September 19, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 151 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages S5591-S5596]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 1044

  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary 
Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1044 and 
that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Lee amendment, No. 939, be agreed 
to, that the bill as amended be considered read a third time and 
passed, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. PERDUE. Madam President, I want to commend my good friend from 
the great State of Utah, Senator Mike Lee, for his work on putting this 
bill together and pulling the people together to support this bill.
  I support this bill. We have some language that needs to be 
clarified, and I still have some concerns about the impact this 
legislation would have on

[[Page S5592]]

some specific industries in not only my State but in the country. I 
want to work with Senator Lee in addressing these concerns and come to 
a resolution on this very quickly. I commit to working with him and his 
team to make sure we get to a resolution because we want the exact same 
thing, and this is totally consistent with what President Trump is 
trying to do in his long-term work to fix our broken immigration 
system.
  With that, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I want to recognize my appreciation for the 
Senator from Georgia, who has expressed a good-faith, earnest desire to 
work with me on this legislation. I want very badly to get this passed. 
It needs to pass. I want to talk for a few minutes about the reasons 
this legislation needs to pass.
  I believe this legislation, as amended, as I proposed to be enacted 
today with Lee amendment No. 939, is itself ready to be passed into 
law. In my opinion, there is no justifiable cause for delay. We will 
continue to work on it. I wish we could pass it today. It should be 
passed today because it is ready.
  The bill we are talking about, of course, is the Fairness for High-
Skilled Immigrants Act. This is an important, bipartisan piece of 
legislation, one that I have been proud to sponsor, along with Senator 
Harris, who has been my Democratic partner on this issue.
  The Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act has been a priority of 
mine for many years, nearly the entire time I have been in the Senate. 
During that time, it has been the subject of strong debate and a lot of 
scrutiny on the Hill. Like most bills, its path to becoming law has not 
always been straight or clear and certainly not clear of obstacles. But 
with the passage of the companion bill in the House of Representatives 
by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 365 to 65, I believe that now is 
the moment we really can finally move forward with this small but 
critically important fix to our immigration system. We could do that. 
We would be in a position to do that today had an objection not been 
raised.
  Notwithstanding that objection, I am going to continue to work in the 
coming days to make it a reality because this is a reform whose time 
has come, and I would like to take a moment to explain why it deserves 
support from my colleagues.
  Again, we have to take into account that this passed the House of 
Representatives with a vote of 365 to 65. It is not easy to find 
something that can garner that much bipartisan support.
  Wrangling over the nuts and bolts and fine-print details of the 
policy, as extremely as important as that is, can at times allow us to 
lose sight of more basic foundational principles that should shape any 
law or any set of laws we put on the books.
  Among other things, our laws should be consistent with our Nation's 
deeply held beliefs and values. A system of laws should also be clear 
and coherent, meaning that it should not only give adequate notice of 
what is required in order for a person to comply with the law, but it 
also should be something that is capable of being complied with. 
Finally, the means employed by any law should be consistent with the 
objectives that law seeks to accomplish. These are not partisan 
principles. They are simple yet incredibly important guideposts that 
should direct the actions of anyone entrusted with crafting a legal 
system, as we certainly are in this Chamber.
  Unfortunately, the laws we pass don't always live up to the standards 
of fair and effective and consistent lawmaking. One of the starkest 
examples of our failure to abide by these same principles involves the 
way we allocate employment-based green cards.
  Few ideas are more central to who we are as Americans than the notion 
that people should be judged and treated by their government based on 
their own merits as individuals--as individuals with inherent God-given 
rights--and not on the basis of the color of their skin or of the 
country in which they were born.
  Our Founders wrote: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that 
all men are created equal.'' Those words are as much a part of our 
national creed in this moment as they were when they were written some 
243 years ago. Our laws should reflect this. They should reflect the 
enduring truth found in those words, which I believe were inspired. 
They are inspirational to this day. I believe they were inspired at the 
time they wrote them, and that is why they are lasting in their 
importance and their persuasive effect.
  Despite this ideal, section 1152 of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act provides that ``the total number of [employment-based] visas made 
available to natives of any single foreign state . . . in any fiscal 
year may not exceed 7 percent . . . of the total number of such visas 
made available.'' That rather antiseptic language, technical and 
clinical on its face, is, on closer inspection, deeply out of step with 
our country's commitment to nondiscrimination and to equal treatment 
under the law.
  In practice, section 1152's 7 percent cap on immigrants from any one 
country means that, if two immigrants apply for an employment-based 
visa at precisely the same moment and have the exact same skills and 
education and other factors taken into account on their applications, 
one of them may wait 12 months for a green card while his counterpart 
languishes in the green card backlog for decades. That is not an 
exaggeration--literally decades.
  The only factor that accounts for this gross and unfair, difficult to 
justify or defend disparity in treatment is the fact that the second 
immigrant in my hypothetical example happened to have been born in a 
different country than the first. They are otherwise identically 
situated to each other, but one may be processed within a year, and the 
other may languish for decades. This is because, under the per-country 
cap system, immigrants from larger, more populated countries are only 
eligible to receive the same number of green cards annually as 
immigrants from smaller countries. As a result, the wait times for 
immigrants from larger countries have grown and grown decade after 
decade, with no end in sight. This amounts to a de facto country-of-
origin discrimination, plain and simple, and no amount of legalese or 
wonkish policy arguments can cover up that fact.

