Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, as we all know too well rates of suicide have risen to epidemic levels in the United States, with suicide now the 10th leading cause of death in the country. On average, there are 129 suicides every day, roughly one every 11 minutes--a staggering statistic. That is why I am pleased to be introducing bipartisan, bicameral legislation to provide new resources to help turn the tide on this increasingly dire situation. I am joined in introducing the Suicide Prevention Act by Senator Kennedy, with Representatives Chris Stewart and Doris Matsui introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives. This legislation would authorize new funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, to partner with the State and local health departments to improve surveillance of suicide attempts and other incidences of self-harm. Current data collection efforts regarding suicide are often years after the fact, which limits the ability of State and local health departments, as well as community organizations, to recognize trends early and intervene. This new effort would enhance data collection and sharing, as appropriate, in real time to help save lives. Recognizing that emergency healthcare providers are at the frontlines of responding to suicide attempts, this bill would authorize funding for a grant program within the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, to fund suicide prevention programs in emergency departments, ED, to better train staff in suicide prevention strategies, screen at-risk patients, and refer patients to appropriate followup care. The legislation would also require SAMHSA to develop best practices for such programs, so that healthcare providers are able to provide their patients with the best possible care and advice. Approximately 37 percent of individuals without a previous history of mental health or substance abuse who die by suicide make an ED visit within the year before their death. According to the Suicide Prevention Resource Center, the risk of suicide is greatest within a month of discharge from the hospital. In 2017, 47,173 Americans lost their lives to suicide. That same year, there were 1.4 million suicide attempts. We must renew our efforts on suicide prevention. In 2004, working with my colleague Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon, we authored the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act. This law authorized new youth suicide prevention programs in honor of Senator Smith's, son, who tragically died by suicide just a couple of weeks short of his 22nd birthday. For over a decade, these programs have funded college campus, State, and Tribal efforts to prevent suicide among our youth and young adult populations, who are particularly at risk of suicide. During this time, youth suicide rates have decreased significantly in my home State of Rhode Island, however, nationwide, suicide rates have skyrocketed over the last decade. That is why we must renew our attention and focus on suicide prevention, including by increasing funding for and access to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. This effort is critical to ensuring that when people in crisis call looking for help, someone will be there on the other end of the line to offer hope and counseling. I have also worked with my colleagues Senators Gardner, Baldwin, and Moran on legislation to designate the Lifeline as an easy to remember, 3-digit number, 9-8- 8. This common sense legislation would make it easier for people across the country to access the Lifeline when they really need it. I am glad the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, taking steps to make the 9- 8-8 number a reality, which makes increasing funding for the Lifeline all the more vital. I am pleased to have the opportunity to partner with Senator Kennedy once again by introducing the Suicide Prevention Act today. I look forward to working together with our other sponsors and colleagues, as well as stakeholders supporting these efforts, to pass this critical legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to support the nomination of Peter T. Gaynor to be the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA. I have known and worked with Pete Gaynor for over a decade. Before taking over as FEMA Deputy Administrator in 2018 and becoming the Acting Administrator in 2019, Pete was the emergency management director for the city of Providence and then the State of Rhode Island. As a U.S. marine, he was on duty near the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, and helped direct important aspects of the response and recovery efforts in the days and weeks that followed. Later, he went on to serve in U.S. operations in Iraq before returning home to Rhode Island. As EMA, emergency management agency director in Rhode Island, Pete led the response to federally declared disasters in our State and worked to successfully earn national emergency management accreditation for both the Providence and Rhode Island emergency management agencies. I know he will tap this full experience to serve the American people as FEMA Administrator, and FEMA needs solid leadership. Indeed, as the flagship Federal Agency for disaster preparedness and response, FEMA faces extraordinary challenges, confronting the very real effects of climate-related disasters, reforming the National Flood Insurance Program, administering critical grant programs, and helping ready the Nation for possible chemical, biological, and radiological attacks. Make no mistake, I have deep concerns about many aspects of the administration's approach to disaster recovery. Puerto Rico is a case in point. Now it is facing new challenges. As ranking member of the Transportation-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, I have been dismayed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development's slow-walking of billions of dollars of disaster recovery assistance for Puerto Rico. As the lead Agency for disaster response and recovery, FEMA must set the standard for professionalism and compassion for people and communities going through the worst experience of their lives. It is my expectation and my confidence that Peter Gaynor will work to make sure it happens. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to confirm him. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending nomination of Peter Gaynor to be the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to finish my remarks before the vote is called. I don't anticipate I will take very long.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the fiscal year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. After several weeks of debate and negotiation, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees have completed the conference report, which addresses critical issues facing our military and our country's national security. I would like to thank Senator Inhofe, Chairman Smith, and Ranking Member Thornberry for their thoughtfulness, hard work, and cooperation throughout the process. This was not an easy conference. There were many difficult issues and differences of opinion that had to be worked through. I think it is safe to say that many have misgivings about one provision or another, but there are so many other positive provisions that many will consider a legislative successes, in my view. That is the art of compromise. Overall, it is a very good conference report that helps the military and the American people. Last week, this conference report passed by a vote of 379 to 48 in the House, and I hope it will have the same strong support in the Senate. As we consider the conference report, I would like to highlight several areas that I am particularly pleased with and address several items that have been of concern to some Members. In accordance with the budget agreement, the NDAA conference report authorizes $658.4 billion for the Department of Defense and national security programs of the Department of Energy, $71.5 billion for overseas contingency operations, and $5.3 billion in emergency funding to restore installations that were damaged by extreme weather and natural disasters. The conference report includes a number of important provisions to support our servicemembers, their families, and the civilian employees of the Department of Defense who support them, including a 3.1-percent pay raise for troops and the authorization of a number of bonus, special, and incentive pays to encourage enlistment and reenlistment in the Armed Forces. We continue our efforts to eliminate sexual harassment and assault in our military. Over the last 12 years, we have legislated nearly 200 changes in law to combat sexual assault. In this conference report, we direct the Comptroller General to assess the implementation and effectiveness of these requirements. We also include a number of new provisions to continue our fight against this scourge, including increasing investigative resources to expedite investigations, increasing access to Victims' Legal Counsel and Victim Witness Program liaisons to support survivors of sexual assault, requiring additional training for commanders, and requiring more transparency with sexual assault survivors about the progress of court-martial and administrative processes. We also include new provisions to more effectively address domestic violence and child exploitation. We cannot rest. We must continue to insist that we do all we can to prevent this scourge from permeating our military forces. The conference report also includes the Fair Chance Act, which ensures that applicants for positions in the Federal Government and with Federal contractors are treated fairly by restricting requests for criminal background information until the conditional offer stage. As everyone is aware, the conference report includes 12 weeks of paid parental leave for the Federal civilian workforce, an important benefit that will help the Federal Government recruit and retain the very best civilian talent. The conference report authorizes a number of important Army and Air Force programs. The final bill supports funding for 73 UH-6M Blackhawks and 48 AH-64 Apache helicopters in the Army. In addition, the conference bill authorizes an additional $75.6 million to accelerate the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft Program, which is a top modernization priority for the U.S. Army. The agreement also fully supports upgrading 165 Abrams tanks and includes an additional $249.2 million to integrate a medium caliber weapon system onto the Stryker platform. This was an unfunded armor requirement which we were able to meet. With regard to the Air Force, the conference report includes $1 billion for 12 additional F-35A aircraft, which was an unfunded requirement for the Air Force, as well as $392 million for 4 additional C-130J aircraft to support increased inter-theater airlift capability. The bill also includes language that extends the Department's authority to protect critical facilities and assets from unauthorized operation of unmanned aircraft. I am pleased the conference agreement includes key provisions and authorizes critical funding that will strengthen naval readiness and submarine production. This conference report reaffirms that we must maintain a minimum of 11 aircraft carriers to protect our national interests around the world and authorizes the first year appropriations for the midlife refueling of the USS Harry S. Truman. It continues the construction of two Virginia-class submarines per year and supports the nine-boat multiyear contract, with an option for a tenth boat, that the Navy and Electric Boat signed earlier this month. The report also supports full funding for the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine. I am particularly pleased that the conference agreement also authorizes additional funding to continue to support the expansion of the submarine industrial business, as well as workforce development. The conference report further bolsters maritime sealift and mobilization by reauthorizing the Maritime Administration, including authorizing a new cable security fleet program and requiring the Secretary of the Navy to seek to enter into a contract for additional sealift vessels. Finally, in order to keep our existing ships ready for deployment, the conference agreement authorizes additional funding for Navy ship and submarine depot maintenance to ensure key shipyard availabilities are not further delayed due to the existing maintenance backlog. The conference agreement authorizes full funding for the President's request to continue modernizing our nuclear deterrence and its triad of delivery platforms, which are rapidly aging out. This modernization effort began in 2010 and will continue for the next 15 to 20 years. Our ballistic submarines will begin to age out in the 2030s. Our heavy bombers will be replaced in the 2040s, after having served for over 80 years. And our ICBMs will start to be replaced in the 2030s, after having been on alert 24/7, 365-days a year, for over 60 years. On the issue of low-yield nuclear weapons, while I opposed the deployment of the low-yield submarine ballistic missile in last year's bill and supported the provision in this year's House bill, which again would have prohibited deployment, that provision was not included in this year's conference report. I maintain that this is one weapon that will not add to our national security but would only increase the risk of miscalculation with dire consequences, and regret the House provision was not included in the House report. Perhaps the most bipartisan topic in the fiscal year 2020 NDAA was privatized housing reform. Over 30 provisions were included to help the Defense Department reinvigorate its oversight of housing companies. Over the last year, the Armed Service Committee received hundreds of calls for help directly from military families. Their stories of hardship, photos of substandard home conditions, and reports of nonresponsive customer service by the housing companies spurred this comprehensive package of reforms. While this will likely not be the last NDAA to address housing problems, the fiscal year 2020 bill makes a significant first step in several key areas. For example, we begin by requiring several standards in the ``tenant bill of rights.'' We ensure that DOD has a single individual in charge of privatized housing and, in the event housing companies are found to be responsible for causing medical problems, there will be a way for families to be compensated appropriately. Families will now be guaranteed access to work order systems and see what kind of home they are inhabiting prior to moving in, much like consumers get a Carfax report before they buy a used car. Companies must now disclose their bonus structures, document a complaint database made by families online, and are prohibited from forcing families to sign nondisclosure agreements. The DOD must also create and implement a standardized formal dispute resolution process and a uniform lease across all installations. We still have a long way to go as a Congress to ensure military families are getting the kinds of quality homes and living conditions they deserve, but the fiscal year 2020 NDAA sets everyone on the right path, and we will continue to be watching both DOD and the housing companies. In another area of importance to the safety of all families, after too many years of status quo, the NDAA includes a number of new authorities and requirements for the DOD to confront its use of toxic PFAS chemicals. While we were ultimately unable to reach an agreement with the House establishing new regulations through the Safe Drinking Water Act and other substantial improvements, like cleanup via CERCLA and declarations of hazardous substances, the NDAA does make a number of new changes. For example, the Department of Defense must phase out the use of PFAS in firefighting foams on its installations. The bill restores the National Guard's access to defense environmental restoration accounts, presses DOD to enter cooperative agreements with local entities contaminated by PFAS chemicals, and extends the ongoing CDC human health study of PFAS in drinking water. With respect to countering the continued threat by ISIS, the bill extends the train-and-equip programs that underpin our partnerships with the Syrian defense forces and Iraqi security forces, while ensuring appropriate congressional oversight of the use of such funds. Specific to Iraq, the bill also begins to normalize security assistance to Iraq by transitioning funding to enduring authorities. The conference report also includes the bipartisan Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act, which is intended to help facilitate an end to the conflict in Syria and hold responsible those who have perpetrated war crimes. Specifically, the bill sanctions foreign persons who knowingly provide significant financial, material, or technological support to or knowingly engage in a significant transaction with the Syrian Government and authorizes the Secretary of State to provide support to entities conducting criminal investigations, supporting prosecutions, or collecting evidence against those who have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity in Syria. With regard to Afghanistan, the bill extends several authorities to train and equip the Afghanistan National Defense and Security Forces. It also authorizes the Department of Defense to provide support for bottom-up, Governor of Afghanistan-led reconciliation activities and mandates that the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, advocate for the inclusion of Afghan women in ongoing future negotiations to end the conflict in Afghanistan. It is in the interest of all parties to forge a negotiated settlement that brings this conflict to a close while also protecting U.S. security interests and basic human rights. The bill also includes 4,000 additional special immigrant visas and the extension of the SIV Program so we can continue to honor commitments made to our wartime allies in Afghanistan. As recent press reports indicate, after almost 18 years of combat and capacity building, Afghan military and political institutions are fragile, and the Taliban remains a serious threat. Moreover, terrorist groups like al-Qaida and ISIS continue to pose a potential threat to the region and beyond. The Armed Services Committee and other committees of jurisdiction must undertake a comprehensive evaluation of the causes of the current situation and help facilitate a thoughtful way ahead. The conference report also contains a number of provisions to address the continuing threat of foreign malign influence from Russia and others countries. Deterring and countering this threat to our democracy is critical ahead of the 2020 Presidential elections. The bill requires an update to our strategy for countering Russian malign influence, which needs to be better coordinated across U.S. Government Departments and Agencies, and expands that strategy to cover China, Iran, and other malign actors. To guard against malign foreign actors seeking to gain access to sensitive information