[Pages S5947-S5951]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

______

COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND
DRUG ADMINISTRATION, INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION,
VETERANS AFFAIRS, TRANSPORTATION, AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2020--Motion to Proceed

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Cloture having been invoked, the Senate will
resume legislative session to consider the motion to proceed to H.R.
3055, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 141, H.R. 3055, a bill
making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and
Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

Honoring Corporal Jerry Garrison

Mr. COTTON. Madam President, Army CPL Jerry Garrison was reported
missing in action on December 2, 1950. After all these years, Corporal
Garrison is on his way home to be laid to rest with full honor due to a
member of the U.S. Armed Forces.
Corporal Garrison was one of ``The Chosin Few'' who fought on that
frozen ground to protect his fellow soldiers and the independence of
the Korean people against the Communist hordes. God, in His mysterious
providence, chose to call Corporal Garrison home during that epic
battle, but only recently were his remains discovered in Vietnam.
Corporal Garrison's funeral today is a long-overdue moment of honor
for a brave soldier and a long-anticipated moment of mourning and
remembrance for his loved ones.
Let's also remember in our prayers the many families whose loved ones
haven't yet come home. Corporal Garrison's recovery is a moment of hope
for these families, a reminder that our Nation will not rest until
every one of our missing heroes is brought home, and it is a reminder
to our troops who are in harm's way today that we will always bring
them home should they fall in the line of duty or go missing in action.
We have now fulfilled that solemn pledge to Corporal Garrison. Nearly
70 years after he went missing, we have once again affirmed that the
United States leaves no man behind.
Rest in peace, Corporal Garrison.

Anniversary of the Beirut Marine Barracks Bombing

Madam President, 36 years ago this week, an Iranian suicide bomber
detonated thousands of pounds of explosives inside a Marine compound in
Beirut, Lebanon. So terrible was the blast that 15 miles out at sea,
the marines aboard the USS Iwo Jima could see black smoke building over
Beirut like an ominous storm cloud. The devastating attack claimed the
lives of 241 Americans who were bravely keeping the peace in a country
that was wracked by violence. A separate blast claimed the lives of 58
of our French allies.
This anniversary is a sobering reminder that freedom comes at a
price--a price too often paid by brave Americans in uniform. In Beirut,
it was paid by 220 marines, 18 sailors, and 3 soldiers.
As a memorial to their valor, I ask unanimous consent to have their
names printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Names of the Fallen in the Beirut Marine Barracks Bombing

