Mark Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for allowing me to participate in this colloquy and pay tribute to his remarkable career of public service. I think you could ask anyone in this Chamber, Republican or Democrat, what they think of Johnny Isakson, and you probably get the same answer every time: He is a gentleman and a statesman, somebody who knows how to find common ground and understands why that is still important. Sometimes, it was the little things--a bipartisan barbeque to just get Senators in the same room for a few minutes. As a chairman he brought folks together on one of the few remaining pieces of bipartisan territory: caring for our veterans. Even on issues that often divide us, Johnny has spent his career looking for ways to get to yes, and he has a track record to prove it, particularly on the issue of healthcare. This is an issue that Johnny approaches from a place of deep knowledge but also deep empathy. One of my proudest moments in the Senate was working with Senator Isakson, along with Senator Hatch, Senator Wyden, and others, on improving care for the millions of Americans with multiple chronic illnesses. As many of you know, this is pretty personal for me. My mom had Alzheimer's for 10 years before she passed away; 9 of those she couldn't speak. Working with Johnny on that Chronic Care Working Group--you knew he wasn't just transacting business or playing politics; he was personally invested in making life better for folks with these conditions. I can't think of a better testament to the Johnny Isakson way than the fact that just a couple months after one of the toughest fights to ever take place over healthcare, we passed the Chronic Care Act on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis. A lot of people in politics can tell you what they are against, but not many people can show you what they have accomplished. And as Johnny Isakson heads home to Georgia, he leaves behind a legacy of bipartisan accomplishment that will live on for many years to come. Johnny, I want to wish you, Dianne, and your family health and happiness. In closing, I just want to say thank you for your years of service to our country and for your years of friendship.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, Senator Kay Hagan was a great friend and a devoted public servant. Her loss has been deeply felt by her many friends in this Chamber. Kay and I first got to know each other when we were running for the Senate in 2008. Throughout that campaign, we would talk periodically, and her courage in the face of the attacks she dealt with said so much about her character and her strong faith. We were sworn in together as freshmen Senators in 2009, and I had the pleasure of serving alongside her for 6 years. Throughout her time in the Senate, Kay served the people of North Carolina with integrity. I knew her to be someone who approached every challenge not as a member of a particular political party but as someone who wanted to do right by the people of North Carolina, who were always her top priority. She brought a valuable perspective on financial matters and significant experience in that arena to the Senate, having worked in the banking sector in North Carolina. During her time on Capitol Hill, she was known as a legislator who was always willing to listen to good ideas--no matter which side of the aisle they came from. I saw this firsthand whenever we collaborated on legislation. Through her work Senator Hagan sought to leave behind a better nation for our future generations. In our first year in the Senate, we worked closely together on the value and innovation amendment package--an ambitious set of amendments to encourage innovation and drive down costs in healthcare. I was also proud to have worked with her on legislation to do things like strengthen America's housing finance system and bring jobs back to the United States. Born in Shelby, NC, Kay got involved in public service early on, working as a Senate intern in the 1970s and eventually going on to work on Governor Jim Hunt's campaigns in her home of Guilford County. Before being elected to the Senate, she served in the North Carolina State Senate for 10 years, where she cochaired the budget committee. Senator Hagan blazed the trail as North Carolina's first female democratic Senator and as the second woman to ever serve as Senator of her State. Championing a number of bills to fund expanded screening for newborns, provide medical assistance to families exposed to toxic drinking water, and safeguard tuition funding for servicemembers, Senator Hagan spent her career fighting for the well-being of North Carolina families. Senator Hagan will be remembered as a leader within her community and as someone who was not afraid to stand for what was right. My heart goes out to her husband, Chip; her three children, Jeannette, Tilden and Carrie; her beloved grandchildren; and her whole family.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it has been just over 2 years since the Senate voted down legislation that would have repealed the Affordable Care Act. If we had voted down the Affordable Care Act, that would have also erased the protections for Americans with preexisting medical conditions. In the time since then, two things have happened. One, my colleagues from across the aisle have read the writing on the wall. They recognized that the American people support the protections for preexisting conditions on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis; and, two, the Trump administration released the rule that we are discussing today--a rule that would allow taxpayer dollars to subsidize these short-term junk plans that actively undermine the insurance market and jeopardize the one very popular part of the ACA, protecting folks with preexisting conditions. I know that my colleague, Senator Baldwin, was here earlier, and Senator Brown, Senator Wyden, and Senator Murray. They have outlined in some detail the challenges around these junk plans, or some refer to them as short-term plans. The truth is, these plans don't have to cover things such as emergency room visits, maternity care, or other essential benefits, and they once again allow insurance companies to discriminate against Americans based on their medical history. With all due respect to my Republican colleagues, you can't have it both ways. If you support protections for preexisting conditions, you can't sit by and let this administration dismantle them. You have to stand up and defend these protections because, as you know, folks in Virginia are depending on them and constituents in your States are as well. Very shortly, each Member of this body will have a chance to go on the record with this resolution of disapproval. I fear some Members of this body have forgotten what it was like before the ACA, when an unexpected surgery or a diagnosis of a chronic illness could mean a one-way ticket out of the middle class. Unfortunately, this is not a hypothetical. Earlier today, a group of us had a press conference where a young woman from my State came forward, and not only did her child have an enormous medical condition, but her husband was then diagnosed with lymphoma, and she was diagnosed with brain cancer. Without the protections of the ACA, she testified she would not be able to afford healthcare coverage.