through DOD contractors, the conference report includes a provision that I sponsored to enhance requirements for DOD contractors and subcontractors to disclose beneficial ownership information, including whether companies are subject to foreign ownership, control, or influence. The Intelligence authorization bill, which is part of the conference report, also includes key provisions to counter foreign malign influence that have been of particular interest to me. First, it authorizes establishing a Foreign Malign Influence Response Center, which would bring together all elements of the intelligence community and serve as a primary organization for analyzing and integrating intelligence on foreign malign influence to provide a common operating picture across the government. The Intelligence authorization bill also authorizes the Director of National Intelligence to facilitate the establishment of an independent, nonprofit, Social Media Data and Threat Analysis Center to bring tech companies and researchers together to analyze indicators of foreign adversary threat networks across social media platforms. Finally, the conference report authorizes funds for research on foreign malign influence trends and indicators, including on foreign weaponization of ``deepfakes''--that is, videos or other media that is digitally manipulated by foreign governments to spread disinformation. Turning to Ukraine, the conference report authorizes an increase in funding for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative to provide critical aid, including lethal assistance, to this strategic partner to defend itself against Russian aggression against its sovereignty and territorial integrity. With respect to Turkey, the conference report prohibits Turkey's participation in the F-35 aircraft program as long as it possesses the Russian S-400 air defense system. It expresses the sense of Congress that Turkey's purchase of the S-400 system triggers congressionally mandated sanctions and urges the administration to impose those sanctions, which are long overdue. As everyone is aware, this conference report does create a sixth service within the Air Force for a Space Force. Its mission will be to deter hostile actions in space against the United States and its allies. I would note that the organization created in this conference report is far more robust than was originally passed in the Senate bill. I believe this bill may be trying to do too much, too fast, and will require significant oversight. That being said, I do believe the attention we have paid to space and protecting our national security assets in space is vitally important. I will continue to work on this issue in the coming years. Finally, with respect to substantive provisions, I would like to touch on an issue I find very problematic. I am deeply disappointed that, despite my strong support, provisions intended to prohibit U.S. involvement in the civil war in Yemen, including arms transfers to the Saudi-led coalition, are not included in the conference report. The civil war in Yemen is the world's worst ongoing humanitarian crisis, and the administration should be playing a more active and constructive role in ending the conflict and achieving a sustainable peace. I strongly support a prohibition on offensive arms transfers and other offensive support for the Saudi-led coalition and will continue working to stop the bloodshed and suffering in Yemen. We must redouble our efforts in support of the Yemeni people and increase humanitarian assistance. Iran, al-Qaida, ISIS, and others continue to benefit from the chaos of this protracted conflict, and ending the war is in the long-term security interests of both the United States and Saudi Arabia. Stronger U.S. support for peace talks can and should set the conditions for Yemenis to negotiate a durable peace and for the international community to begin the difficult but critical work of restoring stability and basic services to the people of Yemen. These objectives will remain significant priorities going forward. Let me conclude by again thanking Senator Inhofe for his superb leadership and Chairman Smith for his superb leadership of the conference, which is a very challenging responsibility. They discharged it with great skill. I also thank Ranking Member Mac Thornberry, who was extraordinarily thoughtful and professional in his deportment, and all the conferees for their bipartisan support throughout the process. This process has been collegial and has been an example of a strong piece of legislation that addresses concerns of Members on both sides of the aisle. I would also like to thank the staffs of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Armed Services Committee for all their fine work on drafting a thoughtful and comprehensive bill. Their diligent work throughout the NDAA process has been integral in producing the strong bill before us today. Let me say this: They are not identified enough, in my view. The work they did and continue to do has been superb--absolutely superb. I want to personally thank them. Let me thank John Bonsell, Elizabeth King, Jen Stewart, and Paul Arcangeli for their help. They are the staff directors of the committees in both the House and the Senate. If my colleagues would bear with me, I want to recognize all of our staff members because they don't get the credit they deserve. Beginning alphabetically, Adam Barker, Stephanie Barna, Jody Bennett, Rick Berger, Augusta Binns-Berkey, Leah Brewer, John Bryant, Debbie Chiarello, Carolyn Chuhta, Jon Clark, Maggie Cooper, Allen Edwards, Jonathan Epstein, Jorie Feldman, Patty-Jane Geller, Tom Goffus, Creighton Greene, Ozge Guzelsu, Marta Hernandez, Gary Howard, Baher Iskander, Jackie Kerber, Gary Leeling, Greg Lilly, Katie Magnus, Kirk McConnell, Keri Lyn Michalke, Jackie Modesett, Bill Monahan, Mike Noblet, Sean O'Keefe, Tony Pankuch, Brad Patou, Jason Potter, John Quirk, John Riordan, Arun Seraphin, Katherine Sutton, Soleil Sykes, Arthur Tellis, Fiona Tomlin, Eric Trager, Dustin Walker, John Wason, Tyler Wilkinson, Bob Winkler, Gwyneth Woolwine, and Jennie Wright. Thank you. I strongly support this conference agreement and hope that it will receive the support of my colleagues in the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, most jobs require some kind of postsecondary credential, whether a certificate. an associate's or bachelor's degree. an advanced or professional degree, or an apprenticeship. Moreover. the workplace is changing with automation, artificial intelligence, and the so-called gig economy transforming the nature of work. Yet, postsecondary education seems increasingly risky or out of reach for too many Americans. That is why I am proud to be introducing the bipartisan Partnerships for Affordability and Student Success (PASS) Act with my colleague, Senator Collins. At a time when we need to equip people with the foundational skills and knowledge they need to succeed in this changing environment, we see college costs and student loan debt soaring. We see too many students who start postsecondary education unable to finish, leaving them in debt but without a degree or postsecondary credential. As a result, we see public confidence in our system of higher education declining. According to a recent Pew Research Center survey, 61 percent of Americans say that our system of higher education is headed in the wrong direction. The federal government cannot solve this crisis on its own. States are critical partners in making college accessible. affordable, and accountable. However, state funding for higher education is lower today than it was before the onset of the Great Recession. According to the latest State Higher Education Finance report published by the State Higher Education Executive Officers. public colleges and universities have become more reliant on tuition dollars for their operations. In 2008, 35.8 percent of general operating costs were supported by tuition payments. In 2018, that percentage increased to 46.6 percent. Today, in 27 states, tuition accounts for more than half of all higher education revenue. Moreover, the only federal-state partnership program for need- based financial aid--the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership (LEAP) program--has not received appropriations since Fiscal Year 2010. It is time to renew the federal-state partnership for higher education, first enacted in 1972 on a bipartisan basis. The PASS Act will revitalize the federal-state partnership through a formula grant to states with a focus on need-based aid, grants to institutions to improve student outcomes and reduce college costs, and public accountability. In exchange for this new federal investment, states must make a commitment to maintain their investment in higher education and have a comprehensive plan for higher education with measurable goals for access, affordability, and student outcomes. At least half of the funding must be dedicated to need-based student financial aid. States also have the option of awarding grants to colleges and universities or partnerships between institutions of higher education and non-profit organizations to improve student outcomes, including enrollment, completion, and employment. and to develop innovative methods for reducing college costs. I am pleased to have the support of the National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs, the Center for Law and Social Policy, the Institute for Higher Education Policy, the Association of Community College Trustees, and the National Skills Coalition. This generation is facing a crisis in college affordability and student loan debt. With the PASS Act, we are providing the resources and incentives for states to take more responsibility to address college affordability and student loan debt and improve student outcomes. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and look forward to working with them to include these and other key reforms in the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing the Title VII Health Care Workforce Act of 2019 with Senator Enzi. This critical legislation would reauthorize funding for the Title VII health professions programs to help strengthen the distribution, quality, and diversity of the health professions workforce so it is better prepared to meet the Nation's evolving and emerging health care needs. The Title VII health professions programs have a longstanding history of increasing the supply of primary care professionals, expanding access to care in rural and urban underserved areas, and developing a workforce that reflects the nation's diversity and the needs of patients. At a time when the Country is facing health provider shortages, it is critical that we continue to support the programs that advance our health care workforce, such as: scholarships for disadvantaged students, public health and preventive medicine, geriatrics training, area health education centers, oral health training, and primary care medicine. These education and training programs guide current and aspiring health professionals to high-demand careers in areas of greatest need, and this legislation will take an important step in ensuring that these programs can continue to serve students and patients for years to come. I look forward to working with stakeholders supporting these efforts, including the American Association of Medical Colleges, as well as my colleague, Senator Enzi, to pass the Title VII Health Care Workforce Act of 2019, in addition to the bipartisan Investment in Tomorrow's Pediatric Health Care Workforce Act I introduced with Senator Cassidy, as these bills proceed though the legislative process.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing the Title VII Health Care Workforce Act of 2019 with Senator Enzi. This critical legislation would reauthorize funding for the Title VII health professions programs to help strengthen the distribution, quality, and diversity of the health professions workforce so it is better prepared to meet the Nation's evolving and emerging health care needs. The Title VII health professions programs have a longstanding history of increasing the supply of primary care professionals, expanding access to care in rural and urban underserved areas, and developing a workforce that reflects the nation's diversity and the needs of patients. At a time when the Country is facing health provider shortages, it is critical that we continue to support the programs that advance our health care workforce, such as: scholarships for disadvantaged students, public health and preventive medicine, geriatrics training, area health education centers, oral health training, and primary care medicine. These education and training programs guide current and aspiring health professionals to high-demand careers in areas of greatest need, and this legislation will take an important step in ensuring that these programs can continue to serve students and patients for years to come. I look forward to working with stakeholders supporting these efforts, including the American Association of Medical Colleges, as well as my colleague, Senator Enzi, to pass the Title VII Health Care Workforce Act of 2019, in addition to the bipartisan Investment in Tomorrow's Pediatric Health Care Workforce Act I introduced with Senator Cassidy, as these bills proceed though the legislative process.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I join my colleagues honoring Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia who is retiring from this body. He is a dear friend and a great example of a great Senator. Johnny and I have worked together on a number of public health priorities. I had the privilege of serving with Johnny on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. We forged a shared commitment to improving public health, from cancer prevention to better surveillance of neurological diseases, from strengthening regulations of indoor tanning devices to improving trauma care. Johnny has the privilege of representing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC headquarters in Atlanta, GA, made up of some of the greatest professionals in the healthcare field across the globe. He has always been a fearless advocate for the CDC and its staff, and the critical work being done by the CDC. He has always been a fierce advocate for all of his constituents in Georgia. During our time on the HELP Committee, we developed a partnership while working on skin cancer prevention. We spent many years advancing legislation to require improved labeling on indoor tanning beds to better reflect their dangers. We also worked hard to make sure there was disclosure of the ingredients in sunscreens, and we were proud to see signed into law in 2014 the Sunscreen Innovation Act. It was a work Johnny led with such distinction. Building on that skin cancer prevention and other preventive health measures, Johnny is, again, a fierce advocate for improving the health of children, particularly children with cancer. I was so proud to work with Johnny on the Conquer Childhood Cancer Act and later the Childhood Cancer Survivorship, Treatment, Access, and Research Act, the STAR Act, tremendously benefiting children who have cancer. That goes, I think, to Johnny keeping his commitment to doing the right thing, doing it well, and helping the most vulnerable in this country. As mentioned, Johnny has been on the veterans' committee and has chaired that committee since 2015. He is a veteran himself, a veteran of the Georgia Air National Guard from 1966 to 1972. He has done significant work for veterans and, as a veteran, I thank Senator Isakson. He was instrumental in passing the VA MISSION Act, critical legislation that enhances the ability of comprehensive caregivers to assist veterans. Further, after the VA MISSION Act, he has been working so hard, and he was also able to pass--and I was proud to work with him--the Harry W. Colmery Veterans Educational Assistance Act. This is known as the Forever GI Bill because it made critical improvements to the GI bill, but most important is the law ends the 15-year limit on the use of GI bill benefits, allowing the use of those benefits throughout the lifetime of the recipient. He has been an extraordinary leader, doing so much. I wish Senator Isakson, his wife Dianne, and his entire family well. Finally, what I want to say is, the true measure of an individual is not the sum of their legislative achievements, Johnny has had many of those; not political victories, Johnny has had many of those; not success in any one realm of any endeavor, public or private; the true test of an individual is the sum of their kindnesses, of what they have done for and with other people. By that measure, no one surpasses the gentleman from Georgia, and I thank him. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concerns about the President's recent interference in war crimes cases involving members of the U.S. military and the President's inappropriate public statements regarding these cases. The President has the power to pardon, but he has a responsibility to use that power wisely, not recklessly. The way he has gone about it in this instance does a real disservice to our troops and the entire American military justice system. Good order and discipline are critical and time-honored traits of the U.S. military, not only to enable military readiness and effectiveness but also to ensure that military men and women remain firmly tethered to our Nation's moral and ethical principles in the most demanding wartime environments. A few have argued that the President has the authority to pardon, but that is a false defense. The issue is that the President's intervention in these cases sends a damaging message to the world, our adversaries, and, most importantly, our men and women in uniform. The Commander in Chief's actions should make us safer and stronger in the world, but President Trump's actions do not. The cases in which the President intervened fall far outside of the norm. The President's pardon authority has traditionally been reserved for nonviolent infractions, including draft evasion and desertion. I am aware of no other instance in which a President has intervened to grant clemency for violent crimes committed while in uniform, especially for war crimes including murder. Especially concerning is the President's decision to intervene in a case prior to its even going to trial--an action that I believe is an insult to our entire system of military justice. Just this morning, the President again intervened--via tweet--to stop a Navy administrative review process that could have resulted in the removal of a servicemember from the Navy SEALs, despite the fact that the servicemember was previously found guilty of posing for photos with a dead ISIS fighter. We must expect more from our military men and women, especially those in our Special Operations forces. Regrettably, President Trump has repeatedly advocated for a return to torture, stating that we should ``take out the families'' of terrorists and expressing his view on standards of military conduct by saying: ``You have to play the game the way they are playing the game.'' The President's statements are reminiscent of former Vice President Cheney's embrace of the ``dark side'' of counterterrorism--the very kind of thinking that underpinned later abuses at Abu Ghraib and the CIA's use of torture as part of its so-called Detention and Interrogation Program. President Trump tweeted in October that ``we train our boys to be killing machines, then prosecute them when they kill!'' No, Mr. President, the U.S. military does not prosecute its own for carrying out lawful missions in service to our Nation. We do not train our troops to kill indiscriminately. We do not train them to attack noncombatants. We do not train them to violate the Geneva Convention and the rule of law because we want our troops to be protected by those same standards. To think or say otherwise is to go against discipline, the selfless service of so many, and the history of our military. As former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff GEN Dempsey wrote in May: Absent evidence of innocence or injustice the wholesale pardon of US servicemembers accused of war crimes signals our troops and allies that we don't take the Law of Armed Conflict seriously. Bad message. Bad precedent. Abdication of moral responsibility. Risk to us. I couldn't agree more. Some have claimed that the President's intervention in this case has somehow improved the morale of our military and given them more confidence on the battlefield. On the contrary, President Trump's disregard for our military justice system risks undermining the confidence of our servicemembers in the rule of law--especially those who are courageous enough to bring allegations of war crimes to light and testify against their teammates. By substituting his judgment for that of commanders and military juries, the President may also inadvertently increase the risk to our U.S. personnel overseas. When we do not hold our military personnel to appropriate standards of conduct, it makes it more likely that they will face similar abuses on the battlefield and less likely that we will be able to hold our enemies accountable. There is no one with more credibility and no one with the service and sacrifice who can say it any better or more authentically than former Senator John McCain, who stated: This is a moral debate. It is about who we are. I don't mourn the loss of any terrorist's life. What I do mourn is what we lose when by official policy or official neglect we confuse or encourage those who fight this war for us to forget that best sense of ourselves. Through the violence, chaos, and heartache of war, through deprivation and cruelty and loss, we are always Americans, and different, stronger, and better than those who would destroy us. Those are the words of John McCain. I believe the President's actions minimize the honorable service of all U.S. servicemembers who have served with discipline and distinction since 9/11 and have answered our Nation's call throughout the history of this country. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I have serious philosophical disagreements with many of the judicial nominees put forth by this administration, but I believe Mr. Menashi is especially unfit to serve on the Federal bench. His record indicates an inability to serve as a fair and impartial judge. And so I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject his nomination to a lifetime appointment on the bench. Steven Menashi's public record demonstrates a deep contempt for a wide spectrum of Americans, and particularly some of the most vulnerable amongst us. In his own writings and as editor in chief of the Dartmouth Review, he has directly expressed or condoned disturbing views on issues such as LGBT rights, racism, and student aid. Even if we were to cast these sentiments aside, Mr. Menashi's recent work in the Trump administration provides ample evidence that he is unfit for a lifetime appointment to the bench. Consider his performance as acting general counsel at the Department of Education. Mr. Menashi oversaw the rollback of regulations designed to protect students and taxpayers from predatory for-profit institutions of higher education. More egregiously, Mr. Menashi wrote the memo outlining the administration's scheme to provide only partial debt relief to students defrauded by for-profit colleges--a scheme that a Federal judge ruled violated Federal privacy laws. Under this scheme, the Department of Education used data that was collected to hold institutions accountable for providing education leading to gainful employment to further punish their victims. The Department has still failed to comply with the court's orders, resulting in the Secretary of Education being held in contempt. Mr. Menashi supervised the legal work on the administration's proposal to rewrite the rules dealing with sexual assault and sexual harassment on college campuses. The administration's own analysis concluded that the new rules would dramatically reduce the number of sexual assault investigations. Mr. Menashi worked on the rule rolling back efforts to address disparities in the discipline of students of color and those with disabilities. In March, a Federal court ruled that the Department had engaged in an illegal delay and had acted arbitrarily and capriciously. During Mr. Menashi's time at the Department of Education, the administration argued that it was appropriate to use Federal education funds to purchase guns for schools. Also consider Mr. Menashi's time as a White House counsel where he helped Stephen Miller in crafting some of the administration's most draconian immigration policies. While he was an advisor, the White House cut refugee admissions to a historic low, effectively banned asylum for refugees traveling through Mexico, and threatened to end birthright citizenship. His views and work experience call into question how his personal biases would color his rulings, and whether he has the judicial temperament and political independence necessary to serve on the Federal bench. This is not the kind of legal judgment that deserves a lifetime appointment to the Federal judiciary. Senate Legislative Agenda While the Senate has spent considerable time and hours on Mr. Menashi's nomination, one can't help but notice the fact that the majority leader seems to scrupulously avoid calling up votes on legislation that would help working Americans and working families. I hear from my Rhode Island constituents every day about countless pressing issues that the Senate should be debating and voting on. We could be considering an infrastructure bill that would provide robust investment to enable the rebuilding of our crumbling roads, bridges, schools, and other critical infrastructure. We could be working to increase Pell grants and lower the cost of college. I think every Member of this body would agree that another vital issue that we hear often from our constituents about is the need to address skyrocketing prescription drug costs. According to Families USA, nearly 3 in 10 American adults--nearly 80 million people--have not taken required medicine due to its costs. In fact, addressing prescription drug costs alone would go a long way toward bringing down healthcare costs overall. There are dozens of proposals from Senators on both sides of the aisle that would help to address this issue. Yet Republican leadership has refused to allow any debate on prescription drug prices or on healthcare costs more broadly this year. Something I, and many of my colleagues, have proposed numerous times would be to require Medicare to negotiate drug prices with the drug companies to ensure seniors and taxpayers get the best price. The Department of Veterans Affairs already does this. While there is no silver bullet in solving rising drug costs, this would be a commonsense first step in the right direction. There are also more than 250 bills passed by the House that Majority Leader McConnell refuses to bring up and that have been left in the legislative graveyard. Let me repeat that. More than 250 bills are awaiting action here in the Senate. The House is doing its part to look out for the people's business, and the Senate should follow suit. These include the Enhanced Background Checks Act, which would expand the national firearms background check system to include virtually all gun transfers, and block the illegal sales that currently happen through gun shows and private transfers. They include the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which is the primary law to provide services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. They include the American Dream and Promise Act, which would provide a pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients, TPS holders, and those with DED. That's Deferred Enforced Departure. Furthermore, Republicans continue to block Democratic-led efforts to pass commonsense election security legislation. This is despite warning after warning from our intelligence and national security agencies that Russia undertook an unprecedented effort to interfere in our 2016 elections and that the Russians are actively working to do it again in 2020. Instead of elevating someone with an extreme record like Mr. Menashi to one of the highest courts in the land, we should be debating and voting on legislation that will protect healthcare, expand educational opportunity, secure our elections, fully fund the census, and prevent gun and domestic violence--in addition to many, many other important priorities. The majority has refused to allow the Senate to vote on and address the pressing issues that Americans care about. And this body is failing to get its appropriations work done on time. So I urge the majority leader to end this partisan paralysis and let the Senate get to work on issues that can improve the lives of Rhode Islanders and all Americans. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I was unavoidably absent for the vote this evening due to a delayed flight. Had I been present, I would have voted no on cloture on the nomination of Executive Calendar No. 87, Chad F. Wolf to be Under Secretary for Strategy, Policy, and Plans, Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, along with Senator Collins, I am reintroducing legislation that would eliminate the sunset date for the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (the Council) so that this agency can further build upon its success in helping to prevent and end homelessness. The Council was launched under the Reagan Administration as part of the landmark McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987. Since then, it has worked across the Federal government and private sector to coordinate homeless assistance nationally. In 2009, the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing, or HEARTH Act, which I introduced along with Senator Collins and others, expanded the Council's role to work with stakeholders to develop a national strategic plan to end homelessness, which has guided its work to develop effective strategies to prevent and end homelessness. Since 2010 when this national strategic plan was first developed, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) reports that overall homelessness has decreased by 13%, chronic homelessness by 16%, and family homelessness by 25%. In addition, we have seen veterans' homelessness drop by 49%. This progress is not only a result of the more than $600 million federal investment in housing and supportive services through programs like HUD-VASH, but is also because of the direction the Council provides to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and HUD, as well as public housing agencies administering assistance at the local level. Specifically, the Council helps diverse partners align their resources, efforts, goals, and measures of success for serving homeless veterans. According to the Council, it ``has led a process to confirm that 78 communities and 3 entire states have effectively ended Veteran homelessness. 35 states now have at least one community that has ended Veteran homelessness. Some recent confirmations include: Abilene, Texas, Lexington, Kentucky, Little Rock, Arkansas, Poplar Bluff, Missouri, and the 71 counties in Mississippi that make up the Mississippi Balance of State Continuum of Care.'' In order to further these efforts and also tackle veterans' homelessness on the front end, the Senate's fiscal year 2020 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies (THUD) Appropriations bill includes language I authored directing the Council to improve the coordination between the Department of Defense, the VA, the Department of Labor, and HUD in order to prevent servicemembers from being discharged into homelessness. In addition to addressing homelessness in our communities, the Council has also helped to save money. We know that people experiencing homelessness are more likely to use expensive health care services and spend more time in incarceration--which are extremely costly to taxpayers, States, and local governments. According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, ``based on 22 different studies from across the nation providing permanent supportive housing to chronically homeless people creates net savings of $4,800 per person per year, through reduced spending on jails, hospitals, shelters, and other emergency services.'' The Council has extended these estimated savings by identifying and tailoring cost-effective solutions that reduce the use of health care services, as well as recidivism, for individuals experiencing chronic homelessness. In fiscal year 2019 alone, the Council's modest $3.6 million budget catalyzed more than $6 billion in combined Federal resources that aim to address homelessness. The Council develops national strategies that inform the work and improve the cost- effectiveness of programs administered by 19 Federal agencies, and as a result, communities and States are able to utilize housing, health, education, and labor funding more strategically and effectively. In our current budgetary environment we must have a wise and creative arm that helps our communities maximize resources and opportunities where possible, ensuring we are actually addressing homelessness, and not contributing to it. The Council is proof that the government can work and save money in the process, and our bipartisan legislation ensures that the Council's doors remain open until there truly is an end to homelessness nationwide. I thank the National Alliance to End Homelessness, the Rhode Island Coalition for the Homeless, HousingWorksRI, Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, A Way Home America, Community Solutions International, the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, Funders Together to End Homelessness, True Colors United, the Children's Defense Fund, the National Housing Trust, the National Health Care for the Homeless Council, the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, National Alliance on Mental Illness, Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Housing Task Force, the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association, LeadingAge, Heartland Alliance, National Housing Conference, the National AIDS Housing Coalition, Covenant House International, the Forum for Youth Investment, the Housing Assistance Council, Volunteers of America, the Corporation for Supportive Housing, the Technical Assistance Collaborative, and the National Coalition for the Homeless for their support. I urge our colleagues to join Senator Collins and me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, along with Senator Collins, I am reintroducing legislation that would eliminate the sunset date for the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (the Council) so that this agency can further build upon its success in helping to prevent and end homelessness. The Council was launched under the Reagan Administration as part of the landmark McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987. Since then, it has worked across the Federal government and private sector to coordinate homeless assistance nationally. In 2009, the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing, or HEARTH Act, which I introduced along with Senator Collins and others, expanded the Council's role to work with stakeholders to develop a national strategic plan to end homelessness, which has guided its work to develop effective strategies to prevent and end homelessness. Since 2010 when this national strategic plan was first developed, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) reports that overall homelessness has decreased by 13%, chronic homelessness by 16%, and family homelessness by 25%. In addition, we have seen veterans' homelessness drop by 49%. This progress is not only a result of the more than $600 million federal investment in housing and supportive services through programs like HUD-VASH, but is also because of the direction the Council provides to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and HUD, as well as public housing agencies administering assistance at the local level. Specifically, the Council helps diverse partners align their resources, efforts, goals, and measures of success for serving homeless veterans. According to the Council, it ``has led a process to confirm that 78 communities and 3 entire states have effectively ended Veteran homelessness. 