's successful embrace of private flood insurance as strong evidence in favor of that approach. Senators Crapo and Brown have a bill that would improve flood mapping and insist on community preparation for flooding as a condition of eligibility for NFIP coverage. This is not too much for the American people to ask, either of their affluent, flood-prone neighbors or of their sworn representatives in Congress. Nor is the amendment I am offering. My amendment would leave the program--broken as it is--exactly the same, only for today's purposes with one small change. It would cap eligibility for NFIP insurance at homes worth more than $2.5 million. For anything under that, fine, they can enjoy the cut-rate premiums. But the taxpayers should not pay any amount of coverage for the top 1 percent, who can afford a new $2.5 million beach home. All my amendment says is that people who can afford a multi million-dollar waterfront home should be able to afford to insure those homes on their own, without a government subsidy paid for by America's poor and middle class. With the stock market near all-time highs, with a corporate tax cut driving up profits, I think it is eminently reasonable to ask multimillionaires to insure their beach houses without the welfare assistance of hard-working taxpayers who make a fraction of their income. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3128 Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the Committee on Banking to be discharged from further consideration of S. 3128 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the Lee amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I stand with enormous respect for my friend, my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Louisiana. I stand also with enormous respect for the amount of care and diligence he puts into each legislative effort that he addresses in this Chamber and in the committee on which we serve together. I wish to respond to a couple of points. My colleague is absolutely correct. Most of the people--the overwhelming majority of people who get insurance under this program--are not wealthy. It is one of the reasons this is a limited-purpose amendment. This amendment would deal only with properties, new properties, to be insured worth more than $2.5 million. The idea is, if you can build this structure, a home, or otherwise worth more than $2.5 million, there can and ought to be a way--there is a way for you to provide for the assurance in the event of a flood, for the addressing of whatever flood damage is done as a result of that. Anyone who has the ability to afford such a structure can address that structure without having to be subsidized by America's poor- and middle-class families. Secondly, I would like to respond to the suggestion that the purpose of this amendment is somehow to kill the NFIP program. If that were the purpose of it, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. We would simply be entertaining means by which to block their reauthorization of that program. Yes, the House of Representatives has adjourned just moments ago, but, yes, the House of Representatives has a pro forma session scheduled for tomorrow, and there are means by which the House of Representatives could and, I believe, would pass this amendment, this reauthorization, with the amendment intact. The House of Representatives has, in fact, in the very recent past, passed far more aggressive, far more significant reforms than this, and I believe they would do so in their pro forma session by their version of unanimous consent. This is not intended, nor would it have the effect of shutting down NFIP altogether. Finally, let me say this. Ten months ago, when we were asked to give another so-called clean reauthorization of this program, we were promised--I was promised by many distinguished Members of this body there would be reforms that we would put in place before the next reauthorization. It hasn't happened, and, in fact, we haven't had significant reforms for 6 years. It is, in fact, time to reform the program, and, on that point, I am very pleased that my friend and distinguished colleague from Louisiana and I agree on that point--reforms are needed. We can't continue to kick the can in perpetuity. As St. Augustine is quoted as saying during his conversion to Christianity, ``Lord grant me chastity, but not yet.'' If we are always kicking the can, if we are always saying, yes, we need to be righteous; yes, we need do the right thing, but not yet, when will we ever get there? If not us, who? If not now, when? It saddens me that we can't pass even this minor reform today. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I am about to engage in a brief colloquy about a unanimous consent request with my colleague, the Senator from California. I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding the previous order, I be able to have 5 minutes to do that prior to the vote.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments made by my distinguished colleague, the Senator from California. When Americans see a ``Made in USA'' label on a product, it is a source of great pride. It represents the American virtues of innovation and industriousness. It is a symbol of support for American manufacturing jobs and high-quality products across the board, and it often spurs American consumers to buy those very products. The Federal Trade Commission currently enforces a difficult standard for products to claim the ``Made in USA'' label. It requires that all or virtually all of a product must be made in the United States, and it has issued lengthy guidance documents establishing the rules. However, one State holds a different standard--one that is nearly impossible for businesses to meet. Under California's law, if more than 5 percent of the components of a product are manufactured outside the United States, even if that means just a few bolts or a few screws, then that product cannot be labeled ``Made in USA.'' While companies could legally boast this claim in 49 of the 50 States under the Federal standards set by the Federal Trade Commission, they are often unable to do so because of the flow of interstate commerce. Most manufacturers sell wholesale to national and international distributors who then disperse products throughout the country. As a result, companies must label products according to the most rigid definition in order to protect themselves from costly litigation. In short, one State--one single State--is effectively governing how interstate commerce is conducted with regard to ``Made in USA'' labeling throughout the country. The Reinforcing American-Made Products Act would solve this problem by ensuring that the current Federal definition is the supreme labeling law in interstate commerce without weakening the strong ``Made in USA'' national standard. In addition to upholding the Constitution, which empowers Congress--this body--to regulate interstate commerce, this legislation would provide clarity and consistency, which would help American companies avoid unnecessary hardships and frivolous lawsuits. In the global marketplace, it is increasingly difficult for small American companies to stay afloat, let alone to compete. This reform would ultimately encourage manufacturing in America and use American tools and resources. It would also help so many of the small businesses and ordinary American workers who are currently being left behind, and helping them ought to be our goal. This bill passed unanimously out of committee, and it has broad bipartisan support. I am disappointed that it is being blocked by the few people who do not support it when it could benefit all 50 of our States. We should exercise this authority, and we should open the flow of interstate commerce. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 297, S. 118; that the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 150, I voted yea. It was my intention to vote nay. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome of the vote.