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. WARNER. I will speed this up. Let me also point out that, recently, one of my constituents, a man named Jesse, received a $230,000 medical bill for his back surgery. Unbeknownst to him, he purchased one of these so-called short-term junk plans only to discover that he now fell into the category of having a preexisting condition, and this plan didn't cover his challenge. Jesse is 1 of the more than 3 million Virginians with a preexisting medical condition. Nationwide, more than 130 million Americans have preexisting medical conditions like diabetes, asthma, or cancer. Before the Affordable Care Act, an insurance company had every right to deny these individuals coverage, charge them unaffordable premiums, or terminate their plans. We cannot go back to those days. Unfortunately, this administration has used every tool at its disposal to destabilize the market in the hopes that it will come crashing down so they can finally repeal the ACA. The rule we are talking about here today is a perfect example, among many others, of what this administration has done. They have defunded cost-sharing payments that reduce premiums in the marketplace. They have shortened the enrollment period and cut the budget for outreach navigators--all folks who have helped Americans find a plan that works best for them. Look at the recent case. The Texas v. United States lawsuit that could be decided this very week would, overall, strike down the health insurance system as we know it, with no replacement plan in place. The truth is, if these protections for people with preexisting conditions are going to survive, we have to have a stable insurance market. We can and should have legitimate debates about 1332 waivers. Certain States have used those in a very productive way, but that is not what we are talking about today. The Trump administration's rule is not a good-faith effort to bring down costs or drive innovation. It is a direct effort to undermine the stability of the insurance market and is an attack on the viability of protections for Americans with preexisting conditions. Again, I know we are going to vote on this CRA action very shortly. I urge my Republican colleagues to support it so folks with preexisting conditions can go about their daily lives knowing they will be protected. Thank you. I appreciate the courtesy of my colleagues giving me those extra couple of minutes. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I am going to speak on another matter in just a moment, but I want to thank my friend the Senator from Louisiana. There are a number of subjects that are debated on this floor that I may know a little bit about, may not know much at all about, but on the subject he was just addressing, the question of spectrum and the challenges and the threats around 5G--I can still claim this--I am proud of the fact that I spent a longer time in business than I have in politics. My whole career was spent in the business of mobile communications, wireless communications. I spent the last 3 or 4 years on the Intelligence Committee in a bipartisan way looking at both the challenge and the opportunity in 5G, and let me assure you that some of the items the Senator from Louisiana has raised in terms of the security threats that will be posed if we end up with the wrong vendor in 5G are an enormous problem. I don't always agree with this President. On this item, he is right. My hope is that he will stick to his guns and not trade that away in a trade negotiation with China. I also know that getting spectrum aligned the right way has been one of our challenges because other nations have been able to, frankly, in Asia and elsewhere, align spectrum better, so the underpinnings are better positioned than we are. So how we do this is 100 percent right. Let me also say that whether it is Louisiana or Virginia, one of the issues I hear the most--I am not talking far world; I am talking small towns and midsize cities in Virginia, and I am sure the same is the case in Louisiana--the issue is--Democrat, Republican, and Independent--when am I going to get broadband in an accessible way? If we don't make sure that we think this through on spectrum and recognize the national security implications and also recognize that if we roll out 5G and leave, in my State, 18 percent of the population behind who doesn't even have broadband, their ability to compete in the 21st century is going to be dramatically undermined. So I hope I will have a chance to visit with my friend the Senator from Louisiana and see if we might be able to work together on some of these issues. For a while, at least before the FCC auctioned off that spectrum, it was left in other hands, and suffice it to say that I know how much that spectrum is worth. I thank my friend the Senator from Louisiana for his comments.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I will turn to a different matter. I move to proceed to Calendar No. 278, S.J. Res. 52.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I know of no further debate.

Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, first of all, I have done this a number of times. I know you care. I know my colleague from Pennsylvania cares, but nobody has kept this issue alive more often and more consistently than Joe Manchin from West Virginia. I am only going to take a minute or two, then I have to step off. I appreciate our leader on this issue giving me a little time. In a few minutes, he will point out that last night, we had another coal company go bankrupt, Murray Energy. That potentially leaves 70,000 folks without a pension. In Virginia, we have about 7,000 miners who are dependent upon UMWA funds for their healthcare retirements. Another company, Westmoreland Coal, has already gone bankrupt as well, where literally folks are weeks away from losing their benefits. The truth is, this issue may not affect everybody across the country, but the people it does affect, it affects in a way that oftentimes undermines widows and pensioners--their very ability to maintain their livelihoods. Our country made a commitment back in 1947 to honor miners, and we would stand by that work. We are now going to be put to the test. My hope would be that this Miners' Act amendment would be included in the appropriations bill. I will do everything I can in my power to urge my colleagues to consider it. Again, I thank the Senator from West Virginia. I will turn it back to the Senator from West Virginia, but I also want to again acknowledge the Senator from Pennsylvania, who has also been a leader on this. Let's make sure we commit to get this done. Thank you.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Craig Radcliffe, counsel on my staff, be permitted floor privileges for the remainder of the day.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it has been 2\1/2\ weeks since the President announced he was abruptly withdrawing U.S. forces from Syria--betraying our Kurdish allies and derailing the international fight against ISIS in Syria. In the course of one tweet, this President blindsided our allies in the region--yes, the Kurds--but the Israelis and others as well. He blindsided our diplomats and blindsided our military from the top brass down to our forces who serve on the ground. Frankly, the only one who seemed to know that this was coming was the Turkish President, Mr. Erdogan. As a result, brave men and women who have fought alongside the United States are now at risk of being slaughtered by Turkish forces. Already, Kurdish fighters and unarmed civilians have been killed by Turkish armed groups--militias. Already, hundreds of ISIS detainees have escaped from prison, and ISIS is being given the space and time to regroup. Simply put, we may be witnessing one of the most significant counterterrorism setbacks in recent history. With nowhere else to turn, the Kurds have aligned themselves with the Assad regime. That is good news for one of history's most brutal dictators--a man who gases his own people. It is also good news for his allies in Iran. No one has, perhaps, benefited more from this disaster than Vladimir Putin. Just this week, Russia and Turkey agreed to a new joint strategy in Syria, green-lighting Russian and Syrian forces to clear the border region of any of our remaining Kurdish allies and, unfortunately, expanding Russia's footprint in the Middle East. The truth is that I believe the President's sudden withdrawal from Syria without his having a plan and without there being serious consideration for our Kurdish allies is a disaster that may haunt our foreign policy for decades to come. If this is how the United States treats its allies, how will anyone trust the United States on a going-forward basis? Frankly, I fear most of the damage may have already been done. No tweet, no press conference, and no personal assurance from Erdogan or anyone else can rebuild the years of trust and progress that have been destroyed. The least we can do--and perhaps, unfortunately, the most we can do--is to make sure those Kurdish allies who served alongside U.S. forces as translators and in other military support roles are not left to die in Syria. That is why I have introduced the Syrian Allies Protection Act. This legislation is similar to programs in the past which have granted special immigration visas to Iraqi and Afghan nationals who have served alongside U.S. forces. The truth is these Kurdish allies and their families are now at risk because of their work with U.S. forces. They are threatened not only by the Turkish incursion but also by freed ISIS fighters and Assad regime forces. This legislation would provide permanent American residence to Syrian nationals who have worked for the U.S. Armed Forces for at least 6 months, who have obtained a favorable recommendation from a general or a flag officer in the chain of command, and who have passed a thorough background check and screening. The legislation also directs the administration to evacuate eligible individuals to safety. If their lives are at risk by remaining in Syria, they can either be brought to the United States or to a third country while appropriate vetting takes place. This legislation will not reverse what we did to our Kurdish allies, but it will show those who have worked with our military forces--in many cases, we have heard of translators and others whom the American forces left without having even said goodbye because they had to withdraw so quickly--that the American people appreciate the profound sacrifices they have made in their supporting U.S. forces in the fight against ISIS. It would at least remove part of the sting. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged of S. 2625 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I disagree with my friend from Kentucky about what may or may not happen. I believe that one thing we agree with him on is that we have not often had well-organized plans in the Middle East. The unique thing about our alliance with the Kurds was that after trying in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places around the region to find allies who would actually stand up and fight, in the Kurds, we found those allies, and they did a remarkable job dismantling ISIS. Now, the prognostication of the Senator from Kentucky I don't agree with it, but time will tell. The one area, though, and what my legislation would have done and where I am disappointed we were not able to move forward on, is regardless of the changed circumstances that the Assad regime may have in terms of treating people with more respect or the Turkish militias, which we have already seen evidence of their killing of Kurdish fighters, the one group--the one group I think that it is probably safe to say will be the targets of both the Syrians, the Turks--the militias--will be those Kurdish individuals who worked directly for the U.S. military. Even if the prognostication of the Senator from Kentucky plays out on a more macro basis, I don't think anyone with a straight face can say the Kurdish translators, who 2 weeks ago were working for the American forces, will not be victims of--whether it be Turkish, Syrian, Russian, or other--aggression. I think it would have been the right thing. I am going to continue to try to find ways to bring this legislation to the floor. I know it will be broadly bipartisan supported. I hope we will have a chance to revisit this. I don't think we can ever fully reverse the actions this President has taken, but at least in terms of these transfers--I am not talking about taking the whole Kurdish leadership--but these, generally, men who 2 weeks ago were working for the American military, I think we owe them a greater debt of obligation than to simply say good luck.