35 states now have at least one community that has ended Veteran homelessness. Some recent confirmations include: Abilene, Texas, Lexington, Kentucky, Little Rock, Arkansas, Poplar Bluff, Missouri, and the 71 counties in Mississippi that make up the Mississippi Balance of State Continuum of Care.'' In order to further these efforts and also tackle veterans' homelessness on the front end, the Senate's fiscal year 2020 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies (THUD) Appropriations bill includes language I authored directing the Council to improve the coordination between the Department of Defense, the VA, the Department of Labor, and HUD in order to prevent servicemembers from being discharged into homelessness. In addition to addressing homelessness in our communities, the Council has also helped to save money. We know that people experiencing homelessness are more likely to use expensive health care services and spend more time in incarceration--which are extremely costly to taxpayers, States, and local governments. According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, ``based on 22 different studies from across the nation providing permanent supportive housing to chronically homeless people creates net savings of $4,800 per person per year, through reduced spending on jails, hospitals, shelters, and other emergency services.'' The Council has extended these estimated savings by identifying and tailoring cost-effective solutions that reduce the use of health care services, as well as recidivism, for individuals experiencing chronic homelessness. In fiscal year 2019 alone, the Council's modest $3.6 million budget catalyzed more than $6 billion in combined Federal resources that aim to address homelessness. The Council develops national strategies that inform the work and improve the cost- effectiveness of programs administered by 19 Federal agencies, and as a result, communities and States are able to utilize housing, health, education, and labor funding more strategically and effectively. In our current budgetary environment we must have a wise and creative arm that helps our communities maximize resources and opportunities where possible, ensuring we are actually addressing homelessness, and not contributing to it. The Council is proof that the government can work and save money in the process, and our bipartisan legislation ensures that the Council's doors remain open until there truly is an end to homelessness nationwide. I thank the National Alliance to End Homelessness, the Rhode Island Coalition for the Homeless, HousingWorksRI, Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, A Way Home America, Community Solutions International, the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, Funders Together to End Homelessness, True Colors United, the Children's Defense Fund, the National Housing Trust, the National Health Care for the Homeless Council, the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, National Alliance on Mental Illness, Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Housing Task Force, the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association, LeadingAge, Heartland Alliance, National Housing Conference, the National AIDS Housing Coalition, Covenant House International, the Forum for Youth Investment, the Housing Assistance Council, Volunteers of America, the Corporation for Supportive Housing, the Technical Assistance Collaborative, and the National Coalition for the Homeless for their support. I urge our colleagues to join Senator Collins and me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the Jones amendment No. 1141, cosponsored by Senator McSally of Arizona. I want to thank the Senator from Alabama for filing this important amendment to preserve transit funding at the levels authorized by Congress under the FAST Act. Without this amendment, transit agencies across the country will face a 12-percent cut. A cut of this magnitude would be devastating, particularly for smaller agencies that rely on Federal funding to meet their annual operating expenses and to carry out necessary maintenance. Without this funding, communities would be forced to scale back capital projects and bus acquisitions, and reduce services, eliminating a major mobility option for many of our constituents, including seniors and persons with disabilities. At a time when the transit industry faces a $90 billion state of good repair backlog, we should be increasing transit investments in order to preserve these critical transportation systems. These cuts would reverse the progress we have made over the last 2 years due to the budget agreement that allowed for desperately needed investments in infrastructure. We must prevent any degradation of funding for our transit systems and instead help these agencies modernize their fleets. This amendment is supported by over 63 associations, including the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the list of the supporting organizations be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask that my colleagues join me and Senator Collins in supporting this amendment. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the staff members who actually made this Transportation, Housing and Urban Development-- T-HUD--bill possible. They did extraordinary work. We all recognize that it is their efforts that make these difficult and complicated legislative initiatives possible. On the majority staff, I thank Clare Doherty, Jason Woolwine, Rajat Mathur, Gus Maples, Courtney Young, and LaShawnda Smith. On my staff, I particularly want to thank Dabney Hegg, Christina Monroe, Jessi Axe, and Elisabeth Coats. I think I speak for all of my colleagues when I salute all the staff members who make this legislation possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, today I would like to address my colleagues to discuss one of the latest attempts from the Trump administration to undermine and sabotage the Affordable Care Act. This week, the Senate will vote on a Congressional Resolution of Disapproval--CRA--on a Trump administration final rule that gives States broad latitude to ignore the consumer protections of the Affordable Care Act. The rule essentially gives patients in those States the choice between health insurance that doesn't provide coverage when it is needed the most--so-called junk plans--or being priced out of the health insurance market entirely. As we have already seen, Republican lawmakers in some States are more than eager to dismantle the protections of the Affordable Care Act and bring back the days of insurance companies being in charge, putting profits above the health of consumers in those States. In fact, about 20 such States have gone a step further by moving forward a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the ACA in its entirety. This is not a theoretical threat to our healthcare system. Over the next year, we will see a final ruling on this lawsuit, and a ruling in favor of these States will be nothing short of catastrophic. Not only will this upend the healthcare system as we know it in those States, this ruling would apply to every State, even those like my home State of Rhode Island, which has done an outstanding job of implementing the ACA, expanding coverage, and making healthcare more affordable for all. The Affordable Care Act has given individuals and families more choice, more affordable options, and more control over their healthcare. With these new options for health coverage, the uninsured rate in Rhode Island has reached historic lows, hovering around 4 percent. Today, because the ACA is the law of the land, insurance companies can no longer deny you coverage for preexisting conditions or put an annual lifetime cap on how much they will pay for your care. Because of the ACA, young adults can stay on their parents' plans until they turn 26 years of age, and women cannot be charged more based on their gender. Also, under the ACA, basic healthcare services like maternity care and behavioral and mental healthcare must be covered. The ACA has helped keep costs down by requiring insurance companies to provide preventive care at no charge so that the small things do not turn into bigger, expensive medical problems, like surgery. Yet President Trump continues to put all of this progress at risk. The rule that we are voting to invalidate this week is just one such example. In his first year in office, President Trump failed to pass his bill to repeal the ACA when he had Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate. Despite widespread opposition to these efforts, the administration has since moved forward with its sabotage strategy in the absence of a legislative win. President Trump ended Federal funding for a key ACA program which helps keep plans more affordable for those in the private market by covering some costs for patients with the most expensive medical conditions. Next, the administration put forth new rules which allowed more junk plans, plans which can charge more for preexisting conditions and that can refuse to cover needed health services. Now, the rule subject to this week's vote goes one step further in allowing States to expand these partisan attempts to weaken the ACA, increase costs on consumers, and increase the uninsured rate. If this was not enough, a single court case, championed by partisans looking for a political win, could overturn ACA as soon as next year. If President Trump's strategy succeeds, many Americans will suffer. Preexisting condition protections will go away, and over 50 million Americans with preexisting medical conditions will go back to being priced out of coverage. The Medicaid expansion that helps States cover more than 12 million Americans will also go away. Young adults will be kicked off their parents' insurance. Women could be charged more, as would older Americans. People will lose access to mental healthcare, and prescription drug costs for seniors will go up. In Rhode Island, it is estimated that approximately 100,000 people could lose coverage if President Trump's lawyers convince the courts to cut down the ACA. The State will lose hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal funding for healthcare, all to satisfy President Trump's and congressional Republicans' desire for a political win at the expense of the American people. We cannot afford to go back to the days when insurance companies were in control. We cannot wait until the Trump administration and Congressional Republicans come up with a plan. The ACA was signed into law almost 10 years ago and still its opponents have no alternatives. Americans with preexisting conditions, those who are fighting illnesses, parents with children with complex medical needs, young people who need coverage while they explore new career opportunities, these people--our constituents, our neighbors, our families--do not have the time to wait for Republicans to come up with a solution for a problem they, themselves, are creating. We should instead be spending our time working on solutions to today's problems. There are pressing issues that Congress should be spending time addressing to improve health in this country. Prescription drug costs continue to skyrocket. In fact, addressing prescription drug costs alone would go a long way towards bringing down healthcare costs overall; yet, if the ACA goes away, this will be for naught. It won't matter if the drug companies are required to negotiate fair prices for drugs and are prevented from gouging customers. Without affordable health insurance, consumers will continue to be priced out of lifesaving drugs and treatment. Further, without the ACA, requirements that plans must cover prescription drugs would go away. Indeed, before the ACA, many plans did not cover needed prescription drugs, leaving patients to pay entirely out of pocket for lifesaving treatments and interventions that prevent more expensive conditions down the road. Congress has made significant bipartisan progress over the last couple of years on the opioid epidemic, providing considerable funding to States to help people access treatment to get on the path to recovery. However, one of most effective interventions in the epidemic has been the ACA's Medicaid expansion, helping those with substance abuse disorders get treatment and get back on their feet. Without the ACA, the bipartisan laws Congress has passed in response to the opioid epidemic will be nowhere near enough in both effort and funding to successfully combat this crisis. We have also seen new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showing growing rates of suicide in this country, especially among young people--nothing short of an epidemic. I have been working with my colleagues across the aisle, such as Senator Kennedy from Louisiana, to increase funding for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, and with Senator Gardner to make the Lifeline more accessible. This is important work. We need to ensure that, when someone courageously reaches out to get help in a time of crisis, that we are able to connect them with affordable mental healthcare for the long term. Without the ACA, that care may be out of reach. There is certainly more we can be doing to increase access to healthcare, and I have been working with my colleagues to do just that. However, allowing the administration to continue its efforts to destroy the ACA not only undermines healthcare for the most vulnerable Americans, but also all of our bipartisan work on critical healthcare issues such as lowering drug costs. The American people--my constituents and yours--expect better. I implore my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stand up to this administration's reckless plans to upend our healthcare system and work with us to improve our healthcare system instead. Madam President, before I conclude my remarks, I would like to make some comments on the death of my dear colleague Senator Kay Hagan, and I would ask unanimous consent that these remarks be placed in the appropriate section of the Congressional Record in which other tributes of Senator Hagan are placed.

Mr. REED. Madam President, Kay Hagan was an extraordinary individual, a great Senator from the State of North Carolina, and a great person. I had the opportunity to express my thoughts to her husband Chip, whom I talked with yesterday. We will all miss her advocacy, her spirit, her support of military families, small businesses, students, and Americans everywhere, particularly in her home State of North Carolina. I had the pleasure of serving with her in this body and the Armed Services and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committees, and we traveled together to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan in 2010. All of us here in the Senate are saddened by this loss, and we send all of our thoughts to Chip and her family. I must share a vivid memory. Senator Hagan and I were in Afghanistan, and, again, this dauntless, courageous Senator--we were together on a moonrise infantry patrol, moving from a forward operating base far away from Kabul, far away from the center of our activities in a remote corner of Afghanistan. We were moving from the base to a meeting with local Afghan fighters. As we rolled down this dusty road, I looked over and pointed and said, ``Kay, see all those beautiful red flowers?'' She said, ``Yes, they are very attractive. What are they?'' I said, ``Well, they are opium poppies.'' You see, we were in the middle of a battle in which we had to support our Afghan allies but at the same time not alienate the Afghan population. It was one of the complex issues involved in that struggle. She understood that. But she understood also the sacrifice and service of the men and women who were there that day with us in the middle of a combat zone, and she fought for them relentlessly. Many of them were constituents from Fort Bragg, NC, from Camp Lejeune, from other places around that State. She had a deep and abiding influence in that, and she was not afraid to go forth to dangerous places to see what they were sharing in terms of danger and deprivation. She was an extraordinary woman--such decency, such care, such compassion, such humanity. I deeply, deeply mourn her passing. To Chip and all of her family, my sincerest condolences on the passing of an extraordinary woman who graced this Chamber with decency and dignity, and I know--I know--her example of courage, strength, and love will continue to sustain and inspire her family and those of us who were privileged enough to serve with her. May she rest in peace. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I was unavoidably absent for two votes this evening due to a flight delay. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on amendment 961 and nay on amendment 1019.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Today, I am joined by Senator Van Hollen in reintroducing the Consumer Credit Control Act, which gives consumers greater control over when and how their consumer reports are shared by consumer reporting agencies. Our current consumer reporting system is backwards. Consumer reporting agencies collect extensive amounts of personal information on consumers, often without their knowledge, in order to compile consumer reports. These reports are then shared with financial institutions and others, typically without consent. Following Equifax's failure in 2017 to secure troves of valuable personally identifiable information it collected on over 145 million Americans, it was evident that this system had to change. Indeed, the National Consumer Law Center's Chi Chi Wu stated in her October 2017 testimony before the House Financial Services Committee that the Equifax breach ``means half of the US population and nearly three- quarters of the consumers with active credit reports are now at risk of identity theft due to one of the worst--if not the worst--breaches of consumer data in American history. These Americans are at risk of having false new credit accounts. phony tax returns, and even spurious medical bills incurred in their good names.'' To make matters worse. the risks of identity fraud may not dissipate over time. As Ed Mierzwinski. U.S. PIRG's federal Consumer Program Director. explains ``unlike credit card numbers. your Social Security Number and Date of Birth don't change and may even grow more valuable over time, like gold in a bank vault. Much worse, they are the keys to ``new account identity theft.' '' The Consumer Credit Control Act attempts to address these concerns and fix the current upside down system. Our legislation, at no cost to the consumer, seeks to give Americans greater control over when and how their consumer reports are released when applying for new credit, a loan, or insurance. It also would require consumer reporting agencies to verify a consumer's identity and secure the consumer's permission before releasing consumer reports in instances that are particularly vulnerable to identity theft and fraud. Additionally. our legislation compels every consumer reporting agency to take appropriate steps to prevent unauthorized access to the consumer reports and personal information they maintain. These changes are designed to make it tougher for criminals to fraudulently open new credit or insurance accounts in other peoples names. I urge our colleagues to cosponsor this commonsense legislative effort, and I thank Senator Van Hollen, the National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income clients), U.S. PIRG, Americans for Financial Reform, the Center for Digital Democracy, Consumer Action, the Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Reports, Demos, the NAACP, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Fair Housing Alliance, Public Citizen, Tennessee Citizen Action, and the Woodstock Institute for their support.