  Beyond its incompatibility with the deep and abiding principles upon 
which this country was founded, the per-country cap system violates 
another one of those commonsense maxims of good lawmaking that I 
mentioned earlier: the need for clarity and for consistency in the law.
  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act provides that it is unlawful for an 
employer ``to discriminate against any individual with respect to his 
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because 
of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.'' 
Yet the conditions created by the per-country caps virtually guarantee 
that employers on some level must take into account the national origin 
when recruiting certain immigrant workers.
  If prospective hires from one country will be able to obtain a green 
card in 12 months, while those from another--even a person who happens 
to have superior training and skills--will be unable to obtain a green 
card for possibly decades, it is virtually unavoidable that the 
employer will take national origin into account. Think about that. One 
section of the U.S. Code forbids employers from taking national origin 
into account when making employment decisions; another section makes it 
impossible for an employer not to take that into account. The grounds 
on which that kind of system can be defended as sound public policy are 
beyond me.
  The pernicious consequences of this intrinsically flawed system do 
not stop there, as 95 percent of immigrants stuck in the green card 
backlog are already in the United States on temporary visas. In many 
cases, they have brought their spouses and their children with them to 
build a life in this country. Yet, because temporary visa holders can 
only sponsor their foreign-born child up until the time the child turns 
21, many in the backlog, waiting decades for a green card, are forced 
to choose between separating from their child as the child ages out of 
the temporary visa or abandoning their dream of settling in America in 
order to return to their home country in order to keep their family 
together. In the most heartbreaking among those cases--of

[[Page S5593]]