Mr. WARNER. I will not belabor the point. I know my friend from Connecticut is here to raise another issue. I don't agree with the analysis of the Senator from Kentucky. I hope he proves to be right. I would agree with him; sometimes our notion that we are going to find Thomas Jefferson to rebuild these countries has not proven to be the case. This legislation I am proposing is not broad policy changing; it is simply saying let's look at a very limited universe of individuals who 2 weeks ago were working with the American military. My fear is, at least in terms of how those translators and their families will be viewed by both the Turks and by the Assad forces, that they will not be viewed as Thomas Jeffersons, but they will be viewed as Benedict Arnolds, and my fear is their fate will be on our hands. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am here today because, unfortunately, our elections still remain vulnerable to foreign election interference. Earlier this month, the Senate Intelligence Committee, which I am proud to serve on, released its report on Russia's use of social media to undermine our democracy. The committee's bipartisan conclusion was clear. Russia attacked our democracy in 2016; their efforts on social media are ongoing; and they will be back in 2020. Frankly, they never left. This echos all of the evidence we have seen from the intelligence community and from companies like Facebook, whose CEO, Mr. Zuckerberg, is testifying on the other side of the Capitol today on some of the ongoing efforts. We have seen this evidence, as well, from Special Counsel Mueller and many, many others. The alarm bells are going off, and what are we doing? We are running out of time to do something about it. Twice in recent weeks I have come to the floor to make a unanimous consent request on bipartisan legislation, which I have introduced, called the FIRE Act, and twice this bipartisan legislation has been blocked by my Republican colleagues. Actually, their actions earned applause from the President on Twitter. Again, let me once again go forward with what this bill does. It is pretty simple and very straightforward. It would say to all Presidential campaigns going forward: If a foreign power reaches out to your campaign, offering assistance or offering dirt on a political opponent, the appropriate response is not to say thank you; the appropriate response is to call the FBI. When I first introduced this legislation, we were concerned about the Mueller report's finding that the Trump campaign welcomed the assistance of the Russian Government during the 2016 election. At the time, I was also deeply alarmed by the President's comments in the Oval Office during the summer that he would entertain offers of foreign assistance in future elections. A lot has happened since then, which makes this legislation more necessary than ever. In the time since I last spoke on the FIRE Act, the President has used his office to seek dirt on a political opponent, Mr. Biden. It appears he pressured the Ukrainians. In the middle of ongoing trade negotiations, he went on national television to call on China to investigate Mr. Biden. He also, during this period of time, has used the bully pulpit to intimidate and threaten an intelligence community whistleblower. I am glad to see that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have stood up for the integrity of the whistleblower program and the notions that whistleblowers are a critical part of keeping our system on the up and up and that whistleblowers should not be threatened. We have also heard in these past few weeks--I am not going to get into all of the details--a lot of contradictory and, frankly, almost Orwellian claims about whether the President's asking a favor of the Ukrainian President is evidence of a quid pro quo. Then, just in recent days, we have seen a series of career diplomats coming forward, basically trying to validate the whistleblower's complaints. I know the House is working on some of this, and our Senate Intelligence Committee is also looking at some of the counterintelligence concerns about the President's deals--about the President's deals particularly with Mr. Giuliani and his associates. I have particular interest, as well, in terms of what the Attorney General is doing when he is going out, asking our closest allies--our FVEY partners, in the case of Australia and the United Kingdom--to use their intelligence services to bring us dirt on the President's political opponents. That puts in jeopardy the trust basis the Five Eyes plan operates under. We need, more than ever, this basic FIRE Act bill to make it absolutely clear that if we see foreign governments interfering, the obligation ought to be on any Presidential campaign to tell the FBI. I see my colleague on the other side of the aisle, and I know she will probably object again. I just hope my colleagues will think about and look back on how history is going to judge this body. Did we do what was necessary to protect the integrity of our democratic process? And how in the heck did we allow the protection of our democratic process to become a partisan issue? We would never make protection of the power grid a partisan issue. Yet, unfortunately, I think we are going to see folks on the other side of the aisle object to this commonsense basic reform. If there are ways to improve on this legislation, I am wide open. I know my colleague raised concerns about the breadth. Let me be clear. Some of the claims that were made last time are not true, do not affect diplomatic efforts, do not affect folks who are visiting here in this country. We have been very, very clear. This is about a foreign government's offer or their spy service's offer of assistance during a Presidential campaign directly to that campaign. But if there are ways to improve on the legislation, let's have it at it. Let's offer an amendment. Let's at least vote. The truth is, we know what we need to do to protect our elections. Before I make my unanimous consent request, I want to recognize my friends and colleagues, Senator Klobuchar and Senator Wyden, who, after I make my request, will be speaking on a broader election security bill of which I am proud to be an original cosponsor as well. Let me simply say that I support their efforts to make sure we have paper ballot backups, to make sure we have postelection audits, to make sure if the Kremlin is paying for advertising on Facebook, they have the same kind of disclosure requirements as if they advertise on FOX--commonsense bipartisan proposals that, if they actually got to the floor of the Senate, I bet we would get 80 votes. My hope is that we will have that opportunity. The truth is, the only person winning from our failure to act--and, unfortunately, this person seems to be winning, as well, in Syria and seems to be winning, as well, in terms of the split between America and Ukraine--is Vladimir Putin. Again, I appeal to my colleagues: Let's move forward on the first step, protecting the integrity of our elections. Let's bring forward the FIRE Act. Let's make absolutely clear that if a foreign government tries to intervene in a Presidential election, the obligation is to report to the FBI and not say thank you. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2242, the FIRE Act; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would allow my colleague to speak on this item. I say to my colleague from Tennessee, and others, that if there are ways to improve this legislation, let's have at it. But the notion that we are going into a Presidential election in which our intelligence community has said that Russia and others will be back, and we have taken no action to prevent that when there are commonsense items from social media constraints to making clear the foreign government shouldn't intervene, to having paper ballot backups, to making sure we have appropriate campaign disclosure, we are shirking our responsibility, and I hope in the future my colleagues will reconsider. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I am here today because protections for Americans with preexisting medical conditions are under attack from this administration. For the last 3 years, this President has used every tool at his disposal to try to undermine the ACA. He tried to repeal it twice through Congress. When that failed, the administration joined a lawsuit that would strike down the ACA with no plan to replace it. The truth is, this administration is, unfortunately, actively working to destabilize the insurance market. One way the administration is attempting to undermine the ACA is with the so-called ``short-term plans,'' which I would refer to--and, frankly, I think most Americans if they saw the criteria in these plans would not call them short-term plans--and I would call them junk plans. Thanks to this administration, these junk plans allow insurance companies to once again discriminate against Americans with preexisting conditions. Make no mistake, these plans are a threat to the stability of the insurance market and to every American with a preexisting condition. That is why I have introduced a resolution that will force an up-or- down vote on the administration's rule that pushes more of these junk plans on unsuspecting consumers and, consequently, significantly increases costs for other Americans. I fear some Members of this body have forgotten what it was like before the Affordable Care Act, when an unexpected surgery or a diagnosis of a chronic illness could mean a one-way ticket out of the middle class. Unfortunately, this is not a hypothetical. Recently, one of my constituents, a man named Jesse, received a $230,000 medical bill for his back surgery. Unbeknownst to him, he had purchased a plan that he thought would cover this, but this plan, unfortunately, was a junk plan that considered his back injury as preexisting. Jesse is one of the more than 3 million Virginians with a preexisting medical condition. I have three daughters. Two of my three daughters have preexisting medical conditions that would not be covered under these junk plans. Today I want to share some of those stories to remind my colleagues of what real people will face if we allow the administration to continue dismantling these protections that folks count on. Recently I got an email from Linda in Warren County, VA. She is a cancer survivor with multiple preexisting conditions. She wrote: Due to the housing fallout in 2008, we lost our healthcare coverage and I could no longer get health coverage because of my cancer diagnosis. Mindy from Henrico, around Richmond, is also a cancer survivor. She writes: Even though my cancer is in partial remission, I remain on treatment for fear of the cancer returning again. As I prepare for retirement, it scares me to think that this cancer would be considered a pre-existing condition and I could be denied healthcare or would be required to pay through the nose for insurance. Sharon in Norfolk told me about her struggle with behavioral health issues. She wrote: I am a functioning member of society, however that will not last long if I lose this access to medical help. I went off my medications in 2000 as I couldn't afford a doctor and medication . . . and it was a very thin line between me and homelessness. Justine from Loudon County is worried that she could lose coverage for her diabetes care. Here is her message for the Members of this body: What if you or a loved one was diagnosed with a ``pre- existing condition?'' How would you feel about being denied health coverage? It is a good question that Justine asks, and that we should all ask ourselves. As a father, as I mentioned, I have dealt with the scary reality of having a child with juvenile diabetes and a child with asthma, but I am also an extraordinarily lucky individual, and I knew that because of the insurance and because I had the resources, they would be taken care of. That is not the case for many of the 3 million Virginians who have preexisting conditions or the countless tens of millions of Americans. Katherine in Blacksburg, VA, told me about her daughter who was diagnosed at age 3 with juvenile diabetes. She wrote: Until there is a cure for diabetes, I cannot imagine how costly it would be for her to stay alive and manage her health if there are limitations on coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. Katherine's daughter deserves access to healthcare just as much as my daughter does. I got a letter from a pharmacist in Abingdon, in far southwest Virginia, named Michael. He treats diabetics every day, and he also knows what it is like because he has lived with the disease for 38 years. He writes: Without insulin we will die. . . . If coverage for pre- existing conditions goes away, you will see a large decline in the health of type 1 diabetics, and more dependence upon Medicaid. This is not only somebody who has dealt with diabetes for 38 years, but he is also a knowledgeable consumer. He is a pharmacist. I have too many of these stories to share them all today, and I see my friend, the Senator from Washington State. She and other of my colleagues will be coming to the floor today and over the next few days until we have a chance to vote on this CRA, to share stories as well of what we will do to Virginians, Washingtonians, Tennesseans, and Americans all across