December 18, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 205 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages S7136-S7141]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   CONDEMNING THE TERRORIST ATTACK AT NAVAL AIR STATION PENSACOLA ON 
  FRIDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2019, HONORING THE MEMBERS OF THE NAVY WHO LOST 
 THEIR LIVES IN THE ATTACK, AND EXPRESSING SUPPORT AND PRAYERS FOR ALL 
                   INDIVIDUALS AFFECTED BY THE ATTACK

  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Today we come together to honor the courage of 
our brave men and women in uniform--our heroes--and remember the 
victims of the tragic terrorist attack that took place at Naval Air 
Station Pensacola on the morning of Friday, December 6.
  I would like to thank my colleagues, Senators Rubio, Perdue, Isakson, 
Shelby, and Jones, for standing with me today as we honor the sacrifice 
and memory of the three victims and their families.
  Amn Mohammed Sameh Haitham, known to friends and family as ``Mo,'' 
was just 19 years old from St. Petersburg, FL. He was a great athlete 
who loved to make others laugh.
  ENS Joshua Kaleb Watson of Alabama was a 23-year-old natural born 
leader and selfless volunteer who had lifted others up. Joshua died a 
hero after giving first responders information on the shooter's 
location while he was mortally wounded.
  Amn Apprentice Cameron Scott Walters of Richmond, GA, was just 21 
years old, with a contagious smile. His dream was to serve our country.
  Our sailors and law enforcement officials showed heroism and bravery 
in the face of evil as they ran toward the shooter that day, saving 
lives. To our first responders who came to the swift aid of those in 
need, I would like to thank each one of them.
  Today, the State of Florida stands united around the community of 
Pensacola and the families of victims as we pray for healing. I join my 
colleagues as we do everything we can to prevent future terrorist 
attacks.
  Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 457, submitted 
earlier today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 457) condemning the terrorist attack 
     at Naval Air Station Pensacola on Friday, December 6, 2019, 
     honoring the members of the Navy who lost their lives in the 
     attack, and expressing support and prayers for all 
     individuals affected by the attack.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
resolution.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The resolution (S. Res. 457) was agreed to.
  The preamble was agreed to.
  (The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in today's Record 
under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. I yield the floor to Senator Rubio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague Senator Scott 
for offering this and all of our colleagues and, of course, all of the 
Senators who voted for it unanimously.
  My colleague from Florida has already mentioned the three names of 
those in the service of our country who lost their lives in Pensacola. 
I will talk about them more in a moment.
  I do want to say a couple of things. First, Pensacola really is one 
of the hidden gems of the State that Senator Scott and I represent. To 
understand Pensacola, you must understand that is it not just a city in 
which a naval facility is located. The Navy is very

[[Page S7137]]

much a part of the fiber of that community. I would almost equate it to 
a college town's relationship with a university; that is how much its 
identity is connected to this naval air station. This attack wasn't 
just an attack on this facility, but it was an attack on the heart and 
soul of Pensacola as a community.
  As I had an opportunity to visit in the aftermath of the attack, I 
was not just deeply saddened by the loss of life but impacted, first, 
by the way the community responded and, second, by some of the stories, 
which I hope we will learn more about as the information comes out, of 
extraordinary bravery--not just the first responders but others who 
happened to be there at that time who exhibited extraordinary stories 
of heroism in the face of evil in this terror attack. People rushed 
into the building the gunshots were coming from instead of running away 
as most people would do. I want to point out some of those things.
  ENS Joshua Kaleb Watson, who was mentioned earlier, happened to be 
the officer on deck at the time of the shooting, and he ran toward the 
shooter and was yelling for people to get out of the way. He actually 
proceeded to tackle the killer and fought him in an attempt to disarm 
him, all while being shot at least five separate times. He was wounded, 
but he, nevertheless, happened to make his way out to flag down first 
responders and be able to give an accurate description of the shooter, 
which ultimately allowed him to be neutralized.
  Amn Mohammed Haitham's family moved to St. Petersburg from New 
Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. His school's assistant principal 
called him ``the Perfect One'' because he was a good student, a track 
star, and basketball player. This is a quote from the assistant 
principal:

       [He] would walk into any room and it would light up. He had 
     this magnetic personality--big smile, always happy. And 
     people would always gravitate toward him.