which there are sadly far too many--the child was brought here at a 
very young age and may have no memory of the country to which they 
would be forced to return.
  It bears repeating. This is happening not because these individuals 
broke the law--they haven't done anything wrong--and it is not because 
they don't satisfy the merit-based eligibility criteria needed to 
receive an employment-based green card. I understand that immigration 
laws do have consequences, and we have to follow the law, but it 
doesn't stem from any violation of the law or any lack of eligibility 
stemming from any factor other than country of origin. It happens for 
no reason other than the country in which they happen to have been 
born.
  If that made sense, if there were some sound principle and public 
policy that anyone could point to, then perhaps we wouldn't have 
occasion to be talking about changing this law. Perhaps we wouldn't 
have gotten 365 votes, Democrats and Republicans joining together in 
the House of Representatives voting to pass this. The fact is, I have 
yet to meet anyone in this body or in the House of Representatives who 
can defend this flawed policy on its merits because it makes no sense.
  Finally, the per-country cap system is irredeemably flawed because, 
among its other problems, it is also incompatible with the goals that 
our employment-based visa system are meant to advance in the first 
place. The employment-based visa system is supposed to enable American 
businesses to bring the best and the brightest to this country. Yet, 
under the per-country caps, a factor that has nothing to do with a 
person's skills or merit distorts and in many cases ultimately 
determines the recruitment process. This weakens the merit-based 
portion of our immigration system. Indeed, it is directly at war with 
the supposed purpose of our employment-based green card system.
  Despite its obvious deficiencies, the per-country caps have been part 
of our immigration laws since the 1950s. This is something that came 
into our law during the Elvis Presley era, during the Buddy Holly era--
not exactly something that was intended to remain on the books very 
long. Regardless of what they intended at the time as far as how long 
it should last, I don't believe they had good, legitimate reasons to 
put it into law then. Whatever reasons they had then certainly don't 
apply now. They are not even discernible to anyone I know today.
  It is long past time that we replace that flawed policy with a more 
rational and equitable approach. Fortunately, the solution to these 
problems is not only straightforward, but it is agreed upon by a broad 
bipartisan coalition of Senators and Representatives. We must simply 
eliminate the per-country caps in order to ensure a fair and reasonable 
allocation of employment-based green cards. That is exactly what the 
Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act would accomplish. Without the 
per-country caps, our skills-based green card system would operate on a 
first come, first served basis, ensuring that immigrants would be 
admitted into the United States based purely on their merit rather than 
their country of origin.
  This reform would also ensure that the hardships caused by decades-
long wait times are eliminated. As I have said in the past, there is no 
question that immigration is one of if not the most politically fraught 
issues in Congress right now. It makes it all the more important for 
us, at least, to come together to get something done in the areas where 
we can find common ground. The Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act 
is an important point of common ground.
  Any immigration bill that has 35 Senate cosponsors--20 Republicans 
and 15 Democrats, as this bill does--presents a unique opportunity to 
secure a victory for the American people. The reason this bill commands 
such widespread support from all points along the political spectrum is 
because, as I have explained, the arguments in its favor are not your 
typical partisan or ideological arguments. No. They are commonsense 
arguments about the way any rational legal system should work in that 
it makes clear that the per-country caps system must go.
  That is what is needed to make our immigration laws consistent with 
our principles, consistent with other laws on the books, and consistent 
with the merits-based objectives this component of our immigration 
system is meant to promote.
  The other reason the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act has 
been so successful in attracting support from both sides of the aisle 
is because we have scrupulously avoided the typical poison pills that 
so often doom many good-faith attempts at immigration reform. This bill 
is not comprehensive in its approach. It is not a comprehensive 
immigration reform package. It is not even close to that. That is, in 
fact, why this bill is something we can actually get done now. That is 
why this bill is so close to being passed. It is why this bill really 
should pass into law today.
  While it does not fix many of the other flaws that plague our broken 
immigration system, it is a great and a vitally important start to 
reform. If we are ever to have a chance at modernizing and repairing 
our immigration laws, we need to recognize that we cannot necessarily 
solve all of our problems at once. The fact that this is the case 
shouldn't stand in the way of us starting to work on the issues the 
American people sent us here to solve. We cannot allow the perfect to 
be the enemy of the excellent. That is why I have come to seek 
unanimous consent to pass this legislation today.
  Look, I understand it has drawn an objection, but it has drawn an 
objection in a way that drew an objection a few weeks ago from another 
Member. We have been able to work through that Member's concerns. I am 
hopeful, I am optimistic that my colleague who raised an objection 
today can be persuaded that this bill needs to be passed, we can 
address his concerns, and that we can resolve them.
  I will be working with my distinguished friend and colleague from 
Georgia throughout this weekend to try to find a solution, some 
explanation, or, if necessary, language that can win his support. We 
are very close on what we believe is appropriate and acceptable.
  I remain steadfastly convinced that this law, as written, as amended, 
as offered up by unanimous consent today could and should be the law of 
the land. I believe it is ready for prime time. It is ready to become 
law, but when seeking unanimity on a measure in order to pass it, one 
must do everything one can do in order to seek actual unanimity, and 
that is what I intend to do in the coming days. I intend to be back 
next week, making yet another attempt to pass this bill into law, and I 
hope and expect we will be able to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). The Senator for Alabama.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. President, thank you. I appreciate your comment, ``The 
Senator for Alabama.'' That is exactly how I like to be recognized, so 
thank you very much.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 2486

