SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with SENATE

February 24, 2020

from the great State of Indiana. I will
yield to the junior Senator.
Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, a little
over a month ago—or a year ago—I was
here with Senator SASSE and asked for
a unanimous consent vote. I was here,
mostly curious to see who might object
to a bill that wants born alive—where
you do everything you can to keep that
child alive. I was appalled then, and
here again, we are talking about the
same thing, but I think we have got
room for optimism.
We have got two bills that have gotten, I think, more support at this stage
of the game than in a long time. First
on the Pain Capable bill, last month,
two researchers, with broadly different
views on abortion, published research
in the Journal of Medical Ethics, stating conclusively that ‘‘the neuroscience cannot definitely rule out fetal
pain before 24 weeks.’’
As we continue to learn more about
the science of when unborn children
can feel pain in the womb, the moral
imperative to provide a cutoff point for
abortions grows stronger and stronger.
I hope that my colleagues, especially
on the other side of the aisle, will not
deny science by allowing abortions to
be performed on unborn children capable of feeling pain.
The Born Alive bill—again, we are
closer than ever. On a procedural vote,
we have 53 votes, bipartisan, almost
there, with 3 Republicans not able to
vote. So, theoretically, 56 votes possibly. I stepped up here a year ago, and
I do it again because I also sense,
across the country, things are starting
to change.
Millennials are now leaning towards
what the solemnity and sanctity of life
is about, and I think, if we just take
guidance from that younger generation, it ought to be able to move four
Senators to get in line and do what
seems to be so clear from a moral point
of view.
Some will say that a bill to ensure
medical care for babies born after
failed abortions is unnecessary because
it doesn’t happen that often. That is
not a good reason. It doesn’t matter
how common it is. It matters if it is
right or wrong. Even if my colleagues
do not agree with me that every baby
conceived has the right to be born, we
should at least agree that every baby
that is born has a right to live. If you
go back a few years ago, 2015, there
were 38 votes for the same bill. In 2017,
there were 36. A little over a year ago,
there were 53, or 56, however you want
to look at it.
I plead to citizens across this country, just as I did a little over a year
ago, to get ahold of your Senators. In
States where the sanctity of life—the
solemnity of life—is important, get
ahold of your Senators and tell them
that we need their votes.
I yield the floor.
Ms. ERNST. Thank you very much to
the junior Senator from Indiana. We
really appreciate his efforts on these
bills as well.

VerDate Sep 11 2014

02:38 Feb 25, 2020

S1113

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE

Jkt 099060

Again, I think all of us would agree
that these are commonsense pieces of
legislation, and we would love to see
some movement coming from our
friends on the left.
We have had a wonderful colloquy
this evening.
Of course, again, thanks to the Senator from Montana, Mr. DAINES, for
leading this colloquy and for sharing
his time with us this evening as we
have talked about some of these measures.
To the junior Senator from the great
State of Nebraska, as well, Mr. SASSE,
thank you so much for authoring the
Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act.
And thanks to Senator LINDSEY GRAHAM, of course, for authoring his paincapable bill.
Again, we have talked this evening
about those two bills that really hit
close to home. I did happen to sit
through the Judiciary Committee hearing that was led by Senator SASSE a
couple of weeks ago, where we did talk
about the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act. It was true that so many of
our friends across the aisle were deflecting on the legislation. They were
talking about a woman’s right to
choose. They were talking about being
pro-choice and supporting abortion.
The bottom line is, this is not a bill
that has anything to do with those topics. This is about saving babies who are
born alive after a botched abortion attempt. So I think we have to make
that very clear as we move through tomorrow’s proceedings.
Again, thank you for the colloquy
this evening. It has been very helpful
in expressing our views about the
rights of these babies to live and to
make a difference in our world.
With that, we will close out the colloquy, again thanking those who are
supporting the bills, as well as those
who joined us here on the floor this
evening.
ORDER OF PROCEDURE

Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, at
11:30 a.m. on Tuesday, February 25, the
Senate vote on the following: one, confirmation of Executive Calendar No.
384; two, cloture on Executive Calendar
No. 491; three, cloture on Executive
Calendar No. 569; further, that if cloture is invoked on the nominations and
following the third vote in the series,
the Senate stand in recess until 2:15
p.m. to accommodate the weekly party
luncheons; that following the lunch recess, the Senate resume legislative session and consideration of the motion to
proceed to S. 3275 and the time from
2:15 p.m. until 3:30 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their
designees.
I further ask unanimous consent that
at 3:30 p.m., cloture on the motions to
proceed to S. 3275 and S. 311 ripen and
that following the votes on those motions to invoke cloture, the Senate
vote on the following: one, confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 491;

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4637

Sfmt 0634

two, confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 569; and, three, cloture on
Executive Calendar No. 416.
I further ask unanimous consent that
if cloture is invoked on the Greaves
nomination, the vote on confirmation
occur at 1:45 p.m. on Thursday, February 27; further, that if any nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon
the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate’s action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
DAINES). Without objection, it is so ordered.
f

LEGISLATIVE SESSION
MORNING BUSINESS
Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up
to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
f

LITHUANIAN AND ESTONIAN
INDEPENDENCE DAYS
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President,
today is Estonia’s 102nd Independence
Day.
Lithuania celebrated 102 years of
continuous statehood on the 16th, and
Latvia will in November.
This is significant not just because
the Baltic States are close American
allies with shared values; it is worth
noting because Russia has been waging
war on historical truth.
Vladimir Putin recently made the absurd claim that Poland was to blame
for World War II.
In 1992, Boris Yeltsin made public the
secret annex to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, making it clear that the
Nazis and Soviets colluded to carve up
Poland and the Baltics.
That also puts to lie the myth that
the Baltics ‘‘joined’’ the Soviet Union.
The United States recognized them as
occupied sovereign states.
We ought to continue to defend their
sovereignty as well as historical truth.
f

WAR POWERS RESOLUTION
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I
rise to elaborate on my statement of
February 13 in support of S. J. Res. 68.
This resolution puts the Senate on
record with regard to war powers and
Iran in the wake of the U.S. strike
against Islamic Revolutionary Guard
Corps Commander Qasem Soleimani on
January 2, 2020.
The resolution, which directs the
President to terminate the use of U.S.
Armed Forces for hostilities against
Iran, passed the Senate with a strong
bipartisan majority. This bipartisan
consensus is a testament to Senator
KAINE’s leadership, and I commend him
for that.

E:\CR\FM\G24FE6.032

S24FEPT1

 SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with SENATE

S1114

It is also a reflection of the Senate’s
deep concern about the risk of a broader military conflict between the United
States and Iran.
There is no dispute that Soleimani
was an enemy of the United States, but
this extraordinary killing of a highranking foreign military official nearly
brought us to the brink of war. The
strike would be justified if it had been
necessary to defend against an imminent attack against the United States,
but the administration has failed to
provide any persuasive evidence of such
a threat.
Instead, the administration appears
to be laying the foundation for further
military action against Iran, without
coming to Congress. Let’s be clear: It is
not just that there is no existing authorization. To the extent that the administration continues to confront
Iran militarily, it is doing so in direct
opposition to Congress—both the House
and Senate have now passed bipartisan
resolutions directing the President to
terminate hostilities with Iran—and
without the support of the American
people.
With that in mind, I would like to address some of the features of S.J. Res.
68, as well as the administration’s legal
rationale for the Soleimani strike and
why that rationale is so problematic.
Before doing so, I want to take a step
back and make sure that everyone understands the real world impact.
Today, over 100 service men and women
are suffering from traumatic brain injuries incurred during an Iranian retaliatory attack over Soleimani. My heart
goes out to them and their families.
Thankfully there were no American
casualties, but we will not be so lucky
if President Trump stumbles into a
broader conflict with Iran.
So when I raise the alarm over this
administration’s actions, it is not academic. It is about our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, and brothers
and sisters serving in harm’s way. It is
about honoring their service with more
than just words. It is about ensuring
that they are not needlessly put in
danger by an arrogant and lawless administration that refuses to recognize
any limitation on its ability to drag
our country into war.
S.J. Res. 68 has a number of important features. I will highlight three of
them briefly.
First, this resolution established a
new precedent in the Senate.
The War Powers Resolution, as
amended, provides for privileged consideration of joint resolutions that direct the President, in broad terms, to
stop the use of U.S. forces in specified
hostilities. The only such privileged
resolutions in the Senate prior to S.J.
Res. 68 mandated that the President
‘‘remove’’ U.S. forces from hostilities.
The operative language of S.J. Res. 68
uses a variation of that language. Instead of ‘‘remove,’’ it directs the President to ‘‘terminate’’ the use of U.S.
forces for hostilities.
In a failed bid to prevent privileged
consideration of S.J. Res. 68, the Re-