Cpl Terry W Abbott, USMC; Cpl Clemon S Alexander, USMC;
LCpl John R Allman, USMC; Cpl Moses J Arnold Jr, USMC; LCpl
Charles K Bailey, USMC; LCpl Nicholas Baker, USMC; LCpl
Johansen Banks, USMC; Cpl Richard E Barrett, USMC; HM1 Ronny
K Bates, USN; 1stSgt David L Battle, USMC; Cpl James R
Baynard, USMC; HN Jesse W Beamon, USN; GySgt Alvin Belmer,
USMC; LCpl Stephen Bland, USMC; Sgt Richard L Blankenship,
USMC; LCpl John W Blocker, USMC; Capt Joseph J Boccia Jr,
USMC; Sgt Leon Bohannon Jr, USMC; SSgt John R Bohnet Jr,
USMC; Sgt John J Bonk Jr, USMC.
Cpl Jeffrey L Boulos, USMC; LCpl David R Bousum, USMC;
1stLt John N Boyett, USMC; Sgt Anthony Brown, USMC; Cpl David
W Brown, USMC; Cpl Bobby S Buchanan Jr, USMC; Cpl John B
Buckmaster, USMC; LCpl William F Burley, USMC; HN Jimmy R
Cain, USN; Cpl Paul L Callahan, USMC; Sgt Mecot E Camara,
USMC; PFC Bradley J Campus, USMC; Cpl Johnnie D Ceasar, USMC;
PFC Marc L Cole, USMC; SP4 Marcus A Coleman, USA; PFC Juan M
Comas, USMC; Sgt Robert A Conley, USMC; Sgt Charles D Cook,
USMC; Cpl Curtis J Cooper, USMC.
LCpl Johnny L Copeland, USMC; Cpl Bert D Corcoran, USMC;
Cpl David L Cosner, USMC; SSgt Kevin P Coulman, USMC; Cpl
Brett A Croft, USMC; Cpl Rick R Crudale, USMC; Cpl Kevin P
Custard, USMC; Cpl Russell E Cyzick, USMC; Maj Andrew L
Davis, USMC; PFC Sidney James Decker, USMC; LCpl Michael J
Devlin, USMC; Cpl Thomas A Dibenedetto, USMC; Pvt Nathaniel G
Dorsey, USMC; Sgt Maj Frederick B Douglass, USMC; LCpl
Timothy J Dunnigan, USMC; HN Bryan L Earle, USN; MSgt Roy L
Edwards, USMC; HM3 William D Elliot Jr, USN; LCpl Jesse
Ellison, USMC; LCpl Danny R Estes, USMC; LCpl Sean F Estler,
USMC.
HM3 James E Faulk, USN; LCpl Richard A Fluegel, USMC; Cpl
Steven M Forrester, USMC; HM3 William B Foster Jr, USN; Cpl
Michael D Fulcher, USMC; LCpl Benjamin E Fuller, USMC; Cpl
Michael S Fulton, USMC; Cpl William Gaines Jr, USMC; Cpl Sean
R Gallagher, USMC; Cpl David B Gander, USMC; Cpl George M
Gangur, USMC; SSgt Leland E Gann, USMC; LCpl Randall J
Garcia, USMC; SSgt Ronald J Garcia, USMC; Cpl David D Gay,
USMC; SSgt Harold D Ghumm, USMC; Cpl Warner Gibbs Jr, USMC;
Sgt Timothy R Giblin, USMC; ETC Michael W Gorchinski, USN;
Cpl Richard J Gordon, USMC.
LCpl Harold F Gratton, USMC; Sgt Robert B Greaser, USMC;
Cpl Davin M Green, USMC; Cpl Thomas A Hairston, USMC; Sgt
Freddie Haltiwanger Jr, USMC; Cpl Virgil D Hamilton, USMC;
Sgt Gilbert Hanton, USMC; LCpl William Hart, USMC; Capt
Michael S Haskell, USMC; LCpl Michael A Hastings, USMC; Maj
Paul A Hein, USMC; LCpl Douglas E Held, USMC; Cpl Mark A
Helms, USMC; Cpl Ferrandy D Henderson, USMC; MSgt Matilde
Hernandez Jr, USMC; Sgt Stanley G Hester, USMC; GySgt Donald
W Hildreth, USMC; SSgt Richard H Holberton, USMC; HM3 Robert
S Holland, USN; LCpl Bruce A Hollingshead, USMC.
LCpl Melvin D Holmes, USMC; Cpl Bruce L Howard, USMC; LT
John R Hudson, USN; Cpl Terry L Hudson, USMC; Cpl Lyndon J
Hue, USMC; 2ndLt Maurice E Hukill, USMC; Cpl Edward F
Iacovino Jr, USMC; LCpl John J Ingalls, USMC; CWO2 Paul G
Innocenzi III, USMC; Cpl James J Jackowski, USMC; Cpl Jeffrey
W James, USMC; LCpl Nathaniel W Jenkins, USMC; HM2 Michael H
Johnson, USN; Cpl Edward A Johnston, USMC; Cpl Steven Jones,
USMC; PFC Thomas A Julian, USMC; HM2 Marion E Kees, USN; Sgt
Thomas C Keown, USMC; GySgt Edward E Kimm, USMC; PFC Walter V
Kingsley, USMC.
SP5 Daniel S Kluck, USA; Cpl James C Knipple, USMC; Cpl
Freas H Kreischer III, USMC; LCpl Keith J Laise, USMC; Cpl
Thomas G Lamb, USMC; Cpl James J Langon IV, USMC; Sgt Michael
S Lariviere, USMC; Sgt Steven B Lariviere, USMC; MSgt Richard
L Lemnah, USMC; Cpl David A Lewis, USMC; Sgt Val S Lewis,
USMC; Cpl Joseph R Livingston, USMC; Cpl Paul D Lyon Jr,
USMC; Maj John W Macroglou, USMC; Cpl Samuel Maitland, USMC.
SSgt Charlie R Martin, USMC; PFC Jack L Martin, USMC; Cpl
David S Massa, USMC; Sgt Michael R Massman, USMC; Pvt Joseph