  Mr. President, I rise today to appeal to my colleagues to support the 
renewal of vital funding for historically Black colleges and 
universities and all minority-serving institutions.
  I have risen in this body on more than one occasion to talk about the 
importance of HBCUs and minority-serving institutions.
  Alabama is home to 14 HBCUs--more than any other State in the 
country. They are part of the fabric of our economy in Alabama and a 
part of the fabric of our society. They are the pride of their 
communities. They are the pride of those folks who went there and had 
relatives who went there and even those individuals who are not alums 
or relatives of alums.
  Our HBCUs are a source of enduring pride in our State and across this 
country. They serve an incredibly important function. They educate 
those from underserved communities more than any other college or 
university. It is important that we continue funding them because their 
challenges with funding are great.
  They do not have the endowments that other colleges and universities 
have. They don't have the source of funding. It is only through our 
efforts in Congress and across the country that we can continue the 
great work of these HBCUs.
  Recently, the House passed what is known as the FUTURE Act, which is 
H.R. 2486. My colleague Senator Scott and I have a similar bill that 
has been introduced in the Senate because, at

[[Page S5594]]

the end of September, all funding for HBCUs is set to end.
  Our act would extend that. We need to make sure that we fund all of 
our HBCUs, that they are not left in the lurch and not left with any 
uncertainty about their future funding. I truly believe this is such a 
bipartisan effort that we can get this across the finish line. I have 
urged Senator McConnell to put this on the floor because it is quite 
urgent.
  As in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2486, which is at the 
desk; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and 
that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator for Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am reserving the right to object.
  The Senator from Alabama is a valued member of the Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions Committee. Ensuring that historically Black 
colleges and universities have continued funding is something we all 
want to do. However, instead of the short-term patch, I favor a long-
term solution.
  I am ready to do this, along with a few other bipartisan higher 
education proposals that also have bipartisan support. Such a package 
could include permanent mandatory funding of $255 million for 
historically Black colleges and universities and reduction of the 
number of questions on the FAFSA that 20 million families fill out 
every year for their Federal aid, as Senators Bennet and Jones have 
proposed. I would like to see the Senate pass again the legislation 
Senator Murray and I persuaded the Senate to pass that reduces the 
current FAFSA to 22 questions. Senators Schatz, Lee, and Durbin have 
proposed Pell grants for prisoners. There is a proposal by Senators 
Portman and Kaine and many other bipartisan Senators on short-term Pell 
grants for job training. We could expand Pell grant eligibility. We 
could increase the maximum Pell grant award.
  These are all things we should be able to agree on, including funding 
for historically Black colleges and universities. I have been talking 
with Senator Murray now for several years about reauthorizing the 
Higher Education Act. I intend to discuss this all with her and with 
our committee members next week.
  We have the time to do it because, while the legislation expires at 
the end of this month, the money doesn't for several more months. So, 
in the meantime, I hope we can work together, as we often do in our 
committee, to pass a smaller package of higher education proposals, 
including a long-term proposal for historically Black colleges and 
universities, while we continue to work on the reauthorization of the 
Higher Education Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, what we are seeing here today really 
disappoints me. We have, today, a straightforward opportunity to 
prevent a critical part of our higher education system--HBCUs, Tribal 
colleges, and other minority-serving institutions--from having to deal 
with a lapse in funding. We should take it. This is bipartisan 
legislation. It has passed the House. There is no reason at all to 
delay it a minute longer here in the Senate.
  I thank the Senator from Alabama for his leadership on this. I 
express my personal strong support for the FUTURE Act, which will give 
us then time to work out a permanent fix for funding HBCUs, Tribal 
colleges, and minority-serving institutions through a comprehensive HEA 
reauthorization, which is what I have made clear is necessary.
  I appreciate what the Senator from Tennessee said about moving 
forward with higher education reauthorization. I am hopeful we can 
continue to work on reaching a compromise, as we have done on several 
other pieces of legislation. As I have said before, I believe any 
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act needs to have real answers 
to the challenges students are facing today on affordability and access 
and accountability and campus safety. I truly believe we have an 
opportunity to get a comprehensive bill done that helps solve these 
challenges for our students.
  I hope the Senator from Tennessee and our colleagues on the HELP 
Committee continue to focus on our efforts there. Meanwhile, I believe 
we should listen to the Senator from Alabama. We should pass the 
bipartisan FUTURE Act instead of playing politics with valuable and 
underresourced institutions.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       United Auto Workers Strike