this Nation if we go back to a time when we did not protect people with preexisting conditions. One or two more quick stories. James from Danville, VA, told me about his 10 separate preexisting conditions. Lynn from Lynchburg is on three separate medications due to a brain tumor. She could die if her insurance coverage didn't cover those medications, and the list goes on. In closing, when we talk about preexisting conditions, we are talking about people's lives. That is why we must pass the resolution I have introduced to reverse the administration's harmful rule changes and defend protections for folks with preexisting conditions. I think virtually every one of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have said they absolutely want to protect folks with preexisting conditions. Even for folks who otherwise completely don't agree with the ACA, that is the one part of the ACA that folks have agreed upon. Well, next week we are going to have a chance to move past talk, to move past statements, to actually go on the record with an up-or-down vote, to go on the record to say that we are going to protect provisions of the ACA that made sure that folks with preexisting conditions weren't discriminated against, or we will go on the record saying: No, what the administration is doing is all right. These short-term or junk plans sound good until you realize you are not getting the kind of coverage that you thought you were buying. We will have that decision point come next week. I ask my colleagues across the aisle who believe and say they support protections for folks with preexisting conditions, well, they will have a chance to go on the record next week. I hope they will. I hope we will pass overwhelmingly this CRA and make sure that protections for folks with preexisting conditions are maintained. I can't think of an issue that is more important to so many families all across Virginia, and, for that matter, all across the country. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am coming to the floor to speak on a different subject, but I do want to acknowledge that this is an issue I follow as well. I actually cosponsored Senator Lee's bill. I do hope what my friend from Illinois proposed, in terms of a process--that that process will take place and that we can get this legislation, or a variation thereof, passed through the Senate; that we deal with this issue is something I hear a lot from my constituents in Virginia-- specifically, Northern Virginia. Again, although no piece of legislation is perfect, I think the direction Senator Lee has put forward is one I carefully considered before I cosponsored the legislation. Again, the only way we are going to get this resolved is if we go through this process. Nobody on the Senate works harder on immigration issues and with more passion and willingness to get to yes on an issue than the Senator from Illinois, so I thank him for his work as well. Tribute to Victoria Brahm Mr. President, I came down here today to address the question I came for, to actually continue the tradition of my friend Senator Ted Kaufman. I had the distinction of serving here as a staff member for a long time and filled in for a few years when Senator Biden became the Vice President of the United States. What Senator Ted Kaufman did was he came, during his tenure in the Senate, on a regular basis, came to this floor and highlighted the contributions of exceptional Federal employees. He highlighted the work they do every day to make our Nation and communities safer, healthier, and stronger. I came to the floor earlier this year to congratulate three Virginians who were recognized by the Partnership for Public Service as finalists for the Service to America Medals. Within the world of Federal employees, this award may not be as well known as the Oscars, but the award, the Service to America Medals, are known as the ``Sammies.'' During my time on the floor earlier, when I spoke about the Virginians who were nominated, I spoke about Ambassador Michael Kozak from Arlington, Kara De Castro from Haymarket, and John Wagner from Ashburn. Each of these public servants have made significant contributions to our national security, as well as to global peace and human rights. We are indebted to them for their contributions, and I congratulate them again for their much deserved recognition as finalists. Unfortunately, none of this year's winners hail from Virginia. Still, I want to congratulate the 2019 Federal Employee of the Year, Victoria Brahm from Wisconsin. Ms. Brahm is a career public servant who has spent more than 37 years working in the VA system. Since 2015, she has served as the director of the Tomah VA Medical Center. When she arrived, the center was struggling with unsafe medical practices, high staff turnover, and other issues impacting the quality of care that veterans were receiving. In the years since her arrival, there has been a rise in patient satisfaction and a dramatic drop in the use of opioids and other prescription pain relievers. Under Director Brahm's leadership, preventable inhospital complications have also dropped significantly, and the center has risen from one of the worst ranked hospitals in the VA system to the top 10 percent. This remarkable turnaround that is making life better for our veterans is due in many ways to the work of Ms. Brahm. Congratulations, Ms. Brahm, and thank you for your service. Congratulations, as well, to all of this year's award winners who hail from around the country, not just Washington, DC. While the Federal workers we recognize today are exceptional, the truth is they are not the exception. Federal employees across the country dedicate their lives to serving the country, to protecting its people, and to making sure our tax dollars are properly spent. Unfortunately, this commitment has not been honored by the Trump administration. In addition to the longest government shutdown in history, Federal workers have endured pay freezes, hiring freezes, bad- faith collective bargaining, and other efforts to dismantle our nonpolitical civil service. This is wrong. It is also unsustainable, and ultimately it will be everyday Americans who suffer the consequences of this administration's actions. If you drive out and drive down the morale of our workforce, the American people end up with a less good product. I commit that I will continue fighting in the Senate to ensure this country is keeping its commitment to Federal workers because they deserve so much better than the treatment they have received recently. FUTURE Act Mr. President, let me now, for a couple of moments, turn to another important issue where I fear we are not keeping our commitments, and