[[Page S5948]]

J Mattacchione, USMC; Cpl John Mccall, USMC; Sgt James E
McDonough, USMC; LCpl Timothy R McMahon, USMC; LCpl Timothy D
McNeely, USMC; HM2 George N McVicker II, USN; LCpl Louis
Melendez, USMC; Sgt Menkins, Richard H II, USMC; Sgt Michael
D Mercer, USMC; Cpl Ronald W Meurer, USMC; HM3 Joseph P
Milano, USN; Sgt Joseph P Moore, USMC; LCpl Richard A Morrow,
USMC; Cpl John F Muffler, USMC.
LCpl Alex Munoz, USMC; Sgt Harry D Myers, USMC; 1stLt David
J Nairn, USMC; LCpl Luis A Nava, USMC; Sgt John A Olson,
USMC; LCpl Robert P Olson, USMC; CWO3 Richard C Ortiz, USMC;
LCpl Jeffrey B Owen, USMC; Sgt Joseph A Owens, USMC; Cpl
Connie Ray Page, USMC; LCpl Ulysses Parker, USMC; LCpl Mark W
Payne, USMC; MSgt John L Pearson, USMC; LCpl Thomas S Perron,
USMC; Sgt John A Phillips Jr, USMC; HMC George W Piercy, USN;
1stLt Clyde W Plymel, USMC; Sgt William H Pollard, USMC; Sgt
Rafael I Pomalestorres, USMC; Cpl Victor M Prevatt, USMC.
PFC James C Price, USMC; SSgt Patrick K Prindeville, USMC;
LCpl Eric A Pulliam, USMC; HM3 Diomedes J Quirante, USN; Cpl
David M Randolph, USMC; GySgt Charles R Ray, USMC; Pvt Rui A
Relvas, USMC; LCpl Terrence L Rich, USMC; Cpl Warren
Richardson, USMC; Sgt Juan C Rodriguez, USMC; LCpl Louis J
Rotondo, USMC; Cpl Guillermo Sanpedro Jr, USMC; Cpl Michael C
Sauls, USMC; 2ndLt Charles J Schnorf, USMC; LCpl Scott L
Schultz, USMC; Capt Peter J Scialabba, USMC; Sgt Gary R
Scott, USMC; Sgt Ronald L Shallo, USMC; Cpl Thomas A Shipp,
USMC; LCpl Jerryl D Shropshire, USMC; Cpl James F Silvia,
USMC.
LCpl Stanley J Sliwinski, USMC; Cpl Kirk H Smith, USMC;
SSgt Thomas G Smith, USMC; Capt Vincent L Smith, USMC; Cpl
Edward Soares, USMC; 1stLt William S Sommerhof, USMC; Cpl
Michael C Spaulding, USMC; LCpl John W Spearing, USMC; Cpl
Stephen E Spencer, USMC; LCpl Bill J Stelpflug, USMC; PFC
Horace R Stephens, USMC; LCpl Craig S Stockton, USMC; Cpl
Jeffrey G Stokes, USMC; Cpl Thomas D Stowe, USMC; Cpl Eric D
Sturghill, USMC; Cpl Devon L Sundar, USMC; LT James F Surch
Jr, USN; LCpl Dennis A Thompson, USMC; SSgt Thomas P
Thorstad, USMC.
PFC Stephen D Tingley, USMC; LCpl John J Tishmack, USMC;
LCpl H. Townsend, USMC; PFC Lex D Trahan, USMC; LCpl Donald H
Vallone Jr, USMC; LCpl Eric R Walker, USMC; LCpl Leonard W
Walker, USMC; Sgt Eric G Washington, USMC; Cpl Obrian Weekes,
USMC; 1stSgt Tandy W Wells, USMC; LCpl Steven B Wentworth,
USMC; Sgt Allen D Wesley, USMC; GySgt Lloyd D West, USMC;
SSgt John R Weyl, USMC; Sgt Burton D Wherland Jr, USMC.
LCpl Dwayne W Wigglesworth, USMC; Cpl Rodney J Williams,
USMC; MSgt Scipio Williams Jr, USMC; Cpl Johnny A Williamson,
USMC; Capt Walter E Wint Jr, USMC; Maj William E Winter,
USMC; Cpl John E Wolfe, USMC; 1stLt Donald E Woollett, USMC;
HM3 David E Worley, USN; LCpl Craig L Wyche, USMC; SFC James
G Yarber, USA; Sgt Jeffrey D Young, USMC; 1stLt William A
Zimmerman, USMC.