  His commanding officer told his father that it was his son Mohammed 
who had also bravely attempted to take down the gunman and lost his 
life.
  Then there was Cameron Walters of Georgia, described as ``an amazing 
guy, he always had something good to say to everybody, and was always 
smiling.''
  The morning of the shooting, Airman Walters was randomly assigned to 
watch duty in Building 633. He had been stationed in Pensacola for only 
2 weeks before this attack.
  Again, I want to thank Senator Scott, my colleague of Florida, for 
offering this. It ensures that not only will we not forget the heroes 
who sacrificed their lives while protecting fellow Navy members as this 
tragedy unfolded, but it also reminds us of the obligation we have to 
get to the bottom of how this happened and why this happened so that it 
may never, ever happen anywhere again.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


                              Agent Orange

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to draw attention to a group 
of veterans who served this country decades ago but who continue to 
suffer to this day as a result of their service. I am talking about 
hundreds of thousands of veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange 
during their service.
  From 1962 to 1975, the United States sprayed over 20 million gallons 
of Agent Orange across Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. Millions of our 
servicemembers, not to mention millions of Vietnamese civilians, were 
exposed. Fifty years later, hundreds of thousands of Vietnam-era 
veterans are still paying the price.
  From the start, the Federal Government has tried to slow-walk 
attempts to cover the care these veterans earned. It wasn't until 1991 
that the VA recognized the connection between Agent Orange exposure and 
several diseases and conditions, finally allowing these veterans to 
seek treatment from the VA. Currently, the list of conditions at the VA 
stands at 14, but science tells us the list is far from complete.
  In 2017, then-Veterans Affairs Secretary Shulkin called for three 
more conditions to be added to the list: bladder cancer, underactive 
thyroid, and Parkinson's-like symptoms. Now, these weren't randomly 
chosen. They were conditions found by the National Academy of Science 
to be connected to Agent Orange exposure.
  The science was there. The VA was there. Yet this White House and its 
OMB Director, Mick Mulvaney, have blocked this effort to expand the 
list of conditions.
  Do you know what the deciding factor was? It wasn't scientific 
evidence. It wasn't the advice of VA doctors. No, the White House 
decided that the cost of providing care to 83,000 veterans suffering 
from these conditions was just too high, and for that this 
administration turned its back on 83,000 veterans who answered the call 
to serve.
  Unfortunately, this is just the latest example of the Federal 
Government trying to avoid paying for the care of men and women our 
Nation sent to war. My office hears regularly from veterans facing 
problems like prostate cancer, Parkinson's, and other conditions that 
have been linked to Agent Orange. Time and again, we hear how the VA 
tries to deny benefits on the basis of a technicality. This is just not 
right. Unfortunately, this administration is far from the first to 
ignore evidence about Agent Orange in order to save a few bucks.
  I want to share a few stories from my State of Virginia, where more 
than 204,000 Vietnam veterans currently call home. In many cases, 
veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange have been fighting multiple 
administrations to get these life-or-death benefits--benefits they 
earned by their service decades ago.
  One veteran, William Badgett of Hampton, VA, was exposed to Agent 
Orange during his service in Vietnam with the Army. He was in the 101st 
Airborne, 1st Cavalry, where he served as a helicopter mechanic and 
supply sergeant. He has been diagnosed with a number of health 
conditions, including enlarged prostate, osteoporosis, kidney disease, 
and hardened arteries, none of which are on the VA's presumptive list.
  While the VA considers prostate cancer to be on the list, Mr. 
Badgett's enlarged prostate is not presumed by the VA to be connected 
to his exposure to Agent Orange simply because it is not cancer.
  Another example: Sam Harvey from Newport News, VA, was exposed to 
Agent Orange during the Vietnam war. He served in the U.S. Navy from 
1966 to 1970 aboard the USS Constellation. He was diagnosed with 
aggressive prostate cancer. Yet, with prostate cancer being on the 
presumptive list, he struggled to get VA approval for the treatment he 
needs.
  Finally, I want to talk about Dorman Watts from North Chesterfield, 
VA. He suffered for years to get the disability rating from the VA that 
will qualify him for the comprehensive care from the VA. He has 
prostate cancer and heart disease and is currently undergoing radiation 
treatment from a private provider. This is unacceptable.
  That is why I am glad Congress included important accountability 
measures as part of the Defense appropriations legislation we passed 
this week. Finally, after years of reluctance, years of ignoring the 
science, these veterans are going to get some of the answers about the 
conditions that have resulted from their service.
  There is more than enough evidence to expand the list of Agent 
Orange-related conditions. We should be thanking these veterans for 
their service, not nickel-and-diming them. I urge my colleagues to 
listen to the veterans in their States, and I urge the White House to 
let the VA provide these veterans with the benefits they have earned.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Appropriations