that is our commitment to our Nation's historically Black colleges and universities, also known as HBCUs. I will talk briefly in support of legislation introduced by my colleague from Alabama, Senator Jones, and my colleague from South Carolina, Senator Scott. The legislation they introduced is called the FUTURE Act. The FUTURE Act would provide a 1-year reauthorization of the mandatory funding for HBCUs and other minority-serving institutions that already expired on September 30. This is a commonsense bipartisan fix that is fully paid for, and it would allow us to keep our commitment to institutions across the country that are educating historically underrepresented and underserved students. Virginia is home to five outstanding HBCUs whose funding would be preserved by this legislation: Virginia State University, Norfolk State University, Hampton University, Virginia Union University, which I was proud, prior to my tenure in government, to serve on the board of, and Virginia University of Lynchburg. All told, these institutions received nearly $4 million in funding last year that is now at risk unless we pass the FUTURE Act. I have letters of support here from the Presidents of Hampton, Norfolk State, and Virginia Union. These letters highlight the FUTURE Act and the importance of this funding to the representative universities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, recently our colleagues in the House passed this important legislation on a bipartisan basis. Now it is time for the Senate to do the same. Let's pass the FUTURE Act without further delay and then work together on a comprehensive reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. As Dr. Harry Williams, president of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, said, America's HBCUs ``simply do not have the time to wait for Congress to work out a deal.'' So let's put our broader policy differences aside for now and honor the commitments we made to HBCUs and other minority-serving institutions before Congress's inaction harms students in Virginia and around the country. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am here today because our elections are still not secured against the threat of foreign interference. After 3 years of our intelligence community, our congressional committees, and some of our closest allies sounding the alarm about foreign election interference, we are right back here where we started because this body has failed to act. To me, it is pretty remarkable. No one in this body would think that the appropriate protections against foreign interference into our power grid should be a partisan issue. No one would advance a theory that protecting our financial system against foreign cyber attacks should be a partisan issue. So why would anyone think or allow the basic protections of the machinery and system of our most essential component of our democracy, our voting system, in any way to become a partisan issue? My hope is we can avoid that. Some may point to the fact that additional money has been appropriated for State and local election authorities, funds that have been used to upgrade part of our election infrastructure. I am proud to have been part of the initial efforts to secure these funds ahead of the 2018 elections, and I am genuinely supportive of additional funding to secure the 2020 elections. But we need to make one thing absolutely clear. Additional funding for election security is a necessary part of securing our elections, but it is not a sufficient defense against foreign attacks on our democracy. Money alone will not solve this problem. Moreover, the funding we are talking about in the CR comes with no guidance or direction for State and local election officials. Listen, I have no interest in trying to federalize what has traditionally been a State and local function, but it is absolutely a tradition that this body sometimes makes voluntary Federal funding available only to jurisdictions that meet certain criteria or guidelines. The truth is, right now, with no guidelines, if a State or locality wants to use these so-called election security funds to upgrade their machines or systems to the latest, more secure models, they can do that. But they can also buy machinery and equipment that lacks proper security features--that could lack a paper ballot backup. Heck, they could even use these funds to buy the ``vote here'' signs and those stickers we all proudly wear on election day. The truth, unfortunately, is that the problem is not with our State and local election officials. In fact, the decentralized nature of our local elections system is actually one of our best defenses against election interference. The problem is not a lack of policy solutions. Frankly, I think a lot of us on both sides of the aisle, including very good work by folks like the Presiding Officer, know exactly what we need to do to secure our election infrastructure. We need a voter-verified paper trail for every vote. Everyone should have the confidence that no matter where they vote in America--God forbid, if there were ever a hack into a machine or a machine doesn't work--there is a paper ballot backup so that every vote will be accurately counted. We need to make sure, as well, just as in any major operation, that we have postelection audits. We can and must do more to secure our voter registration systems. None of this is Democrat, and none of this is Republican; it is about the integrity and mechanics of how Americans vote. The problem is the lack of political will in the U.S. Senate and the lack of interest from the White House to actually secure our elections. The truth is, until the majority leader allows this kind of bipartisan election security legislation to proceed, our elections will remain vulnerable to manipulation by foreign actors. I also firmly believe that these bipartisan bills--which, for example, Senator Lankford has been one of the leaders on--would get 75 or 80 votes even in our divided Senate. You don't have to take my word on the nature of the threat. Every one of our intelligence agencies is continuing to warn us that Russia will be back in 2020, and we are running out of time to do something about it. As a matter of fact, Robert Mueller, who led the special counsel's investigation efforts, testified under oath that Russia is attempting to undermine the 2020 elections ``as we sit here.'' For almost 3 years, Senators from both parties have worked on legislation to make sure we are ready for the threats our democracy will face in 2020--both from Russia, and unfortunately from other bad actors who are adapting Russia's playbook because they saw how successful Russia was in 2016. They were