Mr. COTTON. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

Healthcare

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor to discuss last
Tuesday's 2020 Democratic Presidential debate and specifically to
discuss the topic of healthcare.
Despite all of the political posturing, here are the key takeaways:
No. 1, the Democrats still want to take work-earned health insurance
away from 180 million Americans. No. 2, the Democrats want to raise
taxes on the middle class and on all Americans to pay for it.
Under the Democrats' plan, people will lose forever the health
coverage they have earned at work. That means union workers' hard-
fought health benefits will disappear. It means that Nevada's food
service workers and Michigan's autoworkers will all lose their earned
healthcare.
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders want to replace work-based
insurance with a one-size-fits-all, government-run scheme. At the same
time, the 2020 Democrats want to give free, taxpayer-funded health
insurance to illegal immigrants. It is hard to believe, but that is a
matter of fact. That is the Democrats' so-called Medicare for All plan.
Really, it is one-size-fits-all, government-controlled healthcare, and
it is extremely expensive, even more expensive than I mentioned before
on the floor, which is according to a new study that has come out by
something called the Urban Institute. This liberal group has just
reported that the cost of Medicare for All would be $34 trillion--that
is 34 with a ``t.'' Let's put that into perspective. How much money is
that? Over the next 10 years, that will be more money than we will
spend on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security combined. It will be
an astronomically large number.
The Washington Post recently published a story with the headline
``Will Medicare for-all hurt the middle class?'' The subheadline reads
``Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders struggle with questions about its
impact.'' We have seen them struggle with the impact of this very
expensive, one-size-fits-all plan. The story notes that Senators Warren
and Sanders are scrambling to ease concerns over middle-class costs,
because that is what people are concerned about in this country--the
cost of healthcare.
Working families back home in Wyoming--and I talked with many this
past weekend at our University of Wyoming's homecoming football game--
and people from all around the State are not fooled by what is being
offered by the Democrats in their debates. They know they will have to
pay dearly if the Democrats' scheme is adopted and ever signed into
law.
The Washington Post's story quotes and cites Ken Thorpe, who is Emory
University's health policy chair. He says: ``The plan is, by design,
incredibly disruptive.'' He goes on to say: ``You create enormous
winners and losers,'' and he adds: ``There is no question it hits the
middle class.''
For the middle class, it is a double punch in the gut, and here is
why. Not only will those in the middle class lose their insurance, but
their taxes will also go up.
Senator Warren will not answer the middle-class tax increase
question. She will not talk about it. She dodged the question again and
again. As the Post reports, the Senator writes she will release a plan
to pay for her proposal in the next few weeks, but at the same time,
she continues to duck the tax question. Last Tuesday, she repeatedly
tap-danced around the issue on the debate stage. In fact, Senator
Warren's debate performance reminded me of the Artful Dodger in the
Dickens novel ``Oliver Twist.'' She said out-of-pocket healthcare costs
will go down, but she failed to mention that much, much more will be
taken out of middle-class pockets in huge tax hikes.
It is interesting when you see how this is covered around the world.
The British publication The Economist knows a lot about socialized
medicine, as they have been living with the British healthcare system
for many, many years. It points out that Elizabeth Warren repeatedly
refused to say how she would pay for the plan. They write that she
ducked the question six times.
During the debate, it was Senator Sanders who jumped in to set the
record straight. Bernie Sanders said: ``I do think it is appropriate to
acknowledge that taxes will go up.'' He has even promised to raise
taxes for lower income Americans. He said: ``If you're making more than
$29,000 a year''--and he is not talking about an individual; he is
talking about a family here--``you will be paying more in taxes'' under
the plan that is promoted by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
Then there is this warning from University of Chicago's economist
Katherine Baicker, who says:

These are going to be big tax increases. The tax brackets
may have to shift.

In last week's Wall Street Journal editorial, headlined ``Warren's
Middle-Class Tax Dodge,'' it explains: ``The only way to pay for this
[plan] is to raise taxes on the middle class, which is where the real
money is.''
To sum up, while Senator Warren continues to dodge the tax issue,
Senator Sanders admits that Medicare for All will raise taxes on just
about everyone.
Under the Warren-Sanders plan, middle-class taxes will rise. Taxes
even rise for lower income families. We are talking about those with a
family income of $29,000.
Here is the bottom line. Americans will not tolerate having insurance
go away and will not tolerate having taxes go up. They want to keep
their healthcare plans, and they want them at lower costs. So we have a
choice to make. We can work together to lower costs without lowering
standards, or we can follow the 2020 Democrats who are pushing for
their $34 trillion, one-size-fits-all plan.
Don't let this Artful Dodger act fool you. Senator Warren and Senator
Sanders support the same plan. They will not lower healthcare costs,
but they will raise everybody's taxes. They will not improve care, but
they will take coverage away from 180 million

[[Page S5949]]

Americans who now get it through work.
As a doctor, I want to improve patient care. I want to make
healthcare more affordable. The Republicans are 100 percent committed
to protecting patients who have preexisting conditions. We continue to
work on bipartisan solutions and real reforms to lower the costs of
everyone's care.
Meanwhile, the solution we heard last week on the debate stage, the
2020 Democrats' solution, will force all of us to pay more and wait
longer for worse care. That is what they have seen in Canada, what they
have seen in England, and what we will see in the United States if this
one-size-fits-all plan ever goes into effect.
Let's give patients what they want, which is the care they need from
the doctors they choose and at lower costs.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