VerDate Sep 11 2014

February 24, 2020

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE

02:38 Feb 25, 2020

Jkt 099060

publican majority asserted, in effect,
that ‘‘remove from hostilities’’ was a
term of art and that privilege was
available only for resolutions that used
that specific phrase. That rigid approach is inconsistent with the overarching purpose of the War Powers
Resolution—for Congress to reconfirm
and reassert its constitutional powers
over the use of force—and contrary to
the statutory framework and legislative history of the War Powers Resolution. The statute does not prescribe
specific language, and the legislative
record is full of examples of the interchangeable use of ‘‘remove,’’ ‘‘terminate,’’ and multiple other synonymous
terms.
Ultimately, the Senate moved forward with consideration of S.J. Res 68
on a privileged and expedited basis.
This precedent is noteworthy for two
reasons: First, it clarifies that there
are no magic words required for privilege. This means that a resolution that
requires the President to stop the use
of U.S. Armed Forces in hostilities will
not be deprived of expedited consideration in the Senate over semantics.
Second, it provides a degree of flexibility for Senators who seek to stop
such hostilities. For example, ‘‘terminate’’ or other synonyms may be more
appropriate than ‘‘remove’’ for certain
situations, like cyber operations,
where implying a need for or requiring
the physical removal of forces may not
be practicable or desirable.
Second, S. J. Res. 68 includes a rule
of construction stating that it does not
prevent the United States from defending itself against imminent attack.
This is a critical feature. While we cannot abide by this President or any
President usurping Congress’ role and
responsibility to authorize the use of
force, the United States always has the
right to defend itself against an ongoing or imminent attack.
In tandem with this rule of construction, the Senate adopted an amendment offered by Senator Risch that
added the following finding: ‘‘The
President has a constitutional responsibility to take actions to defend the
United States, its territories, possessions, citizens, service members, and
diplomats from attack.’’
The responsibility to ‘‘take actions’’
in defense of the United States and our
people and interests is a core function
of the Presidency. This responsibility
includes the full range of resources
available to the executive branch—diplomacy, law enforcement, intelligence, military force, and beyond.
Each type of action is subject to different legal and constitutional considerations, and the President never has a
blank check. He or she is obligated to
act consistently with the law and the
Constitution at all times, even when in
defense of the country. When using
military force in self-defense, this
means his or her actions must be in response to an attack or imminent attack unless Congress has explicitly authorized some other action. Against

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4637

Sfmt 0634

this backdrop, the Risch amendment is
consistent with both the rule of construction in S.J. Res. 68 and the constitutional balance between Congress
and the executive branch over the use
of force.
For these reasons, I voted in favor of
the Risch amendment and am not surprised it passed overwhelmingly.
While Senate passage of S. J. Res. 68
is a major step against an unnecessary
and unauthorized war with Iran, I am
concerned that the administration may
not heed the message. At minimum, its
legal rationale for the Soleimani strike
suggests that it is attempting to lay
the foundation for further military action against Iran.
The administration has publicly asserted three legal bases for the
Soleimani strike, but none of them add
up.
First, let me address the 2002 Iraq authorization to use military force,
AUMF, a law that this administration
has distorted beyond recognition.
The administration has stated that
the 2002 AUMF is a valid legal basis for
the
Soleimani
strike
because
Soleimani was a threat ‘‘emanating
from Iraq.’’ I am sorry to say that does
not pass the laugh test.
Congress passed the 2002 AUMF for a
single purpose—to address the threat
posed by Saddam Hussein’s alleged
weapons of mass destruction. Nothing
about the law, its text, or its legislative history suggests that it ever authorize or was intended to authorize
the use of force against Iran.
I know because I was there. I debated
the AUMF, and I voted against it. But
even the most staunch supporters
would never have claimed that the authorization to use force against Saddam Hussein in 2002 extended to the
killing of a senior Iranian commander
18 years later.
The administration also cites article
II of the Constitution as a legal basis
for the Soleimani strike. Article II
would be available to the extent the
strike was necessary to defend against
an imminent attack; however, as I
noted earlier, nearly 2 months have
passed, and Congress and the American
people are still waiting for proof—proof
that such an attack was, in fact, imminent and, if so, that killing Soleimani
was required to prevent the attack.
Perhaps not surprisingly, given the
lack of supporting evidence, the administration does not limit its article II
claim to self-defense. Like other recent
administrations, it asserts that the
Constitution empowers the President
to use military force ‘‘to protect important national interests.’’
But what kind of legal standard is
this?
At best, ‘‘protecting important national interests’’ sets an incredibly low
bar for the most consequential of actions. At worst, it is a self-serving
power grab that the President can use
to justify military action anywhere in
the world without congressional authorization.