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, following the longest government shutdown 
in history earlier this year, it seemed to be a bipartisan consensus 
that we need to get back on track with the regular appropriations 
process. Both parties knew there was a funding crisis at stake this 
fall if we could not come together and reach a compromise, so this 
summer, that is exactly what we did--or at least we thought we did.

[[Page S7138]]

  At the time we reached an agreement that set top-line funding levels 
for defense and nondefense spending, there was a promise not to derail 
the appropriations process with poison-pill policy riders, and we got 
it done in August with plenty of time to spare. It wasn't perfect. No 
negotiated product ever is, but we knew this agreement would provide us 
the time and the space and the framework to get the appropriations 
process back on track and leave room for necessary debate on government 
spending habits. As our national deficit continues to grow, that could 
not be more critical. I actually remember a time when concern about the 
deficit and debt was a bipartisan concern, but apparently, it is not 
currently.
  Before we hit the first funding deadline, our Democratic colleagues 
backed out of the commitment they made in August of 2019. The open 
debate we hoped for did not happen. We were forced to pass two short-
term funding bills known as continuing resolutions, and now, here we 
are, just days away from the current continuing resolutions expiration, 
reading text of these funding bills that total nearly $1.4 trillion. We 
are reading these for the first time.
  When it comes to the appropriations process, I have learned from 
experience; you are never going to be 100 percent happy. That is just 
the nature of compromise. You have got to weigh the good, the bad, and 
the ugly and decide how the scales tip. There is certainly a lot of 
calculating when it comes to these appropriation bills, but let me 
start with the good. I think the national security appropriations 
package goes a long way to rebuilding our military, providing them the 
resources they need to maintain readiness, and providing our Armed 
Forces with the resources they need to face growing threats around the 
world. From adversaries like Russia and China, to rogue regimes like 
North Korea and Iran, our military must be prepared to counter a 
diverse range of threats.
  This funding bill will continue the work of Congress under President 
Trump to invest in our military by providing a nearly $20 billion 
increase over last year's defense funding levels. It will provide funds 
to both modernize and grow our aging fleet so we can continue to send 
our troops around the world where they are needed. One of the major 
challenges we face is the development of new technologies by our 
adversaries. We cannot have our enemies deploying hypersonic glide 
vehicles, artificial intelligence, and missile defense systems that 
rival or perhaps surpass our own. That would be destabilizing. That may 
produce a miscalculation, which would be dangerous.
  This bill sends funding toward the research and development of new 
technologies so we can stay on the leading edge. We should not be 
satisfied with anything other than America being in the lead when it 
comes to our national security.
  I am glad this package also includes a number of provisions that 
support our men and women in uniform, including a 3.1 percent pay 
increase, which is the largest in a decade. Above all, this defense 
funding answers our commanders' request for steady and predictable 
funding so they can address and plan for the threats of today and 
prepare for those we will face tomorrow.
  In addition to strengthening our national security, this package will 
also make our community safer here at home. It sends vital funding to 
the Department of Justice law enforcement grant programs and invests 
$1.4 billion in the border wall system on the Southwest border. As a 
border State Senator, I can tell you the Border Patrol, whom I consider 
the experts when it comes to border security, say there are three 
components of border security: There is physical infrastructure; there 
is technology; and then there is the personnel, the boots on the 
ground. This appropriation bill invests $1.4 billion in this system 
that includes a border wall.