Multiemployer Pension Plans

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I come to the floor to discuss legislation
approved by the House of Representatives that would leave taxpayers
holding the fiscal bag for a specific category of underfunded private
pension plans.
Throughout most of my professional life, from my days as an
accountant, to my service as the mayor of Gillette, WY, and in the
Wyoming Legislature, to my membership on the Senate's Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and then on the Committee on
Finance, I have worked on pension policy. This experience has taught me
many things about retirement security and the need for sound planning.
My concern with the House-passed bill is not just with its immediate
cost to the taxpayers but also with what it would mean down the road.
The bill would send the signal to private pension plans that regardless
of how underfunded they are or how risky their investments, the
taxpayers will be there to bail them out.
Pensions are an important source of retirement income for millions of
Americans, but many of the private sector's multiemployer pension plans
are seriously underfunded. These are plans that are sponsored by a
group of private employers as part of collective bargaining agreements
with their employees and are separate from the single employers' plans,
which are generally better funded.
According to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation,
multiemployers' pension plans are underfunded by more than $637
billion. That is $637 billion that is underfunded. Out of the 1,247
multiemployer pension plans that we have information on, 1,235 are
underfunded. That would mean that 12 are not underfunded.
In July of this year, the House of Representatives passed the
Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019, which would bail
out some of the worst-funded multiemployer plans at the taxpayers'
expense. The bill would provide a combination of low-interest loans and
direct cash payments to the private sector's multiemployer plans that
are currently insolvent or are designated as ``critical and
declining.''
The official Congressional Budget Office's cost estimate of the bill
states it would increase deficits by $49 billion over the next 10
years, but, as a separate analysis points out, which I requested from
the budget office, the true cost and risk to taxpayers is actually much
higher.
First, the bill includes a handful of revenue provisions to help
offset its cost, but the House included these same provisions in a
separate bill it passed earlier this year. Without this $16 billion in
double-counted revenues, the bailout bill's price tag jumps to $65
billion over the next decade.
Second, the analysis projects that most pension plans would not fully
repay their loans without the grant assistance provided in this bill.
What that means is that these plan providers are going to use taxpayer
dollars to help repay loans made to them by taxpayers. That is quite a
deal.
Further, the budget office's analysis shows that even with these
taxpayer-provided grants, one-quarter of the plans receiving loans
under the House bill would become insolvent within the 30-year loan
period. CBO projects that most of the other plans would become
insolvent in the decade after they repay their loans. All of this begs
the question, then what?
Now, third, as I alluded to a moment ago, much of the bill's cost
doesn't show up in the first 10 years. When you consider the total
amount of new spending the bill authorizes over the next several
decades, along with the added interest costs we will have to pay, the
total cost would be more than $100 billion.
To add insult to injury, the House bill would not resolve the larger
multiemployer pension crisis. The bill would apply only to those that
are currently insolvent or critical and declining. It would not address
the many other plans that are treading water now but will face
insolvency in the future. You can bet that if this bill goes through,
those plans would be expecting their bailout when the time comes. What
a precedent.
All of this is setting up for additional bailouts in the future,
potentially putting taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of billions of
dollars.
Now, only about 12 percent of private sector workers participate in a
pension plan, and an even smaller number participate in these
multiemployer plans. This bill would put the vast majority of workers
who don't have their own pension plans on the hook for bailing out the
small percentage who do. That hardly seems fair.
Hard-working Americans overwhelmingly agree that we can't afford a
pension bailout. A recent poll shows that a majority of voters oppose a
taxpayer-funded bailout of unfunded union pension plans. This is
because voters know a bad deal when they see it.
Before I close, I am going to remind my colleagues that the Federal
Government already has its own unfunded promises that need addressing,
and these are programs that will affect the vast majority of Americans.
Trustees for Social Security estimate that Social Security's long-term
benefit promises exceed its dedicated tax revenues by almost $17
trillion, and Medicare's long-term spending is projected to exceed its
dedicated taxes and premiums by more than $40 trillion.
We need to work to find solutions to address the Federal Government's
own funding shortfalls for the vast majority of Americans and not bail
out underfunded private sector pension plans for the few.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Appropriations

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am pleased that the Senate is
beginning debate on the fiscal year 2020 appropriations bill for the
Departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and
related agencies. This bill has been included in the appropriations
package that has just now been brought before this Chamber.
Let me begin my remarks by thanking Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman
Leahy for their bipartisan leadership in advancing these appropriations
bills to the Senate floor. Given that we have reached a 2-year,
bicameral, bipartisan budget agreement in August and the new fiscal
year began on October 1, it is imperative for the Senate to move these
bills quickly and to go to conference with the House in order to avoid
further continuing resolutions or, even worse, a government shutdown.
I also want to acknowledge the hard work and strong commitment of my
friend and colleague, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the ranking
member of the T-HUD Subcommittee. We have worked so closely together in
drafting this bill, which includes more than 950 requests from 75
Senators.
Let me repeat that. We received 950 requests from three-quarters of
our colleagues for ideas for this bill, for funding levels, and in
support of certain programs. We evaluated all of them very carefully
and accommodated as many as we could.
The T-HUD bill passed the full Appropriations Committee by a
unanimous vote of 31 to 0. It reflects a truly bipartisan product.
The allocation for the fiscal year 2020 transportation-housing
appropriations

