Mark Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I have come to the floor to talk about a different subject, but I want to commend my good friend, the Senator from Oregon, for his comments. We all watched with horror this weekend the images from his State and from those in Washington and California that were literally like something out of Dante's ``Inferno.'' I have enormous respect for the Senator from Oregon, and he can count on me to be behind him on these proposals. I know they will be reasonable, and I know they will be straightforward. Boy oh boy. If, when we see those images, we are not able to step up with a commonsense, bipartisan, and quick response, then shame on all of us. I commend the Senator for his leadership, and I look forward to working with him.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, I rise today to express my support for my colleague Senator Duckworth's resolution honoring the service and sacrifices of members of the U.S. Armed Forces and our veterans. The resolution rightly criticizes President Trump for a series of statements and actions which have denigrated our men and women in uniform, our veterans, and our institutions. Service and sacrifice run deep among my constituents in the Commonwealth of Virginia. With 130,000 Active-Duty members living in Virginia, the Commonwealth has one of the highest populations of military personnel in the Nation. Virginia is home to more than 700,000 veterans, men and women who have displayed the highest level of selfless service while defending this country and who have endured hardship and have put country above self. I am proud to call these American heroes my constituents, as well as my neighbors, and I am humbled to represent and serve them in Congress. I am thankful to them for protecting this great country. President Trump, though, again and again, has made disrespectful remarks about servicemembers, veterans, and military leaders despite being Commander in Chief. His name-calling and disdain for the value of service is divisive and dangerous. Remember how President Trump ridiculed the Gold Star parents of Army CPT Humayun Khan, who died in June 2004 from an IED in Iraq. Mr. and Mrs. Khan are residents of Virginia. Remember his comments questioning whether Senator John McCain should be called a hero and remember his recent comments, even after the reports of his comments in The Atlantic article came out--his recent comments that our top officials at DOD want to continue fighting wars to make defense contractors happy. Whether it is pardoning and excusing those in uniform who commit crimes or not standing up to President Putin in defense of our troops when reports emerged that bounties have been offered for killing members of our Armed forces, whether it is deploying our military in response to peaceful protests, threatening to politicalize and divide our military from civilian society, the President, on each of these occasions, is on the wrong side of honoring our servicemembers. These actions and statements are an affront to everyone who serves or has served. They are unacceptable and un-Presidential. Instead, let's stay focused on what matters in this country. Let's stay united. We need to ensure that we are expressing each and every day how thankful we are to those who serve for protecting the freedoms we hold dear. I want to thank Senator Duckworth for the introduction of this resolution and, more so, I thank her for her dedicated and exemplary military service to our country. It is my hope that all my colleagues in the Senate will recognize the mistakes made by our Commander in Chief when addressing the heroes of our military and our Nation's veterans. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to commemorate the 25th anniversary of Virginia Organizing, a nonpartisan grassroots group committed to challenging injustice by empowering people in local communities across the Commonwealth to work together, democratically and nonviolently, for change. For a quarter century, Virginia Organizing has led the debate on the most important issues of our time, including economic security for families, equal opportunity in education, a sustainable environment, access to healthcare, and the guarantee that every person is entitled to have their voice heard. Virginia Organizing and I share a common goal, one that I have spoken about many times, that all Virginians and all Americans should have a fair shot at success. We share the belief that all people should be treated fairly and with dignity in all aspects of life, regardless of race, class, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age, ability, or country of origin. Now more than ever, I am proud to serve alongside a group that embraces and celebrates diversity. This year, to celebrate their 25th anniversary, I would like to again recognize and thank the leaders, members, and staff of Virginia Organizing, who continue to work tirelessly to provide children, low-income residents, immigrants, veterans, retirees, people with disabilities, and other underrepresented groups with the resources that they need to have a fair shot. I am so grateful for their work for the people of the Commonwealth and wish them well as they embark on their next quarter- century.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I want to thank the Senator from Alabama for his partnership on the SAME Act. I am going to repeat some of the same arguments he made because I think they are quite compelling. We are talking about healthcare, which is an issue that is weighing on too many American families at this point--and not just healthcare but access to healthcare coverage. I think we would all agree that regardless of what we feel about this issue, we are in the midst of the greatest public healthcare crisis in generations. In this unprecedented time, I think it calls for unprecedented action from Congress. Today, in a couple of moments, I am going to ask that this Senate take up and unanimously pass legislation I introduced along with Senator Jones from Alabama and several of my colleagues--legislation that could provide access to quality and affordable healthcare coverage for millions of Americans. To be clear, the SAME Act is the bill I have been pushing for more than 3 years. This bill was a good idea before the pandemic, but the need for it has become even greater in light of the COVID-19 outbreak. The SAME Act would ensure that States like Virginia--and we did pass Medicaid expansion, but we passed it later than other States--that States that have expanded their Medicaid Program to serve more Americans can get their fair share of Federal matching dollars. It would also incentivize additional States--like the State of Alabama which hasn't yet expanded Medicaid--to expand this critical program to millions of more Americans. I can think of no better time to pass this legislation than right now, when more than 5 million Americans find themselves having lost their healthcare coverage in the last 3 months alone. In fact, some reports actually estimate that nearly 27 million Americans have lost their employer-sponsored health insurance and are now in jeopardy of becoming uninsured. Our legislation would provide much needed financial support to States that are seeing an increase in Medicaid enrollment as folks face the fallout of this crisis. For those millions of people, the SAME Act would provide a significant lifeline. Estimates show that if every State were to expand its Medicaid Program, about 3 million additional Americans would have healthcare coverage. I don't believe this is a political argument nor a philosophical exercise. This legislation has a real-world impact, and it is clear that Americans want and need this legislation to pass. As my colleague just mentioned, there are a number of States--Red States and Blue States--which have taken advantage of this opportunity, including, just recently, Oklahoma. A few weeks ago, Oklahomans went to the polls and voted to expand their Medicaid Program to provide broader access to coverage. We have seen similar actions from citizens in Utah, Maine, Idaho, and others. Across our Nation, Americans are making it clear that they want expanded access to healthcare coverage, and I believe Congress needs to listen. With all due respect to my Republican colleagues, you can't say you want to help Americans in this devastating time and simultaneously oppose this bill, which would actually provide that help. As we stand here in this Chamber, we have the privilege of knowing that we and our families have access to the healthcare coverage we need so that, if something were to go wrong, we would be covered. So why shouldn't we ensure the same access for more Americans? The median cost of a hospitalization due to COVID-19 is $14,000. For Americans without health insurance--the nearly 30 million and growing--that could mean losing their homes or their cars. For many, it could put them into bankruptcy. Now, I know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to do right by their constituents and the millions of other Americans who need help. So I ask us to come together today to support the SAME Act. No one should go bankrupt because one got sick and sought medical care, but more importantly, no one should go bankrupt when this legislative body has the opportunity to act. As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 585, the States Achieve Medicaid Expansion Act; 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. Madam President, in reserving the right to object, I have great respect for my friend, the Senator from Florida. I know he has a long and deep background in healthcare, but I have some news. The Affordable Care Act already provides strong protections for millions of Americans with preexisting conditions. I believe, unfortunately, the legislation my colleague is proposing would allow insurance companies to, once again, impose arbitrary annual and lifetime cap limits on care, and it would allow insurance companies to refuse to cover essential health benefits, like mental health coverage, substance use disorder, or maternity care. I don't believe we can go back to the days when a certain number of companies held all the power and consumers were routinely denied access to healthcare. I do believe the SAME Act--again, sponsored by my good friend, the Senator from Alabama--would simply continue to extend the right to have the same level of Federal subsidies for all States. We are seeing voters across the country, as they have a chance to weigh in on this, agree to this principle, which is that those same rights ought to be extended to States like Alabama, which has chosen not to move forward, and to States like Virginia, which has moved forward but a little bit late. I still strongly believe that the SAME Act, which would equalize and level the playing field, is the appropriate action. Respectfully, I object to the unanimous consent request of the Senator from Florida to pass this bill.

Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank, first of all, as I see him leave the floor, the Senator from Illinois, for his very strong statement. I am going to echo a lot of the same things. I thank him for his continued leadership. And, of course, I know we are going to hear from Senator Coons shortly and Senator Blumenthal, but a lot of the efforts go to Senator Klobuchar with her leadership on the Senate Rules Committee. These issues around election security go back to the first bipartisan effort immediately after 2016, the Honest Ads Act. It is unfortunate that we are now heading into the election--126 days, I believe, left-- and this body has still not voted on a single stand-alone election bill, even though we have seen the Russian interference of 2016 and even though we know that Russia and other countries are back. I think history will judge those who prevented those votes from happening if we see the kind of potential disruption this fall that we saw in 2016. Today, I am here to join Senator Klobuchar and Senator Blumenthal, as well, to make sure that everybody has the right to vote in November and that they are able do it in a safe and secure way. As Senator Durbin said, from Wisconsin to Georgia, to Kentucky, we are seeing a dangerous trend where too many voters are having to choose between their safety and their right to vote. My fear is that as we head into November without a plan and without a strategy for protecting the right to vote and ensuring equal access to the ballot box, we could see levels of voter suppression not seen since the Jim Crow era. Now, we all know we have enormous challenges with COVID-19, and we have to make sure that our polling places don't become vectors for spreading the virus. The way we do that is not by restricting access to the ballot box, not in the United States of America. That is not how the world's greatest democracy should meet this challenge. If we are going to preserve the integrity of our elections and the trust of the American people, it is essential that States and the Federal Government adapt to the challenges of this pandemic and actually expand access to the ballot box. In short, we need to make it easier and safer for Americans to exercise their right to vote. The good news is, we don't have to reinvent the wheel. A number of States--red States, blue States, purple States--have adopted a range of convenient voting procedures that work quite well. Some of these procedures including ample early voting opportunities and no-excuse absentee ballots, all of which reduce the risk but also make sure we continue to be able to increase access. In my home State of Virginia, due to recent legislative changes, we have curbside voting for seniors and people with disabilities, and we have expanded the no-excuse absentee ballot. Unfortunately, despite all these effective and secure tools at our disposal, we have also seen States implement restrictions in the name of safety that have disenfranchised far too many Americans. In Wisconsin's April primary, for example, Milwaukee reduced its number of polling places from 180 to just 5. We saw similar moves recently in Georgia and Kentucky. We know whom those restrictions disenfranchise. It is the poor; it is the elderly; it is workers just getting off their shift; and, disproportionately, it is Black and Latino voters who face the brunt of these restrictions. The truth is, this is not right. I think we all know that. We have a moral obligation to make sure our tools to counter COVID-19 are not used to intimidate and suppress voters. Just last week, Senator Klobuchar and I sent letters raising the warning that bad actors could use testing, immunity, and protective equipment as a pretense to turn away voters or increase the difficulty of reaching the ballot box on election day. Ideally, our election officials could come together around a national strategy of preparing every polling place and precinct for administering our elections during a pandemic. Unfortunately, there are those, including the President, who have tried to politicize this issue. In fact, we have seen the President spreading utter misinformation about mail-in voting. The President seems to have forgotten that he has voted by mail in not simply the last election but in the last three elections. What he fundamentally fails to understand is that the right to vote belongs to the voters, not to the politicians. It is our job to make sure that Americans can exercise their rights in a way that is safe and secure. That is why Congress must rise to the occasion and ensure Americans can vote safely and securely. The time is now to start serious preparations on contingencies to protect our elections from both the pandemic and those who take advantage of it. I am a sponsor of the bill that Senator Klobuchar has tried to UC tonight, and I am disappointed that it was blocked from passing, but I look forward to continuing to work with her and all of my other colleagues to make sure we get this job done. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to start by thanking my friend from Oklahoma for his leadership on the NDAA. I think that record of 59 years of getting the bill passed is one I am envious of. I wanted, personally, to thank him for his willingness to put into the original managers' package the intel authorization bill, which I know sometimes has controversy to it, and I am grateful for the chance for it to ride along on the NDAA. I thank him for his leadership on this issue. Election Security Mr. President, I am here today because I fear the Senate is about to fail once again to protect our elections from foreign interference. For the last 3 years, I worked as vice chairman of the Intel Committee to investigate Russia's attack on our democracy in 2016. I am proud of the fact that, with all the controversy about this subject matter, we are the only bipartisan investigation of Russian election interference to make it to the finish line. The fifth volume of our report is at the ODNI right now for declassification. Any member of the public can read the first four volumes of declassified conclusions, and any Member of this body can read additional classified materials. Our report offers a stark warning of Russia's intent to interfere in future U.S. elections and a clear roadmap for how to defend our democracy from Russia or any other adversaries copying their playbook. Unfortunately, the White House and the leadership on the majority side of the Senate seem to be the only ones not taking this threat seriously. Since 2016, this body has failed to vote on a single piece of stand- alone election security legislation. Four times in the last year, I have come to the floor in an attempt to pass my bipartisan election security legislation, known as the FIRE Act, by unanimous consent, and each time these efforts were blocked by my Republican colleagues. Of course, when they blocked it, they got what they were looking for. They earned applause from the President on Twitter. In a different time with a different President, this bill wouldn't be controversial at all. It would simply say to all Presidential campaigns going forward that if a foreign power reaches out to their 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. What a sad statement about partisan politics in our country when we can't even agree on that. We can't even agree that there ought to be a duty to report an offer of foreign assistance in a Presidential campaign. I introduced this legislation months before the facts came to light about the President's pressuring Ukraine into announcing politically motivated investigations into the Bidens. I am not here to rehash the impeachment trial, but I do want to note one thing. A number of my Republican colleagues justified their vote by saying that, while not impeachable, it was wrong for the President to solicit foreign interference in our elections. I take my colleagues across the aisle at their word that they believe foreign interference has no place in our elections, but at some point you have to put your money where your mouth is. We know the President tried to trade election favors with Ukraine. According to the new book from John Bolton, the President tried to trade political favors with Xi Jinping during trade negotiations. Maybe that happened; maybe it didn't. But I would be much more inclined to give the President the benefit of the doubt if he hadn't asked China to investigate the Bidens on national television, if he hadn't asked Russia to hack Hillary Clinton's emails during the 2016 campaign, or if he had shown even a shred of interest in defending our democracy from foreign interference over the last 4 years. We are under attack from adversaries who see this new area of cyber warfare and disinformation as a golden opportunity to undermine American democracy. We cannot afford to have a system that allows Presidential candidates to welcome this interference with open arms. If we