  Despite concerted attempts from our Democratic colleagues, the 
President's authorities to transfer funds that he deems necessary for 
border security remain intact.
  Now, the domestic spending bill takes strides to address some other 
challenges. It allows us to bolster our fight against the opioid 
epidemic, expand mental health access, and improve our crumbling 
transportation infrastructure. It includes $400 million for farmers and 
ranchers in Texas and elsewhere affected by drought, trade wars, and 
low commodity prices. It would also send an additional half a billion 
dollars to the Army Corps of Engineers that can be used for 
infrastructure projects right here at home.
  With less than a year until the next election, it would provide more 
than $400 million in additional funds to safeguard our election systems 
so that voters can head to the polls with the confidence that their 
vote will be counted correctly.
  As we continue to bring down healthcare costs for the American people 
by providing them more choice and competition for their premium dollar, 
this legislation permanently repeals some of the three most oppressive 
ObamaCare taxes that are burdening American families: the premium tax, 
the Cadillac tax, and the medical device tax.
  This bill also extends funding for critical healthcare programs like 
community health centers. This is the safety net in our healthcare 
system, the community health center. It is something I have long 
supported.
  Despite pushes from our colleagues across the aisle, appropriators 
also managed to fight off an electric vehicle tax credit expansion, 
which would be nothing more than a taxpayer subsidy for wealthy 
Americans who want to purchase electric vehicles.
  There are a lot of great provisions in these appropriations bills to 
address some of our top priorities, but I remain concerned that, with 
some of the shortcomings, these could also be described as the bad part 
of this appropriation process.
  The domestic funding bill includes a range of controversial 
provisions that will move us further away from our goal of decreasing 
the national debt. It significantly increases deficit spending without 
offsets or pay-fors for long-needed reforms for mandatory spending 
programs, which are the primary cause of our deficits and debt, 
accounting for about 70 percent of Federal spending.
  This bill also includes a terrible provision, which is a retroactive 
tax on American energy companies. We did this without any sort of 
consideration by the committee of jurisdiction--the Finance Committee, 
upon which I sit--with no opportunity to provide amendments or even a 
debate on this massive retroactive tax. The only choice we are given 
now that it has been included as a result of the negotiations among 
five people is the choice to vote either up or down on this massive 
piece of legislation.
  This bill also extends other tax benefits, without addressing 
problems with the Tax Code, which actually have a negative impact on 
American businesses and families.
  This funding bill would also extend the National Flood Insurance 
Program, which is long overdue for reforms. This sidesteps the need for 
those reforms entirely. The program is hemorrhaging money, and we need 
to be looking at ways to improve it, instead of continuing to flush 
good money down the drain.
  As I mention, we started this process on a strong path with the 
budget agreement that was reached in August. I know I wasn't alone in 
thinking that would help us get the regular appropriations process back 
on track, but things quickly took a turn--not for the good, not for the 
bad--but for the ugly. Our colleagues let government funding come 
second to their disagreements with the President. They tried to inject 
the very poison pills they vowed to steer clear of and derailed the 
process that they committed to restoring.
  Rather than having an open debate and votes on spending, as we 
planned, the process fell to just a handful of people negotiating 
behind closed doors. This is reminiscent of the smoke-filled backroom 
deals that Congress has long been criticized for, and we really have no 
alternative but to vote up or down on this massive $1.4 trillion 
spending package without any opportunity to debate it or, more 
importantly, to change it by offering amendments.
  The way I see it, this has been the plan of Speaker Pelosi and the 
minority leader here in the Senate all along. If you think about it, 
this really puts the power in their hands, which is exactly what they 
want, and they can extract concessions and other things that