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Today, I am joined by Senator Van Hollen in reintroducing the Consumer Credit Control Act, which gives consumers greater control over when and how their consumer reports are shared by consumer reporting agencies. Our current consumer reporting system is backwards. Consumer reporting agencies collect extensive amounts of personal information on consumers, often without their knowledge, in order to compile consumer reports. These reports are then shared with financial institutions and others, typically without consent. Following Equifax's failure in 2017 to secure troves of valuable personally identifiable information it collected on over 145 million Americans, it was evident that this system had to change. Indeed, the National Consumer Law Center's Chi Chi Wu stated in her October 2017 testimony before the House Financial Services Committee that the Equifax breach ``means half of the US population and nearly three- quarters of the consumers with active credit reports are now at risk of identity theft due to one of the worst--if not the worst--breaches of consumer data in American history. These Americans are at risk of having false new credit accounts. phony tax returns, and even spurious medical bills incurred in their good names.'' To make matters worse. the risks of identity fraud may not dissipate over time. As Ed Mierzwinski. U.S. PIRG's federal Consumer Program Director. explains ``unlike credit card numbers. your Social Security Number and Date of Birth don't change and may even grow more valuable over time, like gold in a bank vault. Much worse, they are the keys to ``new account identity theft.' '' The Consumer Credit Control Act attempts to address these concerns and fix the current upside down system. Our legislation, at no cost to the consumer, seeks to give Americans greater control over when and how their consumer reports are released when applying for new credit, a loan, or insurance. It also would require consumer reporting agencies to verify a consumer's identity and secure the consumer's permission before releasing consumer reports in instances that are particularly vulnerable to identity theft and fraud. Additionally. our legislation compels every consumer reporting agency to take appropriate steps to prevent unauthorized access to the consumer reports and personal information they maintain. These changes are designed to make it tougher for criminals to fraudulently open new credit or insurance accounts in other peoples names. I urge our colleagues to cosponsor this commonsense legislative effort, and I thank Senator Van Hollen, the National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income clients), U.S. PIRG, Americans for Financial Reform, the Center for Digital Democracy, Consumer Action, the Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Reports, Demos, the NAACP, the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Fair Housing Alliance, Public Citizen, Tennessee Citizen Action, and the Woodstock Institute for their support.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to highlight my concerns about ongoing Russian information warfare operations against the American people, including the upcoming 2020 Presidential elections, the lack of a unified strategy from the administration to counter and deter these attacks, and steps that must be taken in the near term to be better prepared in the future. I will explain how statements by the President soliciting foreign governments to investigate political rivals for his personal benefit are part of a disturbing pattern of behavior that reinforces Russian disinformation narratives and has implications for our national security and the integrity of our democracy. It has been almost 3 years since Russia interfered in our democracy during the 2016 Presidential election with hybrid warfare and malign influence operations. These hybrid warfare tactics, including information warfare, which I will focus on today, are not simply opportunistic meddling by Russia. Russia's purpose is to further its strategic interests. Russian President Vladimir Putin knows that, for now, Russia cannot effectively compete with the United States through conventional military means and win. Instead, Putin seeks to use tools from his hybrid warfare arsenal to divide the United States from our allies and partners in the West and weaken our institutions and open societies from within. By weakening our democracy, Putin can strengthen Russia's perceived standing globally and bolster his autocratic grip on power at home. Similar to the other tools in its hybrid arsenal, Russia has been developing its information warfare playbook over time, enhancing both the technical and psychological aspects of these information operations in capability, sophistication, and boldness. Lessons learned from previous information warfare campaigns culminated in the attacks the Kremlin unleashed against the United States during the 2016 Presidential election. The 2016 information warfare campaign, according to our intelligence community--in their words--``demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.'' Special Counsel Mueller's report on Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election confirmed these assessments and detailed how the Kremlin used information warfare operations, among other hybrid warfare tactics in--in the words of the Mueller report-- ``sweeping and systematic fashion.'' The recently released Volume 2 of the bipartisan investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee on Russian active measures campaigns and interference in the 2016 U.S. election affirms both the intelligence community's assessment from January 2017 and the special counsel's investigation. The committee--again, on a bipartisan basis--concluded that, in their words, ``Russia's targeting of the 2016 U.S. presidential election was part of a broader, sophisticated, and ongoing information warfare campaign. . . .'' From these assessments and reports, we have been able to reveal aspects of the Kremlin's playbook. In the 2018 midterm elections, the government took steps, in coordination with the social media companies, to disrupt Kremlin and Kremlin-linked information warfare operations. As a nation, we have never undertaken a collective examination, as we did after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, to understand what happened and how we should reorganize ourselves, our government, and our society to prevent it from ever happening again. To make matters worse, the findings of the special counsel's report, a detailed accounting of how Kremlin and Kremlin-linked actors attacked our democracy, have been obfuscated with a partisan spin by President Trump and his allies. This absence of a comprehensive nonpartisan assessment and the President's lack of seriousness has implications for our national security as we prepare for the 2020 elections. Equally troubling, the President has consciously or unconsciously embraced themes peddled as part of Russia's information warfare operations on the campaign trail, while serving as President, including comments over the summer that our elections are rigged and that there were illegal votes cast in so-called ``blue'' States. Not only does the President give the impression that he is unbothered by this interference of 2016, he appears to be openly asking for help in 2020 and willing to leverage the power of his office to get that assistance. You only have to look as far as his phone conversation with the Ukrainian President where he asked for a favor in return for the delivery of defensive weapons to counter Russian aggression or the President publicly inviting China to start an investigation into the Biden family moments after he discussed trade talks with Beijing and threatened that ``if they don't do what we want, we have tremendous power.'' He told the world as much in a June interview with ABC News when he said that he doesn't see anything wrong with taking help for his political campaign, including from a foreign adversary. He is broadcasting to the world that he is willing to throw the interests of the United States overboard if it means helping with his reelection prospects. These statements also have the intended or unintended effect of furthering Russian disinformation campaigns, including that our democracy is corrupt or fraudulent. These incidents and others I will discuss today are part of a troubling pattern of behavior and must be called out for what they are. They are wrong. The President's troubling behavior, coupled with his inability or unwillingness to lead an effective policy to counter and deter this type of malign foreign influence, is to the peril of our national security and the integrity of our democracy. We cannot allow this course to continue uncorrected. In order to further understand these dynamics and what to do to counter them, I will highlight three aspects of the Russian information warfare playbook that we can anticipate will be deployed in 2020. The first aspect is supporting candidates likely to advance Kremlin strategic interests; the second aspect is undermining the credibility of the elections; and the third aspect is the recruiting of local surrogates to wittingly or unwittingly advance the Kremlin's agenda. For each aspect, I will also explain how the Trump campaign, wittingly or not, embraced that tactic. I will then offer four recommendations for near-term steps to defend ourselves from foreign adversaries who seek to interfere with our fundamental institutions. A central objective of Russian election interference efforts is supporting candidates that advance Kremlin strategic interests. For the 2016 Presidential election, Russia assessed that a Trump Presidency would advance their interests, and Kremlin and Kremlin-linked actors deployed information warfare and malign influence campaigns to aid then-Candidate Trump. The intelligence community unanimously assessed in January 2017-- again in their words--``Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. Presidential election to denigrate Secretary Clinton and harm her electability and potential Presidency. Putin and the Russian government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.'' The recent report by the Senate Intelligence Committee--again, on a bipartisan basis--arrived at the even stronger conclusion that the Kremlin-linked troll organization's ``social media activity was overtly and almost invariably supportive of then candidate Trump, and to the detriment of Secretary Clinton's campaign.'' Similarly, the special counsel's report confirmed that Russian operations aimed to bolster their favored candidate, concluding that ``[t]he Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump Presidency and worked to secure that outcome.'' The report described in detail how Russia's two main information warfare operations--the manipulation of social media and the hacking and dissemination of stolen information--``favored Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.'' With regard to the manipulation of social media, the February 2018 indictment by the special counsel of the Kremlin-linked troll organization, commonly known as the Internet Research Agency, provided additional evidence of how operations aimed to bolster specific candidates. The indictment showed Kremlin-linked trolls were instructed to ``use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump--we support them).'' The other main Russian information warfare effort was carried out by the Russian military intelligence units, or GRU, which stole private information and disseminated it, including on social media, to damage Secretary Clinton. The Senate Intelligence Committee's recent report confirmed this tactic, assessing that ``information acquired by the committee from intelligence oversight, social media companies, the special counsel's investigative findings, and research by the commercial cyber security companies all reflect the Russian government's use of GRU to carry out another vector of attack on the 2016 election: the dissemination of hacked materials.'' One of the ways that the GRU was able to amplify its ability to disseminate the hacked material was by collaborating with WikiLeaks. The special counsel's report found that ``in order to expand its interference in the 2016 presidential election, the GRU units transferred many of the documents they stole from the [Democratic National Committee, or the] DNC, and the chairman of the Clinton campaign to WikiLeaks.'' It must be noted that the special counsel, as well as our intelligence community, have established that the organization WikiLeaks was not just acting as an unwitting stooge for the Russians. WikiLeaks had a role in the amplification of these information warfare operations. The special counsel's indictment from July of 2018 stated that GRU officers, posing as the fake persona Guccifer 2.0 ``discussed the release of the stolen documents and the timing of those releases'' with WikiLeaks ``to heighten their impact on the 2016 Presidential election.'' The special counsel's report further described how ``as reports attributing the DNC and DCCC hacks to the Russian Government emerged, WikiLeaks and [WikiLeaks founder Julian] Assange made several public statements designed to obscure the source of the materials that WikiLeaks was releasing.'' The weaponization of this information stolen by the GRU units through WikiLeaks was an important aspect of the Kremlin's support to then-Candidate Trump and heightened the impact of these operations against our elections. The special counsel's report detailed a third line of effort to advance Russia's preferred candidate. The information warfare campaigns were conducted in coordination with outreach to the Trump campaign from Kremlin and Kremlin-linked individuals. These overtures included ``offers of assistance to the [Trump] campaign.'' That is a quote from the special counsel's report. In contrast, the special counsel's office found no parallel efforts of assistance directed toward Secretary Clinton's Presidential campaign and, in fact, found the opposite. With regard to the manipulation of social media by Kremlin-linked trolls, the special counsel's report stated that ``by February 2016 internal [Internet Research Agency] documents referred to support for the Trump Campaign and opposition to candidate Clinton,'' and further states that ``throughout 2016 the [Internet Research Agency] accounts published an increasing number of materials supporting the Trump Campaign and opposing the Clinton Campaign.'' The special counsel's February 2018 indictment of the Internet Research Agency described additional efforts to oppose the Clinton campaign, including information warfare campaigns across social media platforms designed to peel off certain groups that are traditionally identified as reliable Democratic Party voters. The indictment stated: ``In or around the latter half of 2016, the [Internet Research Agency] began to encourage U.S. minority groups not to vote in the 2016 U.S. presidential election or to vote for a third party presidential candidate.'' The recent Senate Intelligence Committee report also affirmed this finding, concluding that no single group was targeted more than African Americans. Let me emphasize again that this Senate report was a bipartisan effort. President Putin all but confirmed support for the Trump campaign while standing next to the President in July of 2018 at the Helsinki Summit. When asked by the press if he wanted Trump to win the election and whether he directed any Kremlin officials to help with these efforts, Putin replied: ``Yes, I did, because he talked about bringing the U.S. Russia relationship back to normal.'' I think in this instance--and I think it is rare--we should take Putin's word for it. Equally disturbing, the special counsel provided significant evidence that President Trump and his associates embraced, encouraged, and applauded Russian support. The special counsel's report definitively concludes that Russia saw its interests as aligned with and served by a Trump Presidency, that the central purpose of the Russian interference operations was helping the Trump campaign, and that the Trump campaign anticipated benefiting from the fruits of that foreign election interference. The special counsel's report detailed evidence showing how Trump embraced Russian information warfare campaigns that sought to help him and damage his opponent. The evidence is overwhelming that the Trump campaign encouraged this interference in the Presidential campaign, even as it became increasingly apparent that Russia was behind these attacks on our democracy. One example of embracing Kremlin and Kremlin-linked help is Trump campaign associates, including the President's son-in-law and then- campaign chairman, meeting with Russian agents in the hopes of getting dirt on Secretary Clinton. The email to set up the meeting to Donald Trump, Jr., held the Kremlin's intentions plain as day. The offer was, and I quote, ``to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be useful to your father'' as ``part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump.'' Trump Junior embraced this offer and responded that, quote, ``if it's what you say, I love it.'' I think that response from the President's son speaks for itself. Yet another example of this behavior was the Trump campaign's promotion of WikiLeaks releases of information stolen by GRU. The special counsel's investigation showed that ``the Presidential campaign showed interest in the WikiLeaks releases of documents and welcomed their potential damage to candidate Clinton.'' On June 14, 2016, the Washington Post reported that ``Russian government hackers'' were behind the hacking of the DNC and DCCC. So it was likely that as of mid-June of 2016 the Trump campaign had a good idea that the stolen information distributed by WikiLeaks about the DNC was stolen by Russia. The Mueller report described that ``by the late summer of 2016, the Trump Campaign was planning a press strategy, a communications campaign and messaging based on the possible release of Clinton emails by WikiLeaks.'' By October 7, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement naming the WikiLeaks disclosures as ``consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts'' to influence public opinion and were ``intended to interfere with the U.S. election process.'' If not prior to the release of that joint statement, certainly by that point, the President's campaign should have known better. Instead, they appeared willing to embrace the Russian information warfare campaigns aimed at damaging their opponent. The special counsel's January indictment of longtime Trump associate Roger Stone further details how Trump associates sought information about WikiLeaks releases of stolen materials intended to damage Secretary Clinton. That indictment stated: ``A senior Trump campaign official was directed to contact Stone about any additional releases and . . . other damaging information [WikiLeaks] had regarding the Clinton campaign.'' That indictment also showed that on October 7, 2016--a half-hour after the joint statement by DHS and ODNI that WikiLeaks was part of Russia's operation to interfere with U.S. Presidential elections--WikiLeaks disseminated the first set of emails from Clinton chairman John Podesta. In response to those releases, ``an associate of the high-ranking Trump campaign official sent a text message to Stone that read `well done.' '' Trump campaign associates applauded the actions by WikiLeaks, which Trump's then-CIA Director later labeled ``a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia.'' Instead of calling the FBI, the campaign celebrated. In the last month of the campaign alone, the President publicly boasted of his love of WikiLeaks at least 124 times. Embracing WikiLeaks is not the only example of the President's problematic embrace of Russian information warfare operations. The President appears to have welcomed the GRU's hacking operation and its intention to damage his opponent's candidacy. On July 27, 2016, Trump announced publicly during a press conference: Russia, if you are listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will be rewarded mightily by our press. The special counsel's report confirmed that the GRU tried to assist Trump with those efforts, finding that ``within