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, right now at this moment, thousands of UAW 
workers in Ohio--in places like the Chevrolet plant in Parma-Cleveland 
area, the transmission plant in Toledo, the plant in Defiance, OH, and 
all over the country--are going without their paychecks and without 
their health insurance to demand that General Motors respect the work 
they do to make their companies successful.
  In a nutshell, workers are fed up. More and more of them are 
beginning to see that unions are the best way to make their voices 
heard. For too long, General Motors hasn't listened. Autoworkers are 
the engine behind GM's success. GM wouldn't be making a dime in profit 
without the workers who actually make their cars and trucks.
  Back up for a moment. Think about what has happened to General 
Motors. The Presiding Officer has autoworkers in the State of Indiana, 
as I do in Ohio. Back up 10 years, when General Motors and Chrysler 
went into bankruptcy. The taxpayers and workers--through givebacks--
rescued both companies. For 10 years, GM has gotten more and more 
profitable. Workers were working hard, but workers were making 
significantly less money during those 10 years. Then you saw these 
companies' profits increase. GM started sending more jobs to Mexico to 
build the Chevy Blazer, for instance. The same day, they announced the 
layoff of one shift in Lordstown. Then there were the stock buybacks 
from the Trump tax cuts, where 80 percent of the tax benefits went to 
the richest 1 percent of people in this country. The stock buybacks 
with the GM executives meant tens of millions of dollars more in their 
pocket. Yet they continue to squeeze workers. Now workers are simply 
saying: We want to be, in essence, paid back for the givebacks we did 
when we, as taxpayers and workers, rescued that company.
  Rather than invest in American workers, the company shut down its 
most productive plant in North America and laid off hundreds of 
workers--4,500 workers, actually--in Lordstown, OH, while announcing 
they are going to build a place in Mexico. They could retool the 
Lordstown plant. They could build the Blazer in Ohio, but instead they 
throw workers out of a job, and they pay workers way less to make cars 
in Mexico.
  Now GM workers are saying: Enough. I stand with them. They are 
standing up and fighting for increased investments in their local 
communities. We know if that Lordstown plant would reopen with the 
Blazer or with an electric vehicle--a couple of electric vehicles or 
whatever they put there--we know what that would mean for those 
Lordstown families, those GM families. We know what it would mean to 
that community.
  I spoke yesterday with Dave Green, the former President of GM Local 
1112. He is now working in another GM plant in the Presiding Officer's 
home State. He is away from his family. He is away from home. He didn't 
choose that. Dozens of workers are in that situation all because GM 
wanted to move its production offshore. Those workers are saying: 
Enough.
  In Lordstown, the workers whose jobs GM took are picketing in 
solidarity with other UAW workers at the empty plant. Reporters asked 
them why, and they answered: Brotherhood--brother and sister support. 
Workers who transfer to other plants in Michigan, Missouri, Kentucky, 
and Indiana are coming back to join them. That is what the