[[Page S7139]]

are important to them, rather than allow the process to work as it was 
intended to do through regular order, through the regular 
appropriations process.
  This also takes power from their very own Members because no Democrat 
or Republican can offer any amendment to this which can change it at 
all under this closed process. So this really isn't just an affront to 
the Members on this side of the aisle; it is an affront to their own 
Members who have no opportunity to offer amendments or have meaningful 
debate and modify the bill.
  Our Democratic colleagues have held these appropriations process 
hostage for the past several months. Over what? I think that is an 
important question. Well, as it turns out, it was their obsession with 
.3 percent of our Nation's budget. That is not how this process should 
work, and it is certainly not how to make decisions that are in the 
best interest of the country.
  As further evidence of the rush to get this done without adequate 
consideration or debate or amendment, our House Democrats even had to 
violate their own 72-hour posting rule for major legislation just to 
get this legislation done before we leave this week.
  It is frustrating to see our colleagues across the aisle undermine 
what could have been a very productive discussion about our Nation's 
spending habits, about deficits and debt and what our priorities should 
be, and, instead, chose to move forward with these bills, which fall 
short in any number of places.
  I must say that the majority leader, the Senator from Kentucky, was 
committed to a process of getting these appropriations back on track so 
we could give a voice to all Members in these negotiations and take 
them up in an orderly fashion so amendments could be offered, and they 
could be debated and voted on, all of which has now been swept to the 
side.
  I am also grateful for the tireless work of the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee in the Senate, the Senator from Alabama, Mr. 
Shelby, as well as the other members of the committee who have been 
negotiating an agreement to support our national defense and avoid 
book-ending the 2019 year with a second shutdown.
  As we move closer to a vote on these appropriations bills tomorrow, I 
am going to continue to review their text. They are massive pieces of 
legislation, and we have only recently gotten access to them. I will be 
making my individual decision--as I trust each Member will--on whether 
to support these appropriations bills and whether they represent the 
best interests of their States and of the American people.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.