approximately five hours of Trump's statement, GRU officers targeted for the first time Clinton's personal office.'' This call for Russia to hack his political opponent and find her so- called deleted emails was not an isolated remark or sarcasm, as the President likes to say. The special counsel's report detailed that during the same period: Trump asked individuals affiliated with his campaign to find the deleted emails. Michael Flynn . . . recalled that Trump made this request repeatedly and Flynn subsequently contacted multiple people in an effort to obtain the emails. Further, as described in the special counsel's report, one of the people General Flynn contacted to obtain Secretary Clinton's alleged deleted emails claimed that he had organized meetings with parties whom he believed ``had ties and affiliations with Russia,'' though the special counsel's investigation was not able to establish that Flynn's contacts interacted with Kremlin-linked hackers. As Brookings Institution senior fellow Benjamin Wittes laid out in April, Trump ``not only called publicly on the Russians to deliver the dirt on his opponent but he also privately ordered his campaign to seek the material out . . . knowing . . . that Russia would or might be the source.'' As I mentioned earlier, the special counsel was not able to find sufficient evidence to prove that the Trump campaign's embracing of Kremlin or Kremlin-linked operations constituted a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, but, clearly, the special counsel established a breadth of episodes where Trump embraced Russian operations in support of the campaign. Maybe those acts don't meet a criminal standard, but there are significant implications for this behavior. For instance, is it OK for a candidate to get elected President or elected to any public office by capitalizing on information stolen by a foreign adversary? Will that be acceptable the next time around? Will foreign campaigns targeting our elections be accepted as normal from now on? The actions of President Trump indicate, unfortunately, that it is acceptable and even welcome, and that is to the detriment of our national security and the integrity of our democracy. I would like now to highlight a second aspect of the Kremlin's playbook, operations to denigrate the legitimacy of U.S. elections and democratic processes in general. The January 2017 intelligence community assessment found that one of the main objectives of the Kremlin-ordered election interference campaign was to undermine the American public's faith in our electoral system. The intelligence community's assessed in January 2017: ``When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the presidency, the Russian influence campaign focused more on undercutting Secretary Clinton's legitimacy . . . including by impugning the fairness of the election.'' The intelligence community's assessment further stated that ``Pro- Kremlin bloggers had prepared a Twitter campaign, #DemocracyRIP, on election night in anticipation of Secretary Clinton's victory.'' The special counsel's work confirmed the intelligence community's assessment. The Mueller report showed significant evidence of how the Kremlin-linked troll organization the Internet Research Agency deployed information operations around the theme that the election was rigged, fraudulent, or otherwise corrupt. The special counsel's indictment of Internet Research Agency officials from February 2018 stated: ``Starting in or around the summer of 2016, [the Kremlin-linked troll organization] also began to promote allegations of voter fraud by the Democratic Party through their fictitious U.S. personas and groups on social media.'' The Kremlin-linked troll organization purchased advertisements on Facebook to further promote allegations of vote rigging, including ads promoting a Facebook post that charged ``Hillary Clinton has already committed voter fraud during the Democratic Iowa Caucus.'' Other examples include posts that voter fraud allegations were being investigated in North Carolina on the Internet Research Agency's fraudulent Twitter account @TEN_GOP, which claimed to be the Tennessee Republican Party. Just days before the election, the agency used the same fraudulent Twitter handle to push the message ``#VoterFraud by counting tens of thousands of ineligible mail in Hillary votes being reported in Broward County, Florida.'' Consciously or unconsciously, President Trump also embraced this tactic from the Russian information warfare playbook and ran with it. According to a New York Times compilation, Trump tweeted at least 28 times during the 2016 Presidential campaign that the election, the electoral process, or certain early voting procedures were rigged, fraudulent, and corrupt. Let me give you a few examples. On August 1, 2016, Trump told a rally in Ohio: ``I'm afraid the election is going to be rigged, I have to be honest.'' On September 6, 2016, he stated: ``The only way I can lose in my opinion . . . is if cheating goes on . . . go down to certain areas and study [to] make sure that other people don't come in and vote five times.'' Multiple press reports indicate that Trump's campaign website invited supporters to serve as ``Trump election observers'' to help him ``stop crooked Hilary from rigging the election.'' At the final debate on October 19, 2016, Trump indicated he would not necessarily accept the results of the election, instead saying he would ``look at it at that time,'' alleging ``millions of people'' on the voter rolls ``shouldn't be registered to vote.'' At an Ohio rally the next day, Trump alleged that Secretary Clinton ``is a candidate who is truly capable of anything, including voter fraud.'' On October 21, 2016, Trump told a rally in Pennsylvania: Remember, folks, it is a rigged system. That's why you've got to get out and vote. You've got to watch. Because this system is totally rigged. In these instances and others, Trump furthered the Kremlin's disinformation campaign by embracing and promoting the themes that our democratic system was rigged. As New Yorker journalist Jonathan Blitzer observed at that time, ``Trump has taken . . . [the voter fraud] concept to the extreme: trying to delegitimize a national election even while campaigning for the presidency.'' It is wildly irresponsible to push conspiracy theories that threaten the integrity of our democratic system without any evidence. It is wrong when a candidate for President pushes conspiracy theories that advance a central theme of the Russian information warfare campaign that our electoral system is ``rigged'' and aids key strategic objectives of the Kremlin. These tactics also undermine the American public's faith in our electoral system and strengthen Putin's position in the strategic competition between the United States and Russia. It is unpatriotic and cannot be accepted as part of our democracy and open society. The mere idea that our entire election system would be attacked by the Russians to delegitimize it, and then to have those efforts echoed by the President does a huge disservice to the American public. If the American public does not have faith in the integrity of our electoral system, then we have profoundly lost a fundamental principle of our government that thousands of Americans have defended over years and years of effort. Our elections have to be protected. They can't be denigrated. The denigration that we saw was outrageous. These two aspects of the Kremlin's playbook are supported by a third aspect--the recruitment and exploitation of local surrogates. This process was described in an amicus brief from December 2017 filed against President Trump by former national security officials, including Director of National Intelligence Clapper, CIA and NSA Director Hayden, CIA Director Brennan, and Acting CIA Director Morell. The brief stated: The Russian Government continues to use local actors in a number of ways, [including] to get closer to a target (especially one who would be hesitant to offer assistance to Russian operatives directly), or manipulate a target to suit their needs. They use these agents to probe individual targets to see if they might be open to relationships or blackmail. And they recruit individuals within a country to help them understand how to appeal to U.S. populations and target and shape the contours of disinformation campaigns. The recent Senate Intelligence Committee report affirmed these tactics, explaining: ``Russian backed trolls pushing disinformation have also sought to connect with and potentially coopt individuals to take action in the real world.'' The special counsel's report described how the Kremlin and Kremlin- linked actors deployed these tactics in the United States to interfere in the 2016 election, including: As early as 2014, the [Internet Research Agency] instructed its employees to target U.S. persons to advance its operational goals. Initially, recruitment focused on U.S. persons who could amplify content posted by the [Internet Research Agency]. However, the activities that the Kremlin-troll agency, wittingly or unwittingly, used Americans for grew over time to include assistance with organizing pro-Trump rallies and demonstrations. The special counsel's related indictment of the Internet Research Agency officials stated that by late August 2016, the Internet Research Agency had an internal list ``of over 100 real U.S. persons contacted through [Internet Research Agency]-controlled false U.S. persona accounts and tracked to monitor recruitment efforts and requests.'' These efforts to exploit local surrogates included two different types of interactions with the Trump campaign according to the special counsel--reposting Kremlin-linked troll content from social media and requests for assistance with organizing political rallies. This aspect of the Kremlin playbook--recruitment and exploitation of local surrogates--was also embraced, consciously or unconsciously, by the President and his inner circle. The special counsel's report detailed how Trump's family and campaign associates retweeted Kremlin- linked troll organization posts, amplifying a foreign adversary's information warfare campaign against our Presidential election. The special counsel found: ``Posts from the [Internet Research Agency]- controlled Twitter account @TEN_GOP were cited or retweeted by multiple Trump campaign officials and surrogates, including Donald J. Trump Jr, Eric Trump, Kellyanne Conway, Brad Parscale, and Michael T. Flynn.'' The posts these campaign surrogates cited or retweeted included two other aspects of the information warfare campaign--accusations to damage Secretary Clinton's campaign and allegations of voter fraud. With regards to this aspect, as well, the special counsel did not conclude there was enough evidence to establish that the embrace and amplification of these information warfare operations was willful coordination by the Trump campaign amounting to a criminal conspiracy. It may well be that the President and the people around him didn't know that at @TEN_GOP wasn't the Tennessee Republican Party but was, in fact, Russian trolls thousands of miles away, fraudulently pumping disinformation into our system. However, it still shows a willingness to embrace for partisan advantage baseless, unsubstantiated allegations from unknown sources threatening the very fabric of our democracy-- claims we know now were ginned up by a foreign adversary. It may not be criminal, but it is incredibly reckless and wrong. It is not the standard of conduct we should demand from someone seeking political office and the public trust that goes with that office. Again, this is part of a troubling pattern of behavior by the President. Equally important, the election of a President who consciously or unconsciously embraces the tactics of foreign disinformation operations has implications for our national security and that of our allies and partners. As Benjamin Wittes from the Brookings Institution assessed, that the Internet Research Agency, a Kremlin-linked troll organization, ``was able to . . . get Trump figures--including Trump himself--to engage with and promote social-media content as part of a hostile power's covert efforts to influence the American electorate . . . shows a troubling degree of vulnerability on the part of the U.S. political system to outside influence campaigns. Now, unfortunately, we can anticipate that these aspects of the playbook will continue and escalate in sophistication and scale in 2020. The 2016 election was not just a one-off operation for the Kremlin. As then-Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats warned, Russia's malign activities ``are persistent, they are pervasive, and they are meant to undermine America's democracy.'' FBI Director Chris Wray also emphasized similar concerns during his spring speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, stating that the threat from Russian foreign malign influence ``is not just an election cycle threat; it's pretty much a 365-days-a-year threat.'' Director Wray further warned that ``our adversaries are going to keep adapting and upping their game.'' The intelligence community assessed in January 2017 that the campaign against us represented a ``new normal'' in Russian influence efforts in which ``Moscow will apply lessons learned from its campaign aimed at the U.S. presidential elections to future influence efforts in the U.S. and worldwide.'' The recent Senate Intelligence Committee's report concluded that information warfare attacks in 2016 ``represent only the latest installment in an increasingly brazen interference by the Kremlin on citizens and democratic institutions of the United States.'' And Director Mueller told the House Intelligence Committee in July that Russian interference ``wasn't a single attempt. They're doing it as we sit here.'' This interference has only increased in sophistication as the Russians used lessons learned from tactics developed in the Kremlin playbook in 2016. We saw Kremlin and Kremlin-linked actors deploy information warfare campaigns designed to advance their preferred candidates in the 2018 elections. An October 2018 Department of Justice indictment from the Eastern District of Virginia detailed information warfare operations in 2017 and 2018 by the Internet Research Agency leveraged to promote candidates aligned with President Trump and denigrate candidates opposed to him, including anti-Trump Republicans. These operations demonstrated a high level of precision and specificity in messaging for the Agency's employees to deploy, including references to relevant news articles and topical items of the day to optimally promote Russia's candidates and causes of choice. For example, the indictment cited how managers of the Internet Research Agency provided employees a news article titled ``Civil War if Trump Taken Down'' and instructed them to use their fraudulent personas to ``[n]ame those who oppose the President and those who impede his efforts to implement his preelection promises.'' One of the targets of these efforts was anti-Trump Republicans. The trolling instructions included detailed talking points to deploy over social media platforms, including ``focus on the fact that the Anti-Trump Republicans: a) drag their feet with regard to financing the construction of the border wall; b) are not lowering taxes; c) slander Trump and harm his reputation (bring up McCain); d) do not want to cancel ObamaCare; e) are not in a hurry to adopt laws that oppose the refugees coming from Middle Eastern countries entering this country.'' This information warfare operation was designed to support the President and detailed a sophisticated campaign deployed against an unwitting American public by trolls pretending to be fellow citizens. As national security journalist Natasha Bertrand wrote in The Atlantic about the 2018 information warfare campaigns detailed in the Eastern District's indictment, ``[t]he messaging strategy mimicked the overheated rhetoric . . . that [the Internet Research Agency] employed to considerable effect during the Presidential election. The partisan-- and at times hateful--comments so artfully mimicked the daily back and forth on social media that they seemed to be those of real Americans.'' She also observed how these messages supported the President, noting that ``[a]t times, the messaging copied President Trump's bombast almost verbatim'' and ``the echo chamber between Trump's election rhetoric and that of the Russian trolls was striking.'' And the Russian information operations were not limited only to supporting President Trump. The Eastern District of Virginia indictment also showed how the Kremlin-linked troll organization worked to advance Republican challengers of several congressional races through a fraudulent Twitter account called @CovfefeNationUS, which encouraged readers to contribute to a political action committee seeking to defeat incumbent Democratic Senators and Representatives in the 2018 midterm election. These operations demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of the American political system. We also saw evidence from the 2018 midterms of a second tactic from the Kremlin's playbook that I discussed earlier, attacking the legitimacy of the election, which is a fundamental attack on the democracy of this country--the ethic that holds us together. Here, too, the operation evolved in sophistication. In the same indictment, the Eastern District of Virginia described information warfare operations that worked to undermine the legitimacy of the U.S. election, with specific messages for its employees to disseminate. One example from the indictment was instructions for the Russian Internet Research Agency's employees to cite specific online articles on voter fraud. The Kremlin-linked trolls were told the state in deployed messages: Remind that the majority of ``blue States'' have no voter IDs, which suggests that large scale falsifications are bound to be happening there. . . . Democrats in the coming election will surely attempt to falsify the results. The indictment also detailed how these information warfare campaigns were deployed across multiple platforms, including being pushed out using multiple fraudulent Twitter accounts to reinforce and amplify their message. Finally, we saw the continuation of a third aspect of the Russian playbook, the recruitment of local surrogates to advance Kremlin interests with the 2018 election. As the Eastern Virginia's indictment states, between March 2016 and around July 2017, ``while concealing its true identity, location, and purpose, the [Kremlin-linked troll organization] used the false U.S. persona `Helen Christopherson' to contact individuals and groups in the United States to promote protests, rallies, and marches, including by funding advertising, flyers, and rallies and supplies.'' The indictment further details how the Kremlin-linked troll organization used a different fake persona ``while concealing its true identity, location, and purpose, to solicit at least one person presumed to be located in the United States to assist with . . . social media activities.'' These efforts to recruit surrogates included posting on and managing content on a