[[Page S5595]]

labor movement is all about: brotherhood, sisterhood, solidarity. It is 
about the recognition that workers should have a voice and should have 
a share in the profits they create for their companies. GM made more 
than $10 billion in North America in 2018. That is $10,000 million. It 
is the UAW workers who made that money for the company. What did GM do? 
They shut down plants.
  Now they have thrown striking workers off their health insurance. We 
heard from one worker in Local 14 in Toledo who said his 4-year-old 
daughter, Chesney, had a doctor's appointment scheduled next week to 
check on the tubes in her ears that help her hear, but GM canceled that 
family's insurance so they had to cancel the appointment. That is what 
has happened. It is despicable.
  GM needs to agree to a contract that honors the dignity of work--a 
contract that recognizes the autoworkers, communities, and families who 
help drive the success of the auto industry in Ohio and across the 
country.
  Again, 10 years ago, taxpayers rescued GM out of bankruptcy. Workers 
agreed to major givebacks to that company, taking much less money in 
order to save the company. GM profits have soared. GM executive 
compensations have exploded upward. GM owes that to our communities, 
and GM owes that to its workers.
  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.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Braun). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                         Tribute to Alaina Vik

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, it is that time of the week--the end of 
the week in the Senate--when I come to the floor and recognize someone 
special in the great State of Alaska, someone who is doing something 
important for their community, for the State, for the country. It is 
the highlight of my week, and I know it is for our pages.
  We have some new pages here. It is commonly recognized as the 
favorite speech of the week for the pages because they get to hear 
stories about real people, particularly people in Alaska.
  You will hear a lot of these speeches as you are here working hard in 
the Senate.
  We are glad the new pages are here.
  As you know, my State is certainly one of the most interesting, 
imagined States in the whole country. By the way, people watching in 
the Gallery--my friend Scott Lee is up there--watching on TV, come up 
to Alaska. You will love it. I guarantee you, it will be the trip of a 
lifetime. No one comes to Alaska and is disappointed.
  I like to talk about Alaska on the Senate floor. People see a lot of 
what is going on in the State on the nature channels and the adventure 
channels. There is a story about Alaska on cable TV, it seems like, 
daily, almost hourly. Not nearly enough of these stories focus on the 
people who live there--independent, patriotic, generous men, women, 
and, yes, kids, children, who call Alaska home.
  Today, I want to recognize 13-year-old Alaina Vik, who lives in Eagle 
River, AK. That is a beautiful community, about 15 miles north of 
Anchorage.