both successful in a relatively inexpensive way to disrupt our system and, in many ways, to pit us against each other. Yet the Senate has not brought up a single piece of election security legislation--not a single vote, not a single markup. (Mr. LANKFORD assumed the Chair.) The bills we are proposing are largely bipartisan. We are talking about straightforward, low-hanging fruit that in normal times would have overwhelming, if not unanimous, support. We need to pass legislation that secures our election infrastructure with the tools I just laid out: paper ballots, post-election audits, and enhanced cyber security for election systems. We are saying that the Department of Homeland Security and local election officials should be able to talk to each other in a classified setting so they can know the threats they are facing. We are saying that if local election officials have reason to suspect that a serious cyber security incident has occurred, they need to alert the appropriate Federal officials and, if true, appropriate congressional officials need to know as well. I also believe we need online ads to follow the same rules as TV, radio, and print advertisement. If you are seeing an election ad that was produced or bought in St. Petersburg and paid for in rubles, I think Americans have a right to know. We are saying that if Russia attacks our elections again--or any other foreign power--they should immediately face sanctions. Of all things, you would think the President would be willing to punch back against an attack on the sovereignty and integrity of the U.S. electoral system. Finally, we are saying that if a foreign party reaches out to your campaign offering dirt on a fellow American, the appropriate response is not to say thank you; the appropriate response is to call the FBI. The DHS motto, ``If you see something, say something,'' needs to apply in terms of interference in our Presidential elections. The truth is, what happened in 2016 will happen again in 2020 if we are not prepared. That is why we cannot allow election security to become a partisan issue. I spent a lot of time working with my Republican colleagues on these bills. I want to particularly recognize the Presiding Officer, who has really been one of if not the leading voice on these bipartisan efforts to secure elections. I know he has been working relentlessly to find a way to help get this legislation to the floor, and I thank him because these are commonsense, substantive proposals that will make our democracy more secure against foreign attack. We should hold hearings, if necessary, offer amendments, and vote on this critical legislation while we still have time. That is what we were sent here to do, and that is what we must do if we are going to secure our democracy in 2020. Healthcare Mr. President, I want to turn to protections for people with preexisting medical conditions because these protections are under threat by this President. Under the pretext of so-called short-term plans, the Trump administration is pushing healthcare plans that, once again, allow insurance companies to discriminate against Americans based on their medical history. These skinny plans--or I refer to them as ``junk plans''--also undermine the Affordable Care Act's requirements that insurance cover things like emergency room visits, maternity care, and other essential benefits. Let me be clear. The reason this market has suddenly been flooded with these junk plans--in many cases advertising in low-income markets that these are ACA or ObamaCare plans--is not because Congress passed any law. The President tried and failed twice to pass legislation ending these protections for folks with preexisting conditions. Since they couldn't get their way in Congress, now they are using Executive action to try to undermine the Affordable Care Act. I have introduced a resolution under the Congressional Review Act which would stop this deliberative effort to destabilize the health insurance market and weaken protections that Americans count on. Today I am filing a discharge petition so that it will bring this resolution to the Senate floor for an up-or-down vote. The truth is, every Member of this body knows someone--either in their family or close relatives-- with a preexisting condition. The fact is, many Members themselves have preexisting conditions. In Virginia alone, more than 1 million people live with preexisting conditions. Before the Affordable Care Act, an insurance company had every right to deny these individuals coverage, charge them unaffordable premiums, or when they got that condition, terminate their plan. I think we all agree we can't go back to those days. The administration knows perfectly well that these junk plans don't offer real benefits. They have been warned repeatedly by hundreds of patient groups, physicians, hospitals, and insurance, including the American Heart Association, AARP, the American Academy of Pediatrics--just to name a few of the organizations that have come out against these plans. All of these stakeholders are telling us the same thing: The Trump administration's plan will weaken consumer protections and disproportionately hurt sick and older Americans. My Republican colleagues insist that they actually support protections for folks with preexisting conditions. OK. With this CRA, I think there is a chance to prove it. This resolution we are introducing today will force an up-or-down vote on these junk plans that explicitly undermine protections for preexisting conditions. If my colleagues truly support these protections, they should vote yes. It is that simple. Instead of abiding or going along with the administration's effort to undermine the stability of the healthcare market, let's not do that. Let's go back to the ACA. Let's look at fixes where there were mistakes made. Let's look at how we can work together on better access to Affordable Care Act. I serve on the committee, and I know the Finance Committee has taken, I think, at least a first step--I hope there will be more--in terms of putting some reasonable constraints on drug prices. It is not fair or right that Americans pay more for drugs than anyone else in the world and, in a sense, subsidize the R&D for the whole world. There are a host of areas where we can find agreement. Let's make sure the one part of the ACA that I think everyone agreed to was this notion that folks with preexisting conditions should not be discriminated against. I think the CRA would allow the Senate to go on record on this critically important issue. I look forward to the opportunity to have this voted on and debated when we come back from the break. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.