[[Page S5950]]

bill is $74.3 billion. That is $3.2 billion above the current funding
levels. This additional funding is necessary because of rising rental
costs across the country and a reduction in the receipts from the
Federal Housing Administration that are used to offset some of the
spending in this bill.
In spite of these considerable funding challenges, our bill not only
fully funds the renewal of housing assistance for low-income seniors
and other vulnerable populations, but it also continues to provide
robust investments in our infrastructure. For example, the bill
provides $1 billion for the highly effective and popular BUILD grant
program. The BUILD program helps fund critical infrastructure projects
that promote economic development and the creation of jobs.
I am proud to say that Maine has won a BUILD grant every year of this
program, including a critical $25 million grant to replace the Sarah
Mildred Long Bridge that is critical to the operations of the
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, ME.
Particularly important to States like Maine, the bill also provides
much needed highway resources. While only 19 percent of the U.S.
population lives in rural areas, 46 percent of traffic fatalities occur
in rural America. That is because the roads and the bridges in the
rural parts of our country are frequently in much poorer condition than
those in urban areas. Building on the success of the rural bridge
rehabilitation program over the last 2 years, our bill provides $1.25
billion in dedicated funding for bridges that are deteriorating and
nearing the end or have reached the end of their useful life.
The bill fully funds the INFRA grant program, which provides
resources for large-scale freight projects through a competitive grant
process.
In fiscal year 2019, I was pleased to advocate for the Maine
Department of Transportation's successful application to replace the
Madawaska international bridge in Northern Maine. This project will
help to replace a critical corridor and connector between Madawaska and
New Brunswick on the Canadian side of the border. This is so important
to the economy of Northern Maine and supports more than 5,800 direct
and indirect jobs. Right now, that bridge has been posted. That means
that heavy trucks are unable to cross in the most effective and
shortest route between Edmonton, New Brunswick, and Madawaska, ME.
These critical programs support not only much needed infrastructure
projects but also jobs and economic growth in each and every one of our
home States.
The American Society of Civil Engineers conducts a comprehensive
assessment of our Nation's infrastructure every 4 years. Its most
recent report card from 2017 shows that America's infrastructure
remains in poor condition, with a grade of D-plus. That should be a
call to action to all of us. It is simply unacceptable. It not only
creates safety problems, it also impedes economic development.
One in eleven of our Nation's bridges is rated as structurally
deficient, and the average age of our country's more than 600,000
bridges is 43 years old. Our National Highway System contains
infrastructure that is now well past its useful life. Some bridges are
more than 100 years old, and many have had to be posted and are unable
to accommodate today's traffic volumes. Without the critical funding in
the T-HUD bill dedicated to bridges, as well as the BUILD grant
program, we simply will not be able to make progress to improve our
Nation's infrastructure.
Let me now turn to aviation. The bill provides $17.7 billion in
resources for the Federal Aviation Administration--the FAA--which
allows us to fully fund air traffic control personnel, including more
than 14,000 air traffic controllers, and more than 25,000 engineers,
maintenance technicians, safety inspectors, and operational support
staff. Given the significant challenges the FAA faces in aviation
safety, particularly as has become evident with the certification of
the Boeing 737-MAX aircraft, the bill increases funding for aviation
safety and aircraft certification activities and requires the FAA to
respond to each and every one of the recommendations made by the
inspector general and the National Transportation Safety Board once
their audits and reviews are completed. In addition, it requires the
FAA to move forward with a rulemaking on safety management systems for
aircraft manufacturers and to assess its own internal workforce.
The bill also provides $1.2 billion for FAA's Next Generation Air
Transportation System's programs--also known as NextGen--to improve the
efficiency and safety of the national airspace. This funding is
critical for reducing delays and addressing congestion at some of our
Nation's busiest airports.
Of particular importance to rural communities, the bill fully funds
the Contract Tower Program and the Essential Air Service Program.
In addition, the bill provides $450 million for the Airport
Improvement Program in keeping with the authorized level. This
supplemental AIP funding has been extremely helpful for small airports