  Alaina is a young woman with a big heart. She lives with her mother, 
Amy, who owns her own real estate company, and her father, Curtis, who 
is an Alaska State trooper. He is someone I know well because he and I 
served together with the very outstanding Marine Corps Reserve unit 
based in Alaska, Echo Company, 4th Recon Battalion.
  Trooper Vik, semper fi.
  To you and Amy, great job on raising such an exceptional daughter.
  Why is she so exceptional? Let's get into what Alaina has done for 
us. But, first, let me talk a little bit about what is going on in 
Alaska because I always like to update what is happening in this 
speech.
  I was home for the whole month of August--actually, almost 5 weeks. I 
did a week of my own on Marine Corps Reserve duty. It was great to be 
home. I got to travel all over the State. When I say ``travel all 
over,'' we are talking hundreds, if not thousands, of miles, literally, 
between communities. There was a lot going on.
  Unfortunately, as it happens in so many summers in Alaska, fires were 
taking their toll, but the weather was amazing, with beautiful blue 
skies. For the most part, the sun was out. It was perfect for fishing, 
hiking, and camping--all the things that so many people in Alaska who 
come to visit and live here do in the summer.
  Now we are heading into the fall. Leaves are starting to turn. It is 
moose hunting season. The snow isn't far away for most of the State. In 
some parts of the State, it is actually already on the ground.
  Some might say that winter is coming, but I think it is too soon. 
Winter is coming, but not just yet. I will let you know when that 
happens.
  School has started, and Alaina Vik has entered eighth grade. Her 
favorite subject is art. Like so many Alaskans, she has been busy. What 
has she been busy doing? Why are we honoring this young Alaskan who is 
doing a lot for our State?
  First, as a Girl Scout in Troop 690, under the amazing leadership of 
the troop leader, Mrs. Melissa Jones, Alaina sold more cookies than any 
other Girl Scout in the entire State of Alaska--more than 5,000 boxes. 
That is amazing; isn't it?
  I love Girl Scout cookies. I think they are the best in the country, 
but 5,000 boxes in one State is pretty darn impressive.
  What is her secret? She said: ``My mom told me to go out almost every 
day to sell cookies, to talk to people and to interest them in buying 
the cookies.''
  Her older brother, Kyle, who, by the way, is an Eagle Scout--you 
could see what a high-achieving family this is--also helped coach his 
sister and helped take her out to sell cookies.
  Alaina said: ``I'm a really hard worker when it comes to Girl Scout 
cookies.'' Obviously, she is--5,000 boxes.
  Selling cookies just wasn't good enough for her. She wanted to do 
more for her Girl Scout project. So she took her passion to the next 
level, using her selling skills to help others and focusing on the men 
and women in our military, particularly those who are deployed.
  In Alaska, we proudly boast of having the record of more vets per 
capita than any State in the country. So this is something that a lot 
of our communities can get behind. She and her fellow Girl Scouts began 
to send our deployed military members Girl Scout cookies. She got the 
idea when the father of one of the members of her Girl Scout troop was 
deployed. Her troop wanted to make sure he felt remembered on his 
deployment.
  All told, in 2017, she was able to donate 800 boxes to our troops, 
some of whom are deployed in Kuwait and Qatar.
  She didn't stop there. As I have often said, we live in one of the 
most patriotic States in the country. Alaina Vik is just one more bit 
of proof of that. She wanted to do more for the men and women in 
uniform. She said:

       They're fighting for us. They're protecting us. They 
     deserved to be appreciated [and remembered] and honored.

  This is a 13-year-old girl. Remember, she is also the daughter of a 
recon marine.
  With the help of her mother, Amy, and her father, Curtis, and her two 
younger brothers, she expanded her effort into what is now called 
Operation Sweet Support. You could find that on Facebook. In addition 
to just cookies, she is also sending snacks, pencils, duct tape, and 
toys. Who doesn't need a toy or duct tape when they are deployed? You 
can use it for everything.
  When the news got out about this project, she started to receive 
donations from all over the community in Eagle River and all over 
Alaska. So far this year, through this project, she has sent out over 
98 care packages to Alaskan troops who are deployed overseas, 
particularly in Kosovo and Kuwait. She is aiming to send out 75 more by 
the end of the year--one 13-year-old girl in the great State of Alaska.
  She puts a personalized handwritten note into each of the boxes 
thanking them. ``This is my way of saying thank you,'' one of her notes 
reads.
  Here is another one:

       You are amazing and appreciated and loved. Thank you for 
     your service.


[[Page S5596]]


  That is another note from Alaina to our service men and women 
deployed overseas.
  She gets notes back, of course. One wrote:

       Thank you for everything you've done for us. Please keep 
     supporting the troops [and sending cookies].

  Our military members love cookies. They say it makes a big 
difference.
  Someone also sent her an American flag that was flown overseas in 
appreciation of the cookies, as well as a unit coin, a military coin, 
sent to Alaina by our appreciative troops. ``It was amazing,'' she 
said, when she got this.
  As someone who has been deployed myself, away from family and 
friends, I know what it means to get such care packages. It means the 
world. It means that people back home are remembering what you are 
doing.
  Alaina, thank you for your great work supporting our troops, for the 
example you are setting for all the young men and women, not just in 
Alaska but America.
  Amy and Curtis, thanks for raising such a wonderful daughter.
  Alaina, keep up the great work. Congratulations, once again, on being 
our Alaskan of the Week.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               National Childhood Cancer Awareness Month