fraudulent Facebook page created specially to further a Russian information warfare campaign. As we have been warned, these operations will continue to look more American, and the Kremlin and Kremlin-linked agents will continue to try to recruit people in the United States to advance Russia's hybrid operations. Many of the President's national security officials have warned that we could see heightened Russian information warfare attacks and other influence operations in the 2020 elections. Even before the 2018 midterm elections, Christopher Krebs, Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Director, warned: The midterm is . . . just the warm-up, or the exhibition game. . . . The big game, we think, for adversaries is probably 2020. FBI Director Wray echoed that assessment, stating this spring that the ``2018 elections were seen as a dress rehearsal for the big show in 2020`` and that the FBI anticipates the 2020 threat being even more challenging. Former Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee in late January: ``Moscow may employ additional influence toolkits--such as spreading disinformation, conducting hack-and-leak operations, or manipulating data--in a more targeted fashion to influence U.S. policy, actions, and elections.'' There are several examples which further demonstrate how these efforts have become more sophisticated and pervasive. In 2016, Russia disseminated what turned out to be authentic stolen information. However, just a few months later, during the French Presidential elections, Kremlin and Kremlin-linked actors disseminated a mix of real and fake information about Presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron in order to damage him and bolster their preferred candidate, Marine Le Pen. So next time foreign adversaries may use a mixture of real and fake information as part of their influence operations. We already saw a multi-country, multi-language information warfare campaign uncovered by the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab that made use of ``fake accounts, forged documents, and dozens of online platforms to spread stories that attacked western interests and unity.'' It may also be harder to discern what is real and what is fake because it is more likely to look like it is coming from regular Americans who are concerned about an issue. In February 2018, Russia expert Heather Conley warned in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Cybersecurity that Russian information warfare campaigns in 2018 and 2020 will adapt and ``look more American, [and] it will look less Russian.'' In addition, new technologies, including the use of artificial intelligence and deepfake recordings that seem real but are actually doctored or entirely fabricated, will add an additional layer of complexity and make it easier for us to fall for these operations. As then-Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee in late January, ``Adversaries and strategic competitors probably will attempt to use deep fakes or similar machine-learning technologies to create convincing but false image, audio, and video files to augment influence campaigns directed against the United States and our allies and partners.'' Despite these assessments by our senior national security officials and our intelligence community, the voluminous evidence in the special counsel's indictments and report, additional indictments from the Department of Justice, and bipartisan reports from the Senate Intelligence Committee, the President appears unwilling or unable to recognize the urgency of this national security threat or the need to immediately implement a comprehensive strategy to counter and deter Russian hybrid warfare. Instead of alerting Americans to the threat, the President continues to ignore the analysis of his own intelligence agencies. Instead of leading efforts to deter foreign adversaries, the President, with the whole world watching at the July 2019 G20 Osaka summit, treated election interference as a joke, signaling to Putin that he would not hold Russia accountable. This doesn't only apply to past Russian interference in the 2016 election. The President's blind spot when it comes to Russian election interference is harming our ability to counter future interference. The New York Times reported in April that former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was told not to bring up the issue with the President of expected Russian interference in the 2020 election. Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney said it ``wasn't a great subject and should be kept below [the President's] level.'' The President's unwillingness to accept Russian interference and his public statements inviting other countries to interfere in future elections have created real impediments to formulating a whole-of- government and a whole-of-society strategy to counter and deter Russia or others from attacking our elections. Despite almost 3 years having passed since the 2016 election, the White House has not led efforts to develop a comprehensive strategy to counter foreign election interference. While, as I mentioned, individual U.S. Departments and agencies took steps to disrupt Russia in the 2018 midterm elections, no wholesale strategy to deter and counter these operations appears to have been implemented for 2020. Don't just take my word for it. Then-European Commander General Curtis Scaparrotti, who was on the frontlines in deterring Russia, testified this spring to the Senate Committee on Armed Services that U.S. efforts to counter Russian influence operations still lacked ``effective unification across the interagency.'' Equally troubling was his assessment that the United States has yet to develop ``a multifaceted strategy to counter Russia.'' When FBI Director Christopher Wray testified in May before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, he could not identify a lead person who was designated to coordinate these efforts. This is despite a provision included in the fiscal year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act requiring the President to designate an NSC official to be in charge of coordinating the U.S. Government response to malign foreign influence operations. To date, no such coordinator has been named. Moreover, the cybersecurity coordinator at the NSC was dismissed over a year and a half ago, and that position remains unfilled. So, at the highest levels, we don't have anyone in charge. What additional steps can we take right now to protect the American people against interference campaigns by the Russians and other foreign adversaries--campaigns we know are coming ahead of the 2020 elections? In the near term, I believe we must immediately adopt several measures that would provide additional tools to detect these information warfare operations and help reduce the American people's vulnerability to them. We have no time to waste. First, we must designate the Secretary of Homeland Security, with the concurrence of the Director of National Intelligence and the FBI Director, with the responsibility for increasing public vigilance and reassuring the American people about the legitimacy and validity of our elections. This group of senior officials should be organized to detect foreign interference in our political process and expose malign behavior, including on social media. In the run-up to the election, this group must issue monthly public reports--with a classified annex, if necessary--showing top trends in malign influence campaigns from countries identified as posing the greatest threats. They also must provide a public assessment as to whether these countries are engaged in interference in our election 90 days prior to election day and again 30 days out. Making such an assessment a requirement and including a delivery date will help inoculate these assessments from questions about political bias. Even after election day, we need to make sure this group is poised to affirm the legitimacy of the democratic process. No less than 3 days after the election, it must also make an assessment to the maximum extent possible as to whether foreign interference was detected. To further protect the group from accusations of political bias, the spot assessment could be backed up by a neutral, nonpartisan panel, which would review and certify the government's assessment in short order, such as within 2 weeks. These types of public assessments are not unprecedented. As I mentioned earlier, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security made an announcement about Russian influence operations ahead of the 2016 election. Ahead of the 2018 midterm elections, the Director of National Intelligence, the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security made a public statement about foreign influence, and the President issued an Executive order regarding election interference ahead of the 2018 midterm elections, which requires a 45-day report after the election that assesses attacks from foreign adversaries. Yet these sporadic statements are not enough to reassure the American people, and a report 45 days after the election is much too long to wait. The public must know that this group is going to keep us informed in real time and issue warnings regarding the threats. Much of this idea was endorsed as a recommendation in the recent bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee's report, which called for the executive branch to stand up a task force to continually monitor and assess the use of social media platforms by foreign countries for ``democratic interference'' that, among other things, would ``periodically advise Congress and the public on its findings.'' Second, we need a better understanding of how the Kremlin and other foreign adversaries are deploying disinformation and foreign influence operations across social media platforms. Right now, we are depending on social media companies to take down unauthentic accounts that are engaged in malign influence activities. These companies have stepped up their efforts to identify and counter these activities, which is something they failed to do in the 2016 election. Ultimately, they are for-profit enterprises, and the government's visibility on and understanding trends and indicators of foreign activity on these platforms is limited. We cannot solely rely on the social media companies to look after the public good and protect our national security. One way to increase transparency and help the American public understand the changing threat picture across social media platforms would be greater support for independent research, with the participation of the social media companies and independent third-party researchers, to compile information and analyze trends that are relevant to foreign information operations. Such research would allow trusted independent researchers and academics to gain insight into cross-platform trends and provide analysis of indicators of foreign influence activities to the public. This mechanism could also provide an important tool for informing our government's response to foreign influence and disinformation operations ahead of the 2020 elections. This concept also has bipartisan support from the Senate Intelligence Committee, which includes a similar recommendation in its recent report. We have proof that this concept works and is vital to national security. General Paul Nakasone, commander of U.S. Cyber Command, publicly testified to both the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committees that two analyses of Kremlin-linked influence operations across social media platforms done by independent researchers at the Senate Intelligence Committee's behest were, in his words, a very, very helpful window into the adversary's operations ahead of the 2018 midterms. As our adversaries continue to evolve and adopt their techniques, we need to redouble our efforts to understand what to expect in the next election. Third, we must reinforce the prohibition on candidates and campaigns that accept offers of help from foreign adversaries who interfere in our political process to advance their strategic interests. The Trump campaign's series of foreign contacts in the 2016 election and the President's continued statements to solicit and show his willingness to accept assistance from foreign governments make it clear that Congress must act to prevent future interference efforts. That is why I am a cosponsor of S. 1562, the Foreign Influence Reporting in Elections Act--or the FIRE Act--introduced by Senator Warner. The FIRE Act would require all campaign officials to report within 1 week to the Federal Election Commission any contacts with foreign nationals attempting to make campaign donations or otherwise collaborate with the campaign. The FEC would, in turn, have to notify the FBI within 1 week. It is in all of our interests to ensure that we can defend against foreign attacks on our democratic institutions, and reporting these kinds of contacts to the appropriate authorities is our first line of defense. I am disappointed that my Republican colleagues have blocked Senator Warner's attempt to pass the FIRE Act even after many of them insisted that politicians should report to the FBI any contacts or offers of help by a foreign government. Fourth, we should build upon the passage in the Senate of S. 1328, the Defending Elections against Trolls from Enemy Regimes Act. This bipartisan legislation by Senators Durbin and Graham was a step in the right direction by making improper interference in U.S. elections a violation of immigration law and violators both deportable and ineligible for visas to enter the United States. Additional targeted sanctions should be considered on Russia to deter future election interference with our allies and partners. These are some immediate steps we can take as the Russian playbook for the 2020 election crystallizes, but we can also see a familiar pattern beginning to emerge. This is not hypothetical. Just yesterday, Facebook announced it took down 50 accounts associated with the Internet Research Agency. I have spoken about it consistently throughout my comments this evening. Just yesterday, they took down 50 accounts. These Kremlin-linked trolls posed as real Americans, including from swing States. They deployed information operations on social media to praise President Trump and Senator Sanders and attack Vice President Biden and Senators Warren and Harris--repeating tactics from 2016 and 2018. Facebook's head of cyber security stated in conjunction with that announcement that we can guarantee ``bad guys are going to keep trying to do this.'' This is just one more confirmation that Russia is deploying aspects of the same playbook in 2020. This time, we know this information warfare campaign is coming. In fact, it has already begun. We need to build on what we have learned and what we anticipate coming next. We should be ensuring that we have structures in place to counter foreign election interference. Importantly, we must work together with private partners to expose more of these operations and continue to help the American people understand it. We can speak the truth about how Russia is exploiting our democracy and open society to deploy its malign influence playbook so the public is not caught unaware of these sophisticated foreign tactics and attempts to manipulate the social media environment. We also cannot continue to let these moments pass without speaking up about the tenets of our democracy and what it stands for. Russia exploited vulnerabilities in our society, and their tactics were encouraged and amplified by a candidate who was seeking the highest office in the land. That candidate, now President, appears to see no reason to change his behavior for the future and instead he has doubled down. Congress as a body and we as a country must speak out and say this is not acceptable. It is not acceptable for candidates for political office--any political office, those seeking to hold a position of public trust, to seek to engage with our adversaries or foreign authoritarian regimes to advance their political campaigns. It is not acceptable to meet with foreign agents about getting stolen information on your opponents, information acquired by foreign espionage. It is not acceptable to promote materials stolen by foreign adversaries. It is not acceptable to abuse the power of the Presidency to advance your personal political interests to the detriment of the country. It is not acceptable to promote propaganda and disinformation campaigns that work to delegitimize our democracy, a democracy that generations have fought and died to protect. This is a violation of the public trust that is inherent in any political office and which any candidate for public office must uphold to be worthy of the American people's support. It is critical that we unite in a bipartisan manner to take immediate action to counter these threats. The integrity of our electoral system is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. It is an American issue. As Abraham Lincoln said, ``America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.'' I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 3055, which includes the fiscal year 2020 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, or the T-HUD, Appropriations bill. I have worked closely with Chairman Collins, and I want to salute her for her excellent work and her leadership. This is a bipartisan bill, which includes key investments in transportation and housing infrastructure. It has not been an easy job, but Senator Collins' leadership and her thoughtful approach and our collaboration, I think, have helped us present a bill to the U.S. Senate which is more than worthy of support. While the budget agreement provided a 4 percent increase to our allocation, we actually have $1 billion less in spending power compared to 2019 due to declines in offsetting collections and increased costs for renewals in HUD's rental assistance program. Working together and with the input of most Senators, we were able to put together a solid bill that earned unanimous support in the committee. While we were challenged in developing this bipartisan bill, other subcommittees have faced an impossible task as the majority caters to the President's demands for a border wall and places no guardrails to prevent the diversion of defense funds to pay for it. This is the same issue that resulted in the President's 35-day shutdown of the Federal Government between December and January. I hope the President will heed the majority leader's axiom that ``there is no education in the second kick of a mule'' and avoid a rerun of this brinkmanship. The minibus package before us is a good start to a process that will hopefully deliver final bills to the President's desk before Thanksgiving. The T-HUD bill included in this package provides critical funding to repair our bridges, roads, and transit systems in order to improve the safety, reliability, and efficiency of our transportation networks. These investments will support economic growth, create jobs, and help to address our deferred maintenance backlog across all transportation sectors. It rejects the President's proposal to cut Amtrak funding in half and phase out long-distance passenger service. Instead, we provide $2 billion for Amtrak, which will allow it to initiate the Northeast corridor fleet replacement, deploy additional safety technology, and invest in bridge and tunnel replacement projects. The T-HUD bill also prioritizes funding for aviation safety in order to strengthen the safety inspector workforce and enable the Department of Transportation and the FAA to address identified weaknesses in aircraft certification process. Chairman Collins and I have consistently worked to support FAA's safety mission, often exceeding the budget request each year to accomplish that. We have been disturbed by many of the official findings and unofficial reports concerning the 737 MAX certification and the culture at the FAA. As the FAA reassesses its aviation safety performance and priorities in response to the findings of the inspector general, the National Transportation Safety Board, and other inquiries, we will work to adjust funding to assist the agency in fully executing all official recommendations in a timely manner. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of enacting a full-year T- HUD bill to help address the FAA's safety and operational demands. If we end up with a yearlong continuing resolution, we will have missed the opportunity to respond based on what we have learned in the aftermath of the devastating 737 MAX crashes. It is also important to pass this bill because it upholds our longstanding commitment to make housing affordable for 5 million low- income families and provides funding for innovative solutions to address homelessness among the more than half a million Americans who are without stable housing. We rejected the President's ill-advised proposals to cut $12 billion in affordable housing and community and economic development programs like HOME, CDBG, and Public Housing. These bipartisan programs are critical components to bridging the gap between stable housing and homelessness for so many working families. The bill also continues to invest in programs that prevent veterans' homelessness by rejecting the administration's proposal to eliminate the HUD-VASH Program. Instead, we provide $40 million for 1,500 new housing vouchers to help veterans gain access to safe and stable housing. This year, we were able to continue providing record funding to remediate lead-based paint and other environmental hazards in low- income housing and expand these initiatives to our Nation's public housing. I am proud of the bill before us, and I want to work with my colleagues to consider amendments to make it even better. I encourage Senators to file amendments as soon as possible so we can continue to move this process forward. Before I conclude, let me compliment my colleagues who are managing the other bills that are included in this minibus package--Commerce, Justice, Science, Agriculture, and Interior. They have done excellent work in crafting their bills, supported, as always, by Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman Leahy. I hope we can follow their example and move quickly to complete our work on all 12 appropriations bills before November 21. Finally, our efforts were immensely aided and assisted by a strong and dedicated staff at the T-HUD Committee. I recognize Clare Doherty for the majority counsel and Dabney Hegg for the minority counsel for their extraordinary work, which motivated their entire staff to go above and beyond. That is one of the major reasons today Senator Collins and I can stand with a very good bill to present to the U.S. Senate. With that, Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent to make a presentation that was previously scheduled on another topic.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to discuss the situation in Syria. Let me commend my colleague Senator Romney for his very thoughtful and very timely and very important comments. We all recognize that the situation in Syria is highly fluid. I think it is important to state the case with respect to the President's decision to acquiesce to President Erdogan's offensive against the Kurds. The President's decision is a disaster for our partners in the fight against ISIS and United States foreign policy more broadly. While I welcome the temporary cease-fire announced a short time ago and hope that a permanent cease-fire can be achieved, it does not absolve President Trump of his responsibility for his betrayal of our Kurdish partners and his role in unleashing violence and instability in northern Syria. It is not clear whether Turkey made any concessions as part of the deal struck with the U.S. delegation or whether Kurdish forces will comply. If not, I am concerned that additional violence is likely to follow and we will have little leverage to prevent it. In fact, there is a quote attributed to the Turkish Foreign Minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu, by the White House reporter for CNN. She quotes the Turkish Foreign Minister as saying: This is not a cease-fire. We will pause the operation for 120 hours in order for the terrorists to leave. We will only stop the operation if our conditions are met. So, indeed, even this supposed cease-fire may not materialize as a cease-fire. But the reality is that the blood of many Kurds is on President Trump's hands, and thousands of hardened ISIS prisoners could be let loose as a result of his hasty and uninformed decision. President Trump's decision to abandon our close partners also strengthens the hand of Erdogan, Putin, Assad, and Khamenei. Those are not friends; they are, in many cases, adversaries and antagonists. Members of the administration claim that the U.S. Government opposed the Turkish incursion, but the President's own actions and statements make clear that he gave Erdogan a green light. The President ordered our military to begin a phased withdrawal from Syria last December--a decision that prompted the resignation of former Secretary of Defense Mattis and that surely gave the Turks the impression that he would fold when pressed by Erdogan. Not surprisingly, he did. In that phone call, Erdogan was pushing against an open door. He knew it. The President knew it. That is why the Turks went across the border. Stating that we should let the Kurds and Turks fight it out because of their longstanding grievances, as the President has said repeatedly, betrays both our national security interests in the Middle East and our own American ideals. It is shameful that the White House's statement that was released after the President's call with Erdogan did not even criticize the planned Turkish incursion or warn of potential consequences if it went forward. It wasn't until the following day, after a bipartisan and international outcry, that the President began to express any concerns about Turkish plans while at the same time reiterating his invitation for Erdogan to visit the White House next month. It is impossible to read the President's initial statements as anything but acquiescence. Furthermore, the President's statements over the following days have sought to distance the United States from the Kurds and the foreseeable consequences of his decision with regard to ISIS and the humanitarian challenges in northern Syria. The violence we have witnessed over the last few days in northern Syria has been the direct result of an impulsive President who has made decisions that are counter to the advice of our national security experts. President Trump has often expressed disdain for the career military, diplomatic, and intelligence professionals our Nation relies on to develop and implement sound national security policy. We are once again seeing the ramifications of his incompetence. The President's stunning ignorance of the complexities in the Middle East was on full display over the weekend in a tweet in which he seemed not to have an understanding of the location or identity of the separate Kurdish groups with whom we have partnered in Syria and Iraq. The Secretaries of Defense and State both insist they were consulted by the President on this decision. Maybe so, but it is clear that he didn't heed their advice or that of our national security experts. I am not aware of any security experts who advocated for standing by while the Turkish military carried out an offensive against our Kurdish partners. In fact, on October 2--just 4 days before the phone call between Presidents Trump and Erdogan--the State Department's Special Envoy for Syria, Joel Rayburn, publicly warned: We certainly think that a conflict along the Turkey-Syria border would serve the interests of all the bad actors in the conflict and in the surrounding region--whether that is ISIS or al-Qaida or the Iranian regime or what have you. That was President Trump's Special Envoy. The President's capitulation to Erdogan runs directly counter to all of the administration's stated objectives in Syria. The administration's stated strategy is to, No. 1, defeat ISIS; No. 2, force the removal of Iranian-aligned foreign forces from Syria; and No. 3, achieve a negotiated political settlement to the Syrian civil war in line with the United Nations' resolutions. The security and humanitarian catastrophe that President Erdogan has unleashed with Trump's approval will make achieving any of these goals nearly impossible. The violence in northern Syria over the last few days has led to the displacement of at least 160,000 people, the suspension of humanitarian assistance into affected areas, the escape of an unidentified number of ISIS detainees, and the horrific killings of unarmed civilians, including incidents that Secretary of Defense Esper has described as potential war crimes. Just weeks ago, at our urging, the SDF removed personnel from border areas, relocated heavy weapons, and destroyed defensive fortifications in northern Syria. They did so even in the face of a continued Turkish military buildup along the Syrian border because they believed the United States and Turkey had agreed to a security mechanism in good faith that could avoid bloodshed. It seems that they were wrong to put their faith in this administration. The Turkish incursion into Syria has undermined years of effort against ISIS by the United States and the international community. Despite the elimination of the so-called physical caliphate, ISIS is not defeated. Former Secretary of Defense Mattis correctly warned over the weekend that ISIS will resurge if pressure against the group isn't sustained. Perhaps even more damaging than the current situation in Syria is the long-term impact of the President's decision on our standing in the world and our ability to achieve the goals outlined in the national defense strategy of his administration. The President's shortsighted abandonment of the Kurds is a strategic disaster that raises grave doubts among our allies and our friends about whether the United States under this President can be counted on to defend our shared interests. Given the diverse national security challenges we face, we must attract and rely upon partners who share our interests. Our military leaders often promote the virtues of the ``by, with, and through'' approach, especially when it comes to counterterrorism. Since 9/11, we have built partnerships with local forces throughout the world--from North and East Africa, to the Middle East, and across the Pacific--to enable efforts against violent extremist groups. We have sought to apply exquisite capabilities only possessed by the U.S. military to support local partners doing the preponderance of the fighting and dying in service to our shared objective of containing and defeating such violent groups. Contrary to President Trump's assertions, we are not engaged in an endless war in Syria. In fact, the Kurd's partnership with the United States should be viewed as a model of how to leverage an ``economy of force'' commitment of U.S. military capabilities to achieve strategic effects, thereby obviating the need for large numbers of U.S. personnel to be put at risk. In Syria, relatively small numbers of U.S. forces on the ground enabled a Kurdish and Arab ground force of approximately 60,000 personnel known as the Syrian Democratic Forces, or SDF. With our help, the SDF liberated millions of innocent civilians from the violent oppression of ISIS and defeated the so-called physical caliphate. Some have estimated that the SDF lost more than 10,000 fighters taking on ISIS. It is true that many who joined the SDF did so to liberate their homes from ISIS; however, it is also true that even after their homes were liberated, the SDF--Kurds and Arabs alike--continued to pursue ISIS all the way through the Euphrates River Valley, where the last remnants of the physical caliphate were ultimately defeated earlier this year. Those in the SDF were not only fighting for themselves; they were also fighting for us. They were fighting to help ensure that there were no more ISIS-directed or -inspired attacks like those carried out in Paris, Brussels, Istanbul, Orlando, and San Bernardino. After the SDF successfully liberated the territory that was formerly controlled by ISIS, it also maintained custody of more than 10,000 ISIS detainees--including more than 2,000 foreign fighters--even when many of their home countries refused to take them back. Given the sacrifices of the SDF in the fight against ISIS, it was particularly insulting for President Trump to imply that the SDF may now be releasing ISIS detainees to get us involved, in his words, in the ongoing violence in northern Syria. As our military leaders will tell you, our partnership with the SDF was not only built on our shared opposition to ISIS but also on the trust established between our forces in their fighting shoulder to shoulder against a common enemy. They deserved more from the United States and President Trump in the face of demands by Turkey's autocratic leader. Given all the SDF has sacrificed in furtherance of the fight against ISIS and our partnership, our betrayal of their trust is nothing short of appalling. Again, just days before President Trump's fateful call with Erdogan, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East publicly stated: ``We, quite frankly, could not carry out our national defense strategy if it weren't for partners like [the SDF].'' I fear that the President's impulsive abandonment of the Kurds has done significant and lasting damage to the standing of the United States in the world and has shaken the confidence of our allies and partners. We are losing valuable partners in a region where the United States has critical national security interests. Congress and the international community must send a clear, bipartisan signal to the President that we do not condone the Turkish incursion into northern Syria or the President's decision to abandon the Kurds. President Trump must rescind the invitation to President Erdogan to visit the United States in November. We should not welcome an autocrat who is responsible for endangering our troops on the ground in Syria, the release of dangerous ISIS fighters, the mass displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians, and violence against noncombatants, which, if reports are true, may amount to war crimes. The United States does not need to stand alone in condemning the violence in northeastern Syria. Our partners in the counter-ISIS coalition share our concerns about the damage the Turkish incursion has caused to our efforts to defeat ISIS and the potential humanitarian costs. The United States should take the lead within the United Nations and NATO to organize efforts to denounce Turkey's actions and restrain the strategic consequences. We must also redouble diplomatic efforts to seek a negotiated settlement to the Syrian civil war that is consistent with U.N. Security Council Resolution No. 2254 and that protects the equities of the SDF and civilians who are living under their protection. Unfortunately, the greatest impediment to securing our national security interests in northern Syria and bringing about an end to the conflict there appears to be President Trump's inability to grasp the strategic significance of his actions. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I join with my colleague Senator Whitehouse, the city of Providence, and the State of Rhode Island in celebrating the 200th anniversary of the founding of the Congdon Street Baptist Church, Rhode Island's oldest Black congregation. For generations, it has been a spiritual home for the community and an unwavering beacon for religious and civil liberties in Rhode Island. The church's founding members left the First Baptist Church, where they were forced to attend segregated services, and established their own house of worship in 1819. Initially named the African Union Meeting House, the church aimed to provide a place of worship and schooling for Black Americans. This mission positioned the congregation as a focal point of the African-American community and paved the way for its continuing advocacy for meaningful social change. As one of the earliest African-American churches in the State and the first schoolhouse for African-American children in Providence, the African Union Meeting House opened its doors to a variety of different denominations. Beyond these religious and educational roles, the church offered a meeting place for African Americans to discuss civil rights and other vital issues and hosted literary clubs, youth groups, and numerous other social organizations. Unfortunately, the original church structure, which was renamed the Meeting Street Baptist Church in 1840, was torn down in the 1860s without the congregation's approval amid tensions with its White neighbors. However, the congregation persevered, and a new structure was built on a nearby plot of land in 1875. The new church was renamed the Congdon Street Baptist Church and to this day continues to be a pillar of support and advocacy for Rhode Island's African-American community. Its congregants supported Black Brown University students during their 1968 walkout protesting the university's lack of recruitment of and support for students of color. In a testament to Congdon Street Baptist Church's importance to Black Rhode Islanders, the students chose to march from the university to the church and remained there until their demands for change were met. During the mid-20th century, congregants also pressured the State to investigate and end discrimination in employment and marched with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. More recently, the church has, among its numerous activities, increased its outreach to college students, embarked on mission trips to help disadvantaged communities around the world, and tutored local children in reading, math, and writing. Today, after 200 years of worship and public service, Congdon Street Baptist Church continues to uplift our State while adhering to its vision of being a ``radically authentic community.'' I join community members in Providence and Rhode Islanders across the State in congratulating Pastor Justin R. Lester and the entire Congdon Street Baptist Church congregation on this significant milestone.