                               RELIEF Act

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is hard to believe that in this Nation 
of immigrants we have such a broken immigrant system, but it is a fact.
  We have addressed so many problems in this system over the years. A 
few years ago on the floor of the Senate, we passed a comprehensive 
immigration reform bill, which didn't survive in the House of 
Representatives. So it is no surprise that, on a regular basis, we face 
challenges when it comes to our existing immigration laws.
  One of the most serious challenges is the green card backlog in this 
country. To try to describe it in just the simplest terms, under the 
current law, in my estimation, there are not nearly enough immigrant 
visas--also known as green cards--available each year. Each year in 
America, there are 226,000 family green cards available and 140,000 
employment green cards available. That is 140,000 each year for a 
nation of 350 million people. So many of those who are aspiring to get 
a green card and ultimately move to a permanent resident status and 
citizenship wait and wait and wait for the day to arrive.
  Children in many of these families who are from workers currently in 
the United States on things like the H-1B visa age out when they reach 
the age of 21, and they are no longer protected by their parents' 
presence. So they are at risk of being deported, even as they go into 
their teenage years. It is a horrible situation. It is really a 
heartbreaking situation. I have come to meet and know many of the 
families affected by it.
  We are trying to deal with this green card backlog with the reality 
of current politics in Washington. Under the current political 
environment, there are limitations on what we can do.
  My response is to increase the number of green cards that are 
available each year so we have more than 140,000 available. There are 
currently at least 800,000 people waiting for 140,000 green cards to 
come up each year. As a consequence, we are in a predicament, where we 
don't have nearly enough green cards for the people who are waiting for 
them.
  I would increase that number, but politically that is not going to 
happen. The President doesn't agree with that position, and many 
Republicans in the Senate and the House don't agree either.
  Senator Lee and I have confronted this issue, coming at it from 
different perspectives. Initially, we were at odds on how to approach 
it. I objected to a bill he brought to the floor; he objected to a bill 
I brought to the floor; and then we sat down to talk.
  The bill I brought to the floor, as I mentioned earlier, would 
increase the number of green cards, would make sure that the families 
would be protected from deportation while they are waiting and would 
allow them to travel and to change jobs. That is called the RELIEF Act. 
I have introduced it. It has been introduced in the House of 
Representatives by Congresswoman Shalala. It is a bill I still support 
and would like to see pass. That is my preference.
  It is not a bill that would pass in the Senate at this time, so 
Senator Lee and I sat down to try to find common ground, if we could, 
on an approach that might work to deal with the backlog in a humane 
fashion and to protect the families during the course of that.
  We have come up with a proposal which I think moves us in the right 
direction. It is an agreement between us--a bipartisan agreement--which 
we are now hoping to offer to the Senate for consideration as quickly 
as possible.
  I will very quickly state a summary of what it tries to achieve.
  It protects immigrants and their families who are stuck in the green 
card backlog I mentioned. Immigrant workers and their immediate family 
members would be eligible for what is called early filing for their 
green cards. Immigrant workers would not receive their green cards 
early, but while waiting, they would be able to switch jobs and travel 
without losing immigration status.
  The amendment includes a critical protection from the RELIEF Act that 
protects the children of immigrant workers from aging out of green card 
eligibility while the family is waiting so they will not face 
deportation.
  Green card set-asides for immigrant workers stuck in the backlog 
overseas are provided. The amendment reserves 4,600 green cards on an 
annual basis for immigrant workers stuck in the backlog overseas and 
not eligible for early filing. The number is based on the actual or, at 
best, approximate number of the actual number of people who applied for 
employment green cards from overseas each year.
  Third, it addresses abuses in H-1B temporary work visas. The first 
thing Senator Lee and I want to make clear is that we are committed, 
first and foremost, to American workers getting jobs.
  In those circumstances where American workers with certain skills are 
not available, we have what is known as the H-1B visa. Working with 
Senator Grassley, what we tried to do is to come up with a bipartisan 
way of strengthening that system.
  Included in the strengthening of this amendment is a 50-50 rule, 
which says that the amendment would prohibit a company from hiring 
additional H-1B workers if the company's workforce is more than 50 
employees and more than 50 percent are actually temporary workers. I 
personally believe those companies are suspect, and this bill raises 
that question. The 50-50 rule, as I mentioned, is from a bill Senator 
Grassley and I introduced. It was part of comprehensive immigration 
reform.
  The reality is, there is abuse in the H-1B system. We don't try to 
solve every aspect of it, but we do address what we consider to be one 
of the starting points of the problem we currently face.
  Here is where we are. Senator Lee and I have reached a bipartisan 
agreement on what we think is a reasonable approach, and we want to 
make sure it

[[Page S7140]]