in Maine that otherwise would not be able to complete runway extension
projects that are vital for air ambulances.
Turning to maritime programs, our legislation provides full funding
for our Nation's State maritime academies, as well as the U.S. Merchant
Marine Academy, all of which play critical roles in training the next
generation of U.S. mariners.
The bill provides $300 million for the third special purpose vessel
to be used as a training school ship for the State maritime academies.
In accordance with the guidance provided 3 years ago by MARAD, new
training ships will replace existing aging training ships in the order
in which those ships are expected to reach the end of their useful
lives. Over the past 2 years, we have funded replacement ships for the
New York State Maritime Academy and the Massachusetts Maritime Academy.
Funding in this bill will replace the aging vessel at the Maine
Maritime Academy, which was next on the list. These new ships provide
training capacity for all six State maritime academies and ensure that
cadets receive the training hours they need to graduate and join the
workforce in the Merchant Marine, the Navy, and the Coast Guard.
In the area of housing, our priority is to ensure that our Nation's
most vulnerable do not lose their housing assistance and become
homeless; therefore, the bill provides necessary funding increases to
cover the higher costs of rental assistance for the most vulnerable
among us, including disabled citizens and our low-income seniors.
Senator Reed and I share a strong commitment to reducing and ending
homelessness and have included $2.8 billion for homeless assistance
grants. To help our homeless youth and underserved population, we
provide $80 million for grants.
Many Members share my concern that young people are aging out of the
foster care system and have nowhere safe to go. Far too frequently,
they end up couch-surfing or living on the streets, vulnerable to those
who would abuse them. To better support our youth who are exiting the
foster care system who are at risk of becoming exploited or homeless,
the bill also includes $20 million for family unification vouchers.
For our Nation's homeless veterans, the bill provides $40 million for
the successful HUD-VASH Program. In the land of the brave, there should
always be a home for our veterans. Despite the administration once
again proposing to eliminate this highly successful program, the
committee continues to provide funding. This program has been so
successful that it has helped to reduce veteran homelessness by nearly
50 percent since it was first started in 2010.
Another important issue, particularly to Senator Reed and to me, is
lead paint in homes. That is a particular concern to families with
children under age 6. The bill provides $290 million to combat lead
hazards--a historic level of funding. Lead paint hazards are a
significant concern for Maine families, as 57 percent of our housing
stock was constructed prior to 1978, the year lead-based paint was
banned. These grants will help communities protect children from the
harmful effects--what can be lifelong effects--of lead poisoning.
The bill also supports local development efforts by providing $3.3
billion for the Community Development Block Grant Program--another
program that the administration proposed to eliminate but for which we
had overwhelming support expressed in letters

[[Page S5951]]

from our colleagues. The reason the Community Development Block Grant
Program is so popular is its flexibility. It can be tailored to meet
local needs. We have also included $1.4 billion for the HOME Program.
These two programs support the development of affordable housing and
other infrastructure projects and revitalize downtowns, which in turn
promote economic development and lead to the creation of more jobs.
I appreciate the opportunity to present this important legislation to
the Chamber as we begin debate on the Transportation-HUD funding bill.
I urge my colleagues to support the investments in this bill that
benefit our communities all across this Nation and the families,
veterans, children, and our seniors who rely on these vital programs.
Let me end my remarks by again thanking my colleague, friend, and
ranking member, Senator Reed, for his close collaboration and hard
work. I am very proud of the fact that once again this year we have
produced a bipartisan bill that was unanimously approved by our
committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The Senator majority leader is
recognized.

Unanimous Consent Agreement--H.R. 2740

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
cloture motion with respect to the motion to proceed to H.R. 2740 ripen
at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in concurrence with
the Democratic leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

Vote on Motion to Proceed

Mr. McCONNELL. I know of no further debate on the motion to proceed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.

____________________