  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution 
that would recognize September as National Childhood Cancer Awareness 
Month. In the United States, more than 15,000 kids are diagnosed with 
cancer every single year, and more than 300,000 children are diagnosed 
globally.
  On average, more than 75 children in West Virginia alone are 
diagnosed with cancer every year, which has been a steady increase over 
the last 10 years. We have made a lot of progress over the last few 
decades in research for prevention and care, but there is more work to 
be done. That is why I am here today to continue the drumbeat and 
elevate the issue.
  I will share a story of a young man I met just last week. On Friday, 
I had the honor of visiting with students and teachers at George 
Washington High School in Charleston, WV. One student by the name of 
Nicholas ``Nick'' Spence came up to me during my visit and shared that 
at age 15 he was diagnosed with cancer. He later sent me a letter 
telling me about his story and asked me to help raise awareness of 
childhood cancer, which I assumed we had already done since we have 
done it for adult cancer.
  Nick's letter goes like this:

       Dear Senator Manchin,
       Thank you for visiting my school on Friday. It was really 
     cool to meet you. As I shared with you in person, at age 15 
     my life was changed forever. Before then, it never crossed my 
     mind that I would become a cancer patient, much less a 
     pediatric one.
       I was diagnosed with cancer and underwent chemotherapy. As 
     a result, in May 2018, I had to have my leg amputated.
       After two long years, I am proud to say that I finally 
     overcame and defeated my cancer, and I'm currently a senior 
     at George Washington High School.
       I feel very strongly that there needs to be more awareness 
     about childhood cancer in West Virginia, and I appreciated 
     speaking with you about that during your visit.
       That's why I'm writing today to ask you to continue 
     fighting for West Virginians and to do whatever you can to 
     help raise awareness about childhood cancer.
       Signed, Nick Spence

  Thank you, Nick, for standing up and reaching out to me. I will never 
forget how you walked across the gym after we were done with the 
meeting with all of the students at your high school, and I was 
impressed by your willingness to stand up and come over and tell me, 
basically, what you were concerned about and what you want to change.
  In addition, I would also like to recognize some very special guests 
who have driven here today from West Virginia, and they are in the 
Senate Chamber today. From Charleston, WV, we have Kelly Wymer, Ali 
Wymer, and Cherie White. I thank them for attending and being here. 
They are in town representing the West Virginia Kids Cancer Crusaders 
at the CureFest here in DC on the National Mall.
  When Ali was just 6\1/2\ years old, she was diagnosed with cancer. 
She underwent 2\1/2\ years of treatment, including two surgeries and 
chemotherapy.
  We are so proud to have Ali here in the Chamber with us today. She is 
currently 21 years old and healthy as can be. They said ``healthy as a 
horse.'' I say ``healthy as can be.'' She is a student at BridgeValley 
Community and Technical College, majoring in healthcare--what else?
  Nick, I know you are at home watching this now, and I just want to 
thank you. I really want to thank you for sharing your story with me. 
It really touched me how brave you are for speaking up and advocating 
for people other than yourself.
  I am glad we were able to do this in such quick order. Usually things 
don't happen this quickly in Washington, but, truly, when it comes to 
the children of our country and our home State, it means so much to us.
  I am proud to say that this is a bipartisan resolution, and I have 
teamed up with Senator Josh Hawley from Missouri to introduce this 
resolution. This resolution is also supported by Senator Jack Reed from 
Rhode Island and my fellow West Virginia Senator, Shelley Moore Capito.
  In addition to recognizing September as National Childhood Cancer 
Awareness Month, this resolution calls on Federal, State, and local 
governments, along with nonprofit organizations, to create and host 
programs and activities that focus on increasing public knowledge on 
the risks of cancer.
  Finally, this resolution recognizes the human toll of cancer and 
makes a pledge that the United States of America will make the 
prevention and cure of cancer a public health priority.
  I am proud to introduce this resolution. And, Nick, thank you again. 
Ali, thank you, and thanks to all of those who are so brave and the 
families who support them and help raise awareness for childhood 
cancer.
  I urge all of my colleagues--all of my colleagues--to join me in 
supporting this resolution.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________