is acceptable to our colleagues to move forward.
  I have been working on the Democratic side; Senator Lee has been 
working on the Republican side. We don't believe we can get it done at 
this very moment, but we are hopeful to get it done very quickly. The 
reason is obvious. These families affected by this backlog are really 
going through hardships and concerns no family should face. The sooner 
we resolve them, the better.
  As I have talked to many of these families, they have asked: Why 
don't you sit down with Senator Lee to see if you can reach an 
agreement? I did. We have. Now I hope we can move forward.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from the Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it has been an honor and privilege to work 
with my friend and distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from 
Illinois, on this important project.
  I have been working on bringing about an end to the arbitrary per 
country caps put in place on employment-based green cards for nearly 
the entire 9-year period I have been in the U.S. Senate. At no point 
has it been an easy process. These are significant and weighty issues, 
and they require attention.
  Senator Durbin and I have spent the last couple of months negotiating 
in good faith with a lot of energy and a lot of time and attention 
given to the project not only by the two Members involved, Senator 
Durbin and myself, but also by our very dedicated and devoted staffs 
who have really put a lot of shoe leather, sweat, blood, and tears into 
this effort.
  I am grateful to Senator Durbin for being willing to work with me on 
this. I have enjoyed working with him over the years on a number of 
projects, including the passage just about a year ago--almost exactly a 
year ago--of the FIRST STEP Act. This was the result of a project that 
Senator Durbin and I had been working on for 8 continuous years up 
until that point, culminating in a lot of proposals, including things 
like the Smarter Sentencing Act, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections 
Act, and, ultimately, the FIRST STEP Act. Like I said, that was passed 
almost exactly a year ago.
  At no point in that process was there an easy path forward, an easy 
path toward victory. Yet he and I remained united in our desire to see 
something get passed.
  Senator Durbin and I, along with our staffs, have put a lot of energy 
and attention into this effort as well to try to bring about a 
resolution of the problem created by the arbitrary per country caps 
placed on employment-based immigrant visas.
  I am very pleased with the outcome of those negotiations. I am very 
confident that this is something we can get passed into law. He and I 
are going to continue to work together. I am going to make sure we have 
the buy-in we need. I want to make sure the cosponsors of the 
legislation are comfortable with what we have negotiated and that they 
understand it.
  To that end, I thank the Senator from Illinois and his staff and also 
my own staff for working on this. I have every hope, expectation, and 
confidence that this is going to result in something that can pass--
something I believe that can--and will soon pass with the unanimous 
support of the Members of this body.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


                               SECURE Act

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, several times on the floor of the Senate I 
have talked about the issue of retirement security. It has been a 
priority for me during my entire career in the U.S. Congress.
  When the United States has led the world in just about every economic 
indicator, there is always one in which the United States is not doing 
well; that is international savings, particularly retirement savings.
  When we take a look at recent figures, we find that 48 percent of 
those who are near retirement--over 55 years of age--have zero amounts 
in retirement funds. Almost half of our near elderly have no retirement 
funds and pensions at all. Twenty-nine percent have zero savings. So we 
need to do a lot better.
  The issue is very much compromised because we have seen a major trend 
in the employment world from defined benefit plans to defined 
contribution plans.
  In the defined benefit world, the employer guarantees certain 
benefits to their employees who take the risks of the market. In a 
defined contribution plan, it requires the employee to put his or her 
own money aside and be disciplined in order to do that. As a result, we 
find less retirement security for many wage earners today. This puts 
pressure on our Social Security system.
  Social Security is a very, very important program, but it is only 
supposed to be one leg of a three-legged stool of retirement security, 
including private retirement and private savings.
  We have responded in the past, and we have taken action. I am very 
proud of the work I first started doing in the House of Representatives 
with then-Congressman Rob Portman. The two of us worked on pension 
legislation. We were able to get it enacted, and it made a big 
difference.
  I hope we will be voting on these Omnibus appropriations bills 
tomorrow. We are going to have a chance to take a major step forward on 
retirement security with the passage the SECURE Act.
  The SECURE Act, Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement 
Act, is a bill that was first acted upon by the Senate Finance 
Committee back in 2016, so this has been a long time in coming. It 
passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 417 to 3, so you see 
that there is very strong bipartisan support for this next chapter in 
retirement security. It expands opportunities for Americans to increase 
their retirement savings and improve the portability of lifetime income 
options.
  Many provisions are included in the SECURE Act. I want to talk about 
just a few, several of which I was very proud to be part of working to 
include within the SECURE Act.
  First, for the first time in many years, we do something about the 
required minimum distribution. Under current law, once you reach 70\1/
2\ years of age, you are required to take out a certain amount of your 
retirement income. The problem with that is, people are living longer 
and longer and longer, and their retirement income becomes inadequate 
the longer they live. They may have planned to live to be 80, 85, or 90 