E:\CR\FM\A24FE6.009

S24FEPT1

 SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with SENATE

February 24, 2020

We should not be surprised—this
‘‘standard’’ was concocted by and for
the executive branch to maximize the
President’s ability to use military
force without congressional authorization. It does not reflect a neutral analysis of the separation of power, it has
not been tested in the courts, and it
has not been approved by Congress.
Just a few weeks ago, in this very
Chamber, we listened as the President’s defense lawyers argued during
the impeachment trial that steps taken
in support of the President’s reelection
are inherently in the national interest.
That was a shocking and frightening
claim in the impeachment context. But
now consider it in the context of sending the men and women of our Armed
Forces into harm’s way.
Surely the Constitution does not authorize the President to use force in
support of his or her reelection. Surely,
it does not. Then again, this administration has been unable or unwilling to
identify any limits on its purported article II authority, any instance in
which it would concede that it needs
Congress to authorize the use of force.
Finally, I refer you to Secretary
Pompeo’s January 17, 2020, appearance
on the Hugh Hewitt radio show. While
on air, Secretary Pompeo insinuated
that the designation of the IRGC as a
foreign terrorist organization, FTO,
served as a legal basis to target IRGC
members,
presumably
including
Soleimani.
FTO designations are administrative
actions taken pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act; they are
clearly not congressional authorizations for the use of military force.
Now, I was hoping that Secretary
Pompeo himself or a State Department
official on his behalf would issue a simple clarification and acknowledge what
we all know: An FTO designation has
no bearing on whether this or any administration can use military force,
period.
I have written the Secretary on this
question, and I have posed the same
question to the State Department’s
Acting Legal Adviser. We continue to
await a response, and I must say that
the delay does not leave me with much
confidence that we will receive the
right answer.
As so clearly demonstrated by the
flimsy legal rationale advanced in relation to the Soleimani strike, we cannot
rely on this administration or any administration to guard Congress’ prerogatives over war powers.
I am hopeful that the Soleimani
strike and the Senate debate over S.J.
Res. 68 will serve as a wake-up call. I
am hopeful that all of our colleagues in
this Chamber and in the House will
work to reassert Congress’ role over
the use of force.
We owe it to the Constitution, we
owe it to the American people, and we
owe it to the men and women who fight
and die on our behalf.

VerDate Sep 11 2014

02:38 Feb 25, 2020

S1115

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE

Jkt 099060

VOTE EXPLANATION
Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, I was absent for vote No. 300 on the Nomination:
Confirmation:
Daniel
Habib
Jorjani, of Kentucky, to be Solicitor of
the Department of the Interior. Had I
been present, I would have voted no on
the nomination.
Mr. President, I was absent for vote
No. 339 on the Amendment S. Amdt.
1209: Lee Amdt. No. 2109; To prohibit
the expenditure of certain amounts
from the Land and Water Conservation
Fund for land acquisition. Had I been
present, I would have voted no on the
amendment.