can't trust the President of the United States and his campaign to do the right thing and report foreign interference, then we need to require it by law. I spent over a year inviting my colleagues across the aisle to work with us on this already--and I point out ``already''--bipartisan legislation. I have tried to answer every objection and work through the right channels to get this legislation to the floor as part of the NDAA. What did we do? We went back to the Intelligence Committee-- again, the only committee engaged in a serious effort to prevent foreign election interference. We made sure this year's intel authorization bill included several provisions to strengthen our defenses ahead of the November elections. The committee voted 14 to 1 to pass an intel authorization bill that included the FIRE Act, the act that I just described, so that if a foreign government interferes or offers you assistance or offers you dirt, you don't say thanks; you call the FBI. So you can imagine my surprise and frustration when I learned of a backroom deal to strip the FIRE Act out of the Intelligence Committee's legislation because of a supposed turf war with another committee. I am back again today because the security of our elections cannot wait. Let's not hide behind process or jurisdictional boundaries. The stakes are far too high to continue the partisan blockade of election security legislation that we have seen over the last 3 years. If, behind closed doors, my Republican colleagues want to strip this legislation out of the NDAA, then I am going to offer it up as an amendment to force an up-or-down vote and put every Member of this body on the record: Are you for election security or are you for allowing foreign entities to interfere and offer assistance with no requirement to report? More than ever, it is time to put country over party and defend our democracy from those who would do it harm. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and send a clear message: Foreign interference has no place in our elections. 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. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the passage of the Great American Outdoors Act. The passage of this historic legislation marks a once-in-a-generation step by this body to restore and conserve our national parks, as well as our country's national heritage. It builds on an American tradition of conserving our natural wonders and shared public spaces. It reaffirms our commitment to preserve them for future generations. It is also important to note that this is a jobs bill. According to a recent study, the Great American Outdoors Act will help create or support 100,000 jobs all over the country, including 10,000 in my home State of Virginia, at a time when millions of Americans are out of work. Currently, the National Park Service has a deferred maintenance backlog of $12 billion. A chronic lack of funding from Congress has forced the Park Service to defer maintenance on countless trails, buildings, and historic structures, as well as thousands of miles of roads and bridges. Today, over half of all Park Service assets are in desperate need of repair. To address these needs, a little over 3 years ago, I approached my colleague and friend, Senator Rob Portman, with an idea. What if we took unobligated Federal energy revenues and used them to address the maintenance backlogs at our national parks. So we came together, in a bipartisan partnership, and introduced the National Park Services Legacy Act. A little over a year later, we combined our efforts with Senator Alexander and Senator King to introduce our Restore Our Parks Act. Earlier this year, this legislation was combined with Senator Gardner and Senator Manchin's Land and Water Conservation Fund legislation to form the Great American Outdoors Act. This legislation represents one of the largest investments in the infrastructure of our national parks in its over 100-year history. Over the next 5 years, the Great American Outdoors Act will fund more than half of all the deferred repairs and completely fund the Park Service's highest priority needs. As my friend from Maine, Senator King, has noted, deferred maintenance is really simply a debt for future generations. With the passage of this bill today, we are one step closer to paying down that debt. Few States in the country are as impacted by the Park Service's deferred maintenance backlog as the Commonwealth of Virginia. In the Commonwealth, we have a maintenance backlog of over $1.1 billion. That is the third largest behind California and DC. I want to give a few examples of how this legislation will help preserve our historical heritage and create jobs in my State. Here in the National Capital Region, the George Washington Memorial Parkway, which is managed by the National Park Service, has over $700 million in deferred maintenance. As a matter of fact, anyone in this Chamber who travels on that road actually knows that we had a sinkhole appear in the parkway within the last year--an enormous safety threat, as well as an enormous inconvenience to anybody who travels on this important road. Our legislation would help rebuild this critical transportation route between Virginia, Washington, DC, and Maryland-- reducing traffic and, again, creating jobs. Further south on I-95, the Richmond National Battlefield Park has over $5 million in deferred maintenance. The nearby Maggie L. Walker National Historic Site--this is the site actually of the first African- American-owned bank created by Maggie Walker, as well as the first bank owned by an African-American woman. I visited it last year, and it has maintenance needs approaching $1 million. At the nearby Petersburg National Battlefield Park, the maintenance needs have grown to $9 million over the years. This legislation will help support critical infrastructure needs of these parks, preserving these important pieces of our heritage while again supporting our local economies. Let me take you a little farther west, out to one of the real gems of our National Park Service--probably one of the parks best known in Virginia around the country--and that is the Shenandoah National Park. It is one of the crown jewels of our Park Service. Again, the maintenance backlog there in the Shenandoah sits at over $90 million. Our legislation will put people to work on these overdue repairs, including to Skyline Drive and stretches of the Appalachian Trail, which are really at the heart of Virginia's outdoor tourism industry. Let me take you a little farther down Skyline Drive, down farther in Southwest Virginia. As you head southwest, the Blue Ridge Parkway right here, which has accumulated over $500 million in deferred maintenance-- that is, as a matter of fact, over $1 million of deferred maintenance for every mile of the Blue Ridge Parkway. The Great American Outdoors Act will, again, put Virginians to work on these repairs so visitors can continue to appreciate the beauty of Southwest Virginia and support the local economy. Let me end my visual tour of Virginia going to the eastern part of the Commonwealth. This is one final example. Colonial National Historical Park, which is home to historic Jamestown and the Yorktown battlefield--some of our country's most significant sites from the birth of our Nation. At this park and along the Colonial Parkway, there are deferred maintenance needs totaling over $430 million. With this legislation, the wait on many of these repairs is over. We are going to create jobs, make sure this important part of our history is around for years to come, and make sure we leave our kids and grandkids that sense of who we are as a nation. Now, before I close, I want to touch on the other half of this legislation, which provides full mandatory funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the LWCF. For decades, the LWCF has been the most important tool of the Federal Government that States have had to protect critical natural areas, water resources, and, again, cultural heritage. Virginia has received over $368 million in LWCF funding, which has helped preserve and expand critical recreation areas within the Commonwealth. For example, the American Battlefield Protection Program, which is funded through the LWCF, has been vital for communities across Virginia, providing them with technical assistance and funding to help them preserve their history and, again, attract tourists. LWCF has also allowed us to expand and preserve land within the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests and along the Appalachian Trail. These efforts support the health of unique wildlife habitats and provide new access for hunting, fishing, and other outdoor recreation. Through this combination of the parks bill and the permanent funding for the LWCF, the Great American Outdoors Act ensures that we will continue to make these important investments in conservation in our parks for years to come. In closing, I thank my colleagues, again, for supporting this historic legislation with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote and a piece of legislation that is supported by the administration. My hope is that the House will move quickly on this. What better present to our Nation than to have this legislation signed into law, hopefully, by July 4. As we all know, at a time of significant division in our country, the fact that this body was able to come together and pass this bill with over 70 votes gives me a little bit of hope. Again, I am proud of my colleagues for stepping up to restore our national parks and public lands, and as I mentioned at the outset, this legislation will create over 100,000 jobs, jobs that are extraordinarily needed at this critical moment when our economy has been shattered. So for current Americans and future Americans, job well done. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the timing has worked out pretty well. It is great to be able to speak on this piece of legislation after my friend the Senator from Tennessee has just completed speaking. We were hearing some, I think, classic legislating coming from Senator Alexander. He was very generous in his compliments to Senator Manchin, to me, to Senator Portman, to Senator Daines, and to Senator Gardner, but we all know that we wouldn't be here on the cusp of passing the most significant piece of environmental outdoor lands legislation in a generation or, for that matter, in 50 years if it hadn't been for the leadership of Senator Alexander from Tennessee. So many of us who have had an opportunity to work with him and become friends with him over his years in the Senate have tried to emulate him at times and listen to him all the time. He is a Senator I wish we had more of in this Senate, who says more often than not: Let's not worry about who gets the credit; let's just see if we can get some things done. There were two pieces of legislation that had to come together. There was the challenge of getting the administration in, the challenge that we had, at one point, too many Democrats and maybe not enough Republicans, and it was Senator Alexander who kind of guided us through this--at least from the parks side--3-year journey. I just want to publicly acknowledge his enormous leadership on this piece of legislation, thank him for his friendship, and thank him for the great work that he has done garnering, as well, the over 800-plus environmental groups that have come to support this legislation. I know that my friend the Senator from Tennessee is not going to stand for reelection, and I know he will have many, many legacy items from his tenure in the Senate, but I believe this Great American Outdoors Act will rank in the top three or top five of his legislative accomplishments in that kind of quiet ``Let's not worry about whose name is first on the bill, but let's just get it done'' way that is playing out this week, as we saw last night with a remarkable, remarkable 84 votes. It may not end up with 84 votes on the final passage, but, again, the path to get here has been a fascinating one and one that I have learned from. So I do want to rise to join all of the colleagues I have mentioned and others in support of the Great American Outdoors Act. I got involved in this issue over 3 years ago. We, in Virginia, are blessed with a lot of great national parks. We are blessed with a number of historic battlefields and other historic sites. We have some of the parkland roads, the parkways--in Northern Virginia, the George Washington Memorial Parkway that I come to work here in the Capitol on every day, the Blue Ridge Parkway, the Colonial Parkway. We have over $1.1 billion of that backlog, and this legislation is so critically important. The legislation, it has been mentioned, represents the most significant investment in our public lands in a generation, and I believe, at this moment in time, something critically important as well: a job creator in our outdoor economy. The Great American Outdoors Act will provide up to $9.5 billion over 5 years to address not only the deferred maintenance and backlogs at the National Park Service but other Federal land agencies as well. This is the kind of mastery of Senator Alexander in combining the two pieces of legislation. The bill also finally provides full and mandatory funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It has been a long road getting to this point, but I am thrilled that we are finally at this moment in time on this important, job-creating legislation that is also preserving the legacy that God granted this country in terms of the outdoors, in terms of our history. This is really a gift to our kids, grandkids, and future generations. Now, many of us have indicated how we got here, and I am going to add my voice as well. Years of chronic underfunding has forced the Park Service to defer maintenance on countless trails, buildings, and historic structures, as well as thousands of miles of roads and bridges. So today, the National Park Service faces a deferred maintenance backlog of over $12 billion. As a matter of fact, over half of all Park Service assets are currently in desperate need of repairs. As I mentioned, in Virginia alone, the deferred maintenance backlog sits at over $1.1 billion. That means, in Virginia, we trail only the District of Columbia and California in terms of jurisdictions in total backlog. To address this growing problem in Virginia and across the country, 3 years ago Senator Alexander, Senator Portman, my good friend Senator Angus King, and I introduced the original legislation, the Restore Our Parks Act, which would provide significant funds to the Park Service to reduce its maintenance backlog and utilize unobligated energy resources. In March, our bill was combined with Senator Gardner and Senator Manchin's LWCF legislation to form the Great American Outdoors Act. This bill on the floor today will provide, as I indicated, up to $6.65 billion over 5 years to restore and repair our national parks. That is enough to address more than half of the currently deferred maintenance backlog and completely fund the highest priority deferred maintenance projects within the agency. This represents one of the largest--if not the largest--investments in infrastructure in our national parks in the over 100-year history of the National Park Service. In addition to preserving our national treasures for future generations to enjoy, this legislation will also create tens of thousands of jobs across the country and provide a positive economic impact for those gateway communities. The Senator from Tennessee mentioned Chilhowee in Tennessee. We have a Chilhowee in Southwest Virginia as well. Those gateway communities depend on our national parks As a matter of fact, a recent study by the National Park Service indicates that the Great American Outdoors Act will actually support over 100,000 jobs and contribute $17.5 billion in total economic output through this legislation. In Virginia alone, that means over 10,000 jobs could be created by eliminating this maintenance backlog. Let me give you a few examples that are a more parochial basis of what that will mean in Virginia. Here in the national capital region, the George Washington Memorial Parkway, which is managed by the National Park Service, has over $700 million in deferred maintenance. As a matter of fact, anyone who travels on that road knows that, north of the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge, we actually had a sinkhole appear in the parkway within the last year--an enormous safety threat as well as a huge inconvenience to the traveling public. Our legislation would help rebuild this critical transportation route between Virginia, Washington, and Maryland--again, reducing traffic and creating jobs. I mentioned that in Virginia we are blessed with a number of historic battlefields. The Richmond National Battlefield Park has over $5 million in deferred maintenance, and the nearby Petersburg National Battlefield has nearly $9 million in deferred maintenance. Our legislation would help preserve these important pieces of our heritage while also supporting the local economies. At the Shenandoah National Park, one of the crown jewels of the National Park Service, the maintenance backlog sits at $90 million. Our legislation will put people to work on these overdue repairs, including Skyline Drive and stretches of the Appalachian Trail, which are, again, at the heart of Virginia's outdoor tourism industry. As you head further southwest in Virginia, the Blue Ridge Parkway has accumulated over $508 million in deferred maintenance needs. That is over $1 million per mile of the parkway. The Great American Outdoors Act would put Virginians to work on these repairs so that visitors can continue to appreciate the beauty of the Appalachian Highlands in support, again, of the local economy. I will just give you one final example--the Colonial National Historical Park, which is home to Historic Jamestowne and the Yorktown Battlefield. At this park, containing some of our Nation's most significant sites--beginning our Nation and the birth of our Nation in terms of the revolution--there are deferred maintenance needs totaling over $433 million. With this legislation, the wait on these repairs is over. We are going to create jobs and make sure this important part of our history is around for years to come. In addition to securing these funds for the Park Service and other public lands, the Great American Outdoors Act also provides the full mandatory funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. LWCF is the most important tool the Federal Government and States have to conserve natural areas, water resources, and cultural heritage, and expand recreation opportunities to all communities. Over the past four decades, Virginia has received over $360 million in LWCF funding that has been used to preserve critical places in the Commonwealth, like the Rappahannock River Valley and Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge and the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. With full funding from the LWCF, we will be able to conserve additional critical lands in the Commonwealth and provide more recreational opportunities for Virginians from the coalfields to the Chesapeake Bay and everywhere in between. In closing, I urge my colleagues to support this historic legislation that will help restore our national parks and public lands, create tens of thousands of jobs across the country, and expand recreation opportunities for millions of Americans. This bipartisan piece of legislation, which also has the support of the administration, is legislation whose time has arrived. I look forward to its successful passage later this week. 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. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today concerning the tragic death of a young Virginian, Bijan Ghaisar, who was shot and killed by two U.S. Park Police officers over 2 years ago. While this tragic incident occurred, as I mentioned, more than 2 years ago, many questions remain unanswered regarding the circumstances of Bijan's death. Unfortunately, the Department of the Interior has failed to answer many of the basic questions that I have asked about the night of Bijan's death and subsequent actions the National Park Service has taken following the shooting. In November of last year, I wrote the Department and requested information about the U.S. Park Police's use of force and vehicle pursuit policies, as well as information about the Park Service's response in the aftermath of Bijan's shooting. Unfortunately, there has been no response. The Department found time to do some PR work. They provided copies of the updated use of force and vehicle pursuit policies to the Washington Post earlier this year, but I still have not received a response to my letter that was sent over 6 months ago. To this point, the Department has failed to answer many basic questions about this incident--questions that I have asked, as well as my friend, the senior Senator from Wyoming. They are questions about the incident, such as these: Did the Department open an internal affairs inquiry into the incident to see if any violations of Park Police policy occurred? What is the timeline for such an investigation? Is the U.S. Park Police conducting a thorough after-action review of the incident? What is the status of the Park Police officers involved in the incident? Are they on administrative leave, desk duty, or are they back on patrol? These are basic questions. If the Department of the Interior had any interest in transparency, they could answer them today. The Ghaisar family deserves answers about what happened to Bijan. The pain they have experienced over the last 2 years is immeasurable. As if the premature death of their son wasn't bad enough, they have waited 2 years for answers from a Federal Government that has failed completely to adequately respond to this tragedy. I am not going to rest until the Ghaisar family has the answers they deserve about what happened to Bijan that night. If the Department wants to ignore these basic questions I have asked and if they want to disregard legitimate congressional oversight, then there will be consequences until their action changes. In February, I voted against Katharine MacGregor's nomination to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior. I said very clearly at that time that if the Department of the Interior continues to ignore my questions about the killing of Bijan Ghaisar, I would hold up future Interior nominees. For this reason, I am today placing a hold on the nomination of Lanny Erdos to serve as Director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement within the Department of the Interior. If we don't get answers to legitimate questions that I and other Members of this body and Members of the House have raised about the shooting of Bijan Ghaisar, I am prepared to hold up even more nominees. This is not something I take lightly. Holding up nominees should always be a last resort. But I have been patient and Bijan's family has been patient, and still the Department of the Interior has been silent. For Bijan's family, 2 years is too long to wait. They deserve answers about what happened the night their son was shot and killed. I urge the Department to swiftly provide substantive answers to my outstanding questions regarding the death of Bijan and the Department's response. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I come here to speak on a different topic, but I want to simply comment for a moment on the exchange between my friend from Louisiana and my friend from Florida. I can assure my friend from Louisiana who was ranked the best managed State in America by an independent source, Governing Magazine--the Commonwealth of Virginia--at least during my tenure as Governor. We are also proud to be ranked by Forbes Magazine the best State for business. I have looked at the bill of the Senator from Louisiana. It may not be perfect. I actually think we should be voting on it. I think it is a bit strange to me, and I say this as somebody from Virginia, where I am very proud of the fact that we have maintained a AAA bond rating. We are fiscally responsible. Our fiscal health, I would wager, is candidly better than virtually every other State in the country. We made the hard choices to make that happen. When we say that we are going to come in and bail out the airlines because they have lost revenues and we are going to come in and very generously take care of every small business when they have lost revenues, but when States and localities across the country are losing revenues at a record rate, to say we are not going to give them certain flexibility--I would concur, if we had a bill like that, and I would even put a clause and support a clause in place that would say let's prohibit any of those funds being used to take care of long-term obligations like pension funds. But the notion that somehow we are going to say we are going to take care of everybody else who lost revenues but we are not going to take care of a local government that has seen its meals tax dry up, its lodging tax dry up, its sales tax dry up, and you suddenly are on your own and you have to lay off police officers and firefighters and EMTs at this moment in time, it doesn't make sense to me. I hope the Senator will continue to press his case and we will get a chance to have that debate Coronavirus Mr. President, I rise today because we also face the greatest unemployment crisis America has seen since the Great Depression. More than 33 million workers have lost their jobs due to the coronavirus pandemic. Millions of these folks have also lost their health insurance. I was just reading that 27 million Americans have seen their health insurance lost due to the virus. The Federal Reserve actually forecasts that 47 million Americans, or nearly one-third of the workforce, could lose their jobs. These aren't just numbers. They represent the pain being felt by families across the country, as we enter into the greatest economic crisis of our lifetime. Candidly, we need to face some hard truths about how we got here and what will come next if we fail to act. The reason we are facing this dire economic crisis is simple: The Federal Government failed to take the appropriate early actions to control this virus. That is why we have had to do social distancing. Social distancing isn't very much fun. I see some of my friends and colleagues on the floor. It is particularly hard for people who spend their lifetime shaking hands and saying hello to folks. It has been tough on all of us. But it has saved lives, and it has begun to flatten the curve. We also know that things can't just go back to normal overnight--not before we have a vaccine, not before the government, working in concert with the private sector, solves the chronic shortages in testing and in PPE that have hampered our response to this pandemic from day one. States like mine are working toward a new normal where we gradually scale back social distancing, when it is safe to do so, but it is just not realistic to suggest, as the President has, that we can just immediately reopen the economy before we have contained the virus--as if companies will just simply resume normal business, knowing that another coronavirus outbreak could shut them down any day, as if a virus for which we still don't have a vaccine didn't just kill more than 80,000 of our fellow Americans. It is time to face the facts, about what it will take for our economy to recover from this public health crisis. There is not a magic switch that we can just flip. Unfortunately, there will not be a V-shaped recovery if we stay on our current course. Just as it took the U.S. years to emerge from the Great Depression, it could take years, or even decades, to recover from the coronavirus if we do not take immediate, bold action in the next coronavirus relief bill. Our first goal must be to prevent further job losses, as well as permanent disruptions like business closures, evictions, and foreclosures. Second, we must work quickly to reduce the economic uncertainty facing workers and small businesses. To do this, we need to provide immediate assistance to millions of American workers who have gone overnight from a steady job to unemployment through no fault of their own. I am not talking about another stimulus check. I am not talking about unemployment benefits. I am talking about paychecks. The proposal, which I put forward with Senator Sanders, Senator Jones, and Senator Blumenthal would create a national paycheck security program for American workers. A very similar proposal has been put forward by my friend on the other side of the aisle, Senator Hawley from Missouri. It uses a direct support model that has support on both the left and the right. As a matter of fact, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal have both commented on it. We know those news organizations never agree on anything, but they both take this approach. It bears merit. We also know this direct support approach works because it has been implemented successfully in a number of European countries and in Canada, where the unemployment rates, yes, have bumped up by a couple of points but not to the level of what, I believe, will be over 20 percent unemployment and what the Fed and even the administration officials have predicted may reach 25 percent within the next month. Paycheck security means the Federal Government would help to cover the payroll expenses for rank-and-file workers who have been furloughed or laid off because of the coronavirus. These Treasury Department grants would cover salaries and wages up to $90,000 for each employee, plus benefits, and would run for at least 6 months. They would also provide funds to many businesses to help cover business operating costs, such as rent and utilities. The program would be delivered through the employee retention tax credit, which is something on which I was happy to work with my friend from Oregon in the earlier coronavirus bill. It is already set up at the IRS and can be leveraged to deliver far greater benefits than it currently provides. In exchange for the paycheck security grant, employers would commit to forgoing further layoffs and to maintaining the pay and benefits of their rank-and-file workers. They would also be required to suspend stock buybacks and limit CEO compensation for at least the term of Federal assistance. A national paycheck security program would immediately work to prevent financial calamity for millions and millions of American families. At the same time, it would maintain and, in many cases, reestablish that critical link between workers and their employees. The reestablishment of that link would put in place the healthcare benefits that many workers receive through their employment that they have now lost even though they may be on generous unemployment. If we reestablish this connection, the economy will be able to bounce back much more quickly after the public health crisis ends. The certainty provided by this program would also give consumers the confidence they need to begin spending money in the economy, which would accelerate the eventual economic recovery. It will be expensive. Yet I can say this: As someone who has spent a long time thinking about and working on trying to reduce the deficit, when we compare it to the over $660 billion spent on the PPP program, which has only taken up one section of our economy--businesses under 500--but has done nothing so far for those mid-level businesses--500 to 10,000--I think the alternative will actually be viewed as being much cheaper. It would actually be pennies compared to the damage that will be done if we fail to adequately assist our fellow Americans in this moment of economic crisis. I am pleased that my colleagues in the House have put forward an initial draft of their view of the next coronavirus relief package. It has a number of important provisions. However, it has not taken what I believe is the bold step of saying, before we simply refill some of the existing buckets--which have had, in many cases, mixed results so far-- perhaps we should take a pause and a timeout and ask: Is there not a better way to provide the kind of security and guarantee that the American people are looking for from their government? The one thing I do know is that my House colleagues and I share an enormous sense of urgency. With, at least, the official number of unemployment being at nearly 15 percent--a number that all of us expect to go over 20 percent when it is reported later this month--this is not the time to play wait and see. It is no exaggeration to say that we face the prospect of having not a recession but of having, actually, a great depression. With every day we delay, we drive ourselves deeper and deeper into the hole that we must eventually climb out of when the healthcare crisis is behind us. As we enter into negotiations over the next phase of the coronavirus response, I would encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a look at bold solutions. Let's give our fellow Americans the kind of paycheck security they deserve. Let's put paychecks, not stimulus checks, in their hands. Let's help them get back to work as fast and as safely we are able. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of William Evanina to be the first Senate-confirmed Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, or NCSC. I believe Bill is an American patriot and an American success story. He was raised in Peckville, PA, with very modest means. He was the first in his family to go to college. Prior to joining the FBI in 1996, his first job was with the General Services Administration in Philadelphia. Over his 24-year long career with the FBI, Bill investigated organized crime and violent crimes. He investigated the 9/ 11 terrorist attacks, the anthrax attacks, and the Daniel Pearl kidnapping. Bill also led the counterespionage group at the Central Intelligence Agency. He earned a reputation as the consummate counterintelligence and security professional, fiercely dedicated to the mission with unquestionable honor. Then, in June 2014, then-Director of National Intelligence, Jim Clapper--someone whom I know and respect very much--appointed Bill to serve as the Director of the NCSC. Many technical and complex activities fall under NCSC, including personnel security policy, information technology protection standards, CI cyber operations, supply chain risk management, threat awareness for the U.S. critical infrastructure, and damage assessments from spies and unauthorized disclosures. I have partnered, in my role as vice chairman, with Bill on many topics, to include educating industry about the threats posed by China and reforming an antiquated personnel vetting system. The Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2016 recognized the vital work that NCSC does and made the position subject to Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. In February 2018, President Trump nominated Bill to be the first Senate-confirmed Director. The Senate Intelligence Committee considered the nomination in May of 2018 and unanimously--unanimously, with some concerns from my colleague from Oregon, but unanimously--recommended his confirmation to the full Senate. His nomination didn't get taken up because a Member on the opposite side had a concern. We considered his nomination again in February 2019 in the new Congress, and, again, our committee voted unanimously in favor of his nomination. Unfortunately, over the last 2 years, despite universal recognition of Bill's qualifications for the position, his nomination became entangled in unrelated matters. Despite the delay--and I think Bill had plenty of opportunities to leave the government--Bill stayed the course, committed to the mission above all else. Now, I share my colleague from Oregon's concerns about whistleblowers. I have seen this administration and this White House's disregard for whistleblowers. I tell you this: I believe I have Bill's commitment that the matter of processing the procedures on whistleblower protections will be dealt with. I also feel extraordinarily strongly that at this moment in time, when there is not a single Senate-confirmed appointee in the whole Office of Director of National Intelligence, now more than ever, we need at least one career intelligence professional with a good record, confirmed by this Senate, standing guard over an operation that right now, unfortunately, seems to be directed too often by political appointees that, both, disregard protection for whistleblowers and, in my mind, too often disregard protections for our whole intelligence community. With the fact that we have now gotten rid of the unrelated matters that were precluding Bill's confirmation by my colleague on the majority, I think we deserve to give this nominee what he and the country deserves--a vote. And my hope is a very strong vote of confirmation so that we can send someone who, as a career professional, has a commitment to holding truth first and foremost above political interference. We need Bill Evanina confirmed in this position. I look forward to Mr. Evanina's confirmation today so that he can continue addressing the many important counterintelligence and security challenges facing our Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Democratic leader. I am here today because I think, as we all know, our elections remain vulnerable to foreign election interference. Russia attacked our democracy in 2016, with the goal of undermining confidence in our system, a system of free and fair elections--literally, the bedrock of our democracy. Their cyber attacks and disinformation efforts continue to this day, and our own FBI Director, Christopher Wray, has reassured or, potentially, warned us that they will be back in full force this year. Not only that, but we will have to contend with potential interference from China, Iran, North Korea, and others who have basically copied the Russia playbook. The threat is real, it is ongoing, and we are not doing enough to be ready. Time and again we hear these same warnings from our intelligence community leadership, from companies like Facebook, from the special counsel, and many others. The truth is that the alarm bells are going off, and we are running out of time to actually do something about it. Unfortunately, the White House and the U.S. Senate seem to be the only ones not taking this threat seriously. Since 2016, this body, which we all have the honor to serve in, has failed to vote on a single piece of standalone election security legislation. Three times last year I came to the floor in an attempt to pass bipartisan election security legislation by unanimous consent, and each time these efforts were blocked by some of my Republican colleagues--blocked and actually earned applause from the President on Twitter for their actions. Well, I am back again today because the security of our elections cannot wait. In a moment, I will ask unanimous consent to pass my legislation known as the FIRE Act. This bill would simply say to all Presidential campaigns going forward that 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. I introduced this bipartisan legislation months before the facts came to light about the President pressuring Ukraine into announcing a politically motivated investigation into the Bidens. Now, I am not here to rehash the impeachment trial, but I do want to note one thing. A number of my Republican colleagues justified their votes by saying that, while not impeachable, it was wrong for the President to solicit foreign interference in our elections. I take my colleagues at their word that they believe foreign interference has no place in our elections, but if I take you at your word, you have got to put your money where your mouth is. We are under attack from our adversaries, who see this new era of cyber warfare and disinformation as a unique and golden opportunity to undermine American democracy. We cannot afford to have a system that allows any Presidential candidate to welcome this kind of interference with open arms. If we can't trust the President of the United States and his campaign to do the right thing and report foreign interference, then we need to require it by law.

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, I appreciate my colleague's comments about State and local election security, which I support. I see two members of the Senate Intelligence Committee on the floor, and I am extraordinarily proud of the bipartisan, unanimous work that we have done to point out what happened in 2016 and to lay out with a great deal of specificity what we need to do as a nation to protect ourselves in 2020. This legislation I am proposing today is really kind of the simplest, lowest hanging fruit. I think we all say that we don't want foreigners interfering in our elections. All this legislation says is if a foreign government or foreign agents interfere to try to help or hurt any Presidential candidate, we ought to make sure there is no ambiguity that the appropriate response is not to say thank you but the appropriate response is to call the FBI. That is the message we have heard from Director Wray. That is the message we have heard from the intelligence community. If we can't agree on that, gracious, where are we? And, candidly, in other times we might not have needed this kind of legislation. It seems so patently obvious. I am disappointed with the objection. We will keep trying. With that, I yield the floor to my colleague from Oregon.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, before I get started on my comments, I want to commend my colleague from California, who has served in this body with great distinction for a long time, who was present during the preceding impeachment proceedings under President Clinton, and who, time and again--and I have had the honor of following in her shoes on the Intelligence Committee--has always been a voice who stood up for what is right, for what is correct, oftentimes what may not be politically expedient but what she thinks is right and appropriate. It is with great honor that I follow her as I make my statement as well on this most serious of matters, the impeachment of Donald J. Trump. So I thank my friend, the senior Senator from California, for her comments.

Mr. WARNER. I will echo many of her thoughts. Madam President, I want to begin my remarks the way we began this trial: with the oath we each took to do impartial justice. Now, any other day, we walk into this Chamber as Republicans and Democrats, but in this trial we have a much greater responsibility. The allegations against this President are grave. The House managers presented a compelling case, based on the testimony of more than a dozen witnesses. And the remarkable thing about the dozen witnesses that we saw clips of: all of these witnesses were either appointees-- political appointees--of President Trump or career public servants. The fact that these dozen-plus witnesses had the courage to speak truth to power when they knew that their careers, their reputations would be sullied in many ways speaks volumes. Their testimony and the House managers' case presents a clear fact pattern, a fact pattern that even many of my Republican colleagues acknowledge is true. This evidence reflects a corrupt scheme to solicit foreign interference in support of this President's reelection. The President both unlawfully withheld aid to an ally at war with Russia and he withheld a White House meeting that would have strengthened our relationship with a democratically elected leader of Ukraine, a leader who was trying to prevent further Russian occupation of his country. The President used these powerful tools of American foreign policy as leverage--not leverage to further advance America's national interests but leverage to secure investigations into a political opponent. He also used these as an opportunity to try to expound on the so-called CrowdStrike conspiracy theory, a notion that has been repeatedly debunked by Mr. Trump's own law enforcement and intelligence agencies; a theory that somehow it was Ukraine, not Russia, that attacked our democracy in 2016. It is a theory, by the way, that currently has been and continues to be promoted by the Russian spy services. Since this information came to light, the President has attempted to confound the House of Representatives' constitutional role in the impeachment process. The White House issued a blanket refusal to provide any witnesses or documents without any historical precedent or sound legal argument to support this position. For this reason, President Trump is also charged with obstruction of Congress. Frankly, I understand some of the points the President's defense team has raised concerning this second Article of Impeachment. There are legitimate questions to consider about executive privilege and separation of powers, but we cannot accept the absolute immunity argument this White House has invented. This absolute stance and the evidence we have seen about the President's corrupt actions and intentions do not reflect a principled, good-faith defense of executive privilege. Rather, it suggests an effort to deny Congress the constitutional authority to investigate Presidential wrongdoing and, ultimately, to prevent exposure of the President's conduct. In reviewing this evidence, I have tried to stick to my oath of impartiality. I have tried to keep an open mind about what witnesses like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney--people who were in the room with the President--could tell us. If anyone can provide new information that further explains the President's actions, it is they. But I don't see how the White House's desperate efforts to block witnesses is anything but an admission that what they would say under oath would not be good for this President. And I am deeply disappointed that the Senate could not achieve the majority necessary for a full, fair trial. Consequently, the defense of the President that we are left with is thin, legalistic, and, frankly, cynical. Instead of disputing the core facts, which are damning on their own terms, the President's lawyers have resorted to remarkable legal gymnastics. The notion that even if the President did what he is accused of, abuse of power is not impeachable; that foreign interference is not a crime; that even calling witnesses to seek the truth about the President's actions and motivations might somehow endanger the Republic. And then when Professor Dershowitz made his bizarre argument that abusing Presidential power to aid your reelection cannot be impeachable if you believe your own election to be in the national interest, I paid close attention. Frankly, I paid closer attention to what Professor Dershowitz said in this Chamber than I paid when I was in his class back in 1977. But you don't need a Harvard Law School degree to understand what utter nonsense that argument is and where it could take us if we followed it to its logical conclusion. The Framers wrote impeachment into the Constitution precisely because they were worried about the abuse of Presidential power. And if an abuse of power is what the Framers had in mind when they crafted impeachment, then, the two questions remaining in our deliberations are simple: Did President Trump abuse his power and should he be removed from office? The House managers have presented a compelling case that the President did pressure Ukraine to announce politically motivated investigations. Again, a number of my Republican colleagues have acknowledged these facts, acknowledged that what the President did was wrong. And, frankly, it is clear why he did it. Does anyone here honestly believe that Donald Trump wanted an investigation into the Bidens for any other reason than to damage Joe Biden politically and, therefore, aid in his own reelection? Time and again, this President has shown a willingness to attack anyone who stands in his way. And on this he is ecumenical--Republicans, Democrats, members of his staff, Members of this body. Nobody is off limits. There is nothing out of character about this President using every available tool to damage an opponent regardless of their political party. I don't find fault for the President in his unorthodox style. That is not an impeachable offense. The long list of things I disagree with this President on are not impeachable offenses either. But the Constitution draws a line that is much clearer than the President's lawyers have tried to argue. The President crossed it. He abused his power. He commandeered America's foreign policy, not to advance America's interest but to advance Donald Trump's political interest. And despite his efforts to cover it up, he got caught. Now, each one of us must vote guilty or not guilty. I will vote to convict the President because I swore an oath to do impartial justice and the evidence proves the charges against him are true. There must be consequences for abusing the power of the Presidency to solicit foreign interference in our elections. If the Senate fails to hold him accountable, we will be setting a dangerous precedent. We will be giving the green light to foreign adversaries and future Presidents that this kind of behavior is OK. I will vote to convict the President because it is the Senate's constitutional responsibility to uphold this bedrock American principle that no one is above the law, not even the President, and especially not the President. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. Chief Justice, on behalf of myself, Senator Bennet, Senator Blumenthal, and Senator Heinrich, I have a question to send to the desk for the House managers.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk for the House managers.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to draw attention to a group of veterans who served this country decades ago but who continue to suffer to this day as a result of their service. I am talking about hundreds of thousands of veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange during their service. From 1962 to 1975, the United States sprayed over 20 million gallons of Agent Orange across Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. Millions of our servicemembers, not to mention millions of Vietnamese civilians, were exposed. Fifty years later, hundreds of thousands of Vietnam-era veterans are still paying the price. From the start, the Federal Government has tried to slow-walk attempts to cover the care these veterans earned. It wasn't until 1991 that the VA recognized the connection between Agent Orange exposure and several diseases and conditions, finally allowing these veterans to seek treatment from the VA. Currently, the list of conditions at the VA stands at 14, but science tells us the list is far from complete. In 2017, then-Veterans Affairs Secretary Shulkin called for three more conditions to be added to the list: bladder cancer, underactive thyroid, and Parkinson's-like symptoms. Now, these weren't randomly chosen. They were conditions found by the National Academy of Science to be connected to Agent Orange exposure. The science was there. The VA was there. Yet this White House and its OMB Director, Mick Mulvaney, have blocked this effort to expand the list of conditions. Do you know what the deciding factor was? It wasn't scientific evidence. It wasn't the advice of VA doctors. No, the White House decided that the cost of providing care to 83,000 veterans suffering from these conditions was just too high, and for that this administration turned its back on 83,000 veterans who answered the call to serve. Unfortunately, this is just the latest example of the Federal Government trying to avoid paying for the care of men and women our Nation sent to war. My office hears regularly from veterans facing problems like prostate cancer, Parkinson's, and other conditions that have been linked to Agent Orange. Time and again, we hear how the VA tries to deny benefits on the basis of a technicality. This is just not right. Unfortunately, this administration is far from the first to ignore evidence about Agent Orange in order to save a few bucks. I want to share a few stories from my State of Virginia, where more than 204,000 Vietnam veterans currently call home. In many cases, veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange have been fighting multiple administrations to get these life-or-death benefits--benefits they earned by their service decades ago. One veteran, William Badgett of Hampton, VA, was exposed to Agent Orange during his service in Vietnam with the Army. He was in the 101st Airborne, 1st Cavalry, where he served as a helicopter mechanic and supply sergeant. He has been diagnosed with a number of health conditions, including enlarged prostate, osteoporosis, kidney disease, and hardened arteries, none of which are on the VA's presumptive list. While the VA considers prostate cancer to be on the list, Mr. Badgett's enlarged prostate is not presumed by the VA to be connected to his exposure to Agent Orange simply because it is not cancer. Another example: Sam Harvey from Newport News, VA, was exposed to Agent Orange during the Vietnam war. He served in the U.S. Navy from 1966 to 1970 aboard the USS Constellation. He was diagnosed with aggressive prostate cancer. Yet, with prostate cancer being on the presumptive list, he struggled to get VA approval for the treatment he needs. Finally, I want to talk about Dorman Watts from North Chesterfield, VA. He suffered for years to get the disability rating from the VA that will qualify him for the comprehensive care from the VA. He has prostate cancer and heart disease and is currently undergoing radiation treatment from a private provider. This is unacceptable. That is why I am glad Congress included important accountability measures as part of the Defense appropriations legislation we passed this week. Finally, after years of reluctance, years of ignoring the science, these veterans are going to get some of the answers about the conditions that have resulted from their service. There is more than enough evidence to expand the list of Agent Orange-related conditions. We should be thanking these veterans for their service, not nickel-and-diming them. I urge my colleagues to listen to the veterans in their States, and I urge the White House to let the VA provide these veterans with the benefits they have earned. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first of all, let me acknowledge my friend and colleague and the chairman of my committee, Richard Burr, for his great work. I am going to talk about him in a moment. I do hope the Record captured the nice things he said about me. Usually, he characterizes me in a different way, but I am grateful for his comments today. I rise today in support of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, which includes the Damon Paul Nelson and Matthew Young Pollard Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2018, 2019, and 2020. Congressional passage of the Intelligence Authorization Act provides support for our Nation's critical intelligence programs and ensures that the hard-working men and women in the intelligence community have the authorities and resources they need to defend our Nation. It also improves the oversight of our Nation's 17 intelligence agencies, which operate around the globe. Before I get into the specifics, I want to note that this important bill is the product of bipartisan work made possible by Chairman Burr's leadership. It was thanks to the chairman's leadership that the IAA was unanimously passed by the committee in May and included as part of the Senate's National Defense Authorization Act in June. I also want to take this opportunity to thank my friends on the Senate Armed Services Committee, especially the Senators from Oklahoma and Rhode Island, Senator Inhofe and Ranking Member Reed. Robust intelligence supports our soldiers and military operations. So I thank them for allowing the IAA to be considered along with the Defense authorization bill. As vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I am proud of several provisions within the IAA, particularly those aimed at tackling the technological threats from China, bolstering intelligence security against foreign malign influence, and enhancing whistleblower processes to protect the brave individuals who come forward to report waste, fraud, abuse, and other malfeasance. Beyond these provisions, I want to highlight a few others that I believe will have a real impact on our Nation's security and the individuals serving in the IC. First, as the chairman has already mentioned, there is paid parental leave. The National Defense Authorization Act includes a landmark provision that grants 12 weeks of paid parental leave for government employees. This builds upon the original bipartisan provision included in the Senate-passed IAA, which gave 12 weeks of paid parental leave to IC personnel, including adoptive and foster parents. This important provision will help to recruit and retain top talent across the government, including within the IC. Frankly, this is a vital step forward for families across the Nation, and I am glad that our committee helped to lay the groundwork for this milestone achievement. Next, deterring foreign interference in our elections. The IAA includes a number of provisions that are particularly important as we enter a Presidential election year. These include measures to deter foreign interference, including increased sharing of information between State, local, and Federal officials. It also creates an independent Social Media Data and Threat Analysis Center to counter foreign propaganda. Additionally, it includes provisions to counter the use of ``deepfakes'' and other emerging technologies by our adversaries. Next, there are security clearance reforms. Additionally, the IAA includes several provisions to modernize the government's outdated security clearance process. The bill advances reforms that will make the system simpler and more transparent. It will capitalize on advanced technology and reflect the demand of today's mobile workforce. It calls for specific plans to reduce the background investigation and adjudication backlogs and to improve information sharing, so that only the folks who deserve a clearance can have one. These provisions are critically important to the government and our industry partners in maintaining a trusted and agile workforce. The next provision is the creation of a public-private talent exchange. Finally, I want to highlight a provision that creates this IC public-private talent exchange. This exchange will allow employees to move between the public and private sectors more readily, broadening the expertise perspective of our workforce, because, frankly, solving the complex problems facing our government today requires robust partnership with industry. The IAA also contains provisions on the security risks posed by climate change, 5G, and hostile foreign intelligence services, to name just a few. Before I conclude, I thank my friend the chairman, Richard Burr, as well as the hard-working bipartisan staff of the Intelligence Committee, without whose work this achievement certainly would not have been possible. I am proud of the work we have done. I am proud of the fact that this may be the only major authorization bill that, in a committee, received unanimous support, and I hope it bodes well for future cooperation going forward. Before I yield the floor, let me acknowledge a great member of our committee, the Senator from Maine, who was absolutely central to the successful conclusion of this legislation. I yield the floor.