former competitor, the West Baden
Springs Hotel, were purchased by the
Cook Group, Inc., a family-owned company headquartered in Bloomington,
IN. After a complete 1-year renovation,
the French Lick Resort was born, continuing its legacy of attracting visitors
from the around the world to Southern
Indiana with a variety of events.
The French Lick Resort and its
world-class amenities have served millions of guests and has greatly added to
the cultural history of the United
States. On behalf of the State of Indiana, I wish the resort continued success for another 175 years and beyond.

f

RECOGNIZING 175 YEARS OF
HOSPITALITY IN FRENCH LICK
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I rise to
recognize 175 years of tourism, history,
and hospitality that the French Lick
Resort has brought to my home State
of Indiana.
In 1832, two Hoosier brothers, Thomas and Dr. William Bowles, purchased
1,500 acres of property near French
Lick, IN. Part of the property’s allure
was the abundant mineral springs loaded with Epsom salt and sulfur. As a
physician, Dr. Bowles became intrigued
by the medicinal benefits that the mineral springs possessed, which famously
turned into the Hoosier tonic Pluto
Water. In 1845, the brothers welcomed
their first guests after building a
unique,
three-story,
wood-framed
hotel.
In 1901, a small group of investors, including former Indianapolis mayor
Tom Taggart, bought the property
from the Bowles brothers. Mayor
Taggart’s vision and political expertise
aided in the development of the hotel
and the expansion of the Monon Railroad from Chicago to the front entrance, encouraging more tourists to
‘‘take to the waters.’’ By 1905, the
French Link Springs Hotel had become
a grand destination, and its services
were greatly sought after by all of Indiana society. Soon enough, it had
gained worldwide recognition. With the
hotel’s stunning success, Donald James
Ross, ‘‘the Michelangelo of golf course
design’’ and a member of the World
Golf Hall of Fame, was hired to build
the French Lick Springs Golf Course.
In 1924, the course hosted a PGA championship, attracting more national attention and further success. By 1931,
the hotel became the unofficial headquarters of the national Democratic
Party and became the site for the 1931
Democratic Governor’s Conference. As
a socialite destination, numerous notable guests visited the springs, including
Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Ronald Reagan, John Barrymore,
and Howard Hughes.
Because of its heritage of tourism
and hospitality, in 2003 the French
Lick Springs Hotel was added to the
National Register of Historic Places—a
distinction of notable merit. In 2005,
the French Lick Springs Hotel and its

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4637

Sfmt 0634

f

TRIBUTE TO BETTY COLBERT
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President,
today I wish to recognize Ms. Betty
Colbert on the occasion of her retirement from her position as program assistant for the U.S. Senate Youth Program, USSYP, after 57 years of remarkable service.
Ms. Colbert started working for the
USSYP during its first program in 1963
and has continued her impressive tenure ever since. With her guidance, the
program has provided unparalleled educational opportunities and experiences
for countless high school students.
Her involvement with the program
started thanks to her late husband, Mr.
George Colbert, a Tuskegee airman
who served as Mr. Randy Hearst’s driver while Mr. Hearst was helping to develop the USSYP. Despite working full
time with the National Institutes of
Health, Ms. Colbert took leave each
year in order to devote herself to the
USSYP’s administration. A thoughtful,
giving woman, she took a hands-on approach, doing everything from taking
calls from Senate offices and the White
House to making sure each participating student got an individual flag
flown over the Capitol to recognize
their accomplishment.
The success of USSYP alumni is in
part thanks to Ms. Colbert’s tireless efforts. I participate in the program
every year, including serving as cochair in 2019, and I can attest firsthand
to her unfailing work ethic and the
level of care she puts in to every aspect
of the USSYP.
Students, Senators, and staff members have all bore witness to Ms.
Colbert’s extraordinary commitment
to her role. Not only does she ensure
everything runs smoothly for all involved, but she also focuses on the
small details. Her driven, considerate
nature plays a significant part in giving students the most enjoyable and
transformative experience possible. Ms.
Colbert leaves behind a legacy that
will continue to positively shape the
USSYP for years to come.
I applaud her over half a century of
service and hope my colleagues will
join me in congratulating Ms. Betty
Colbert on her well-earned retirement.

E:\CR\FM\A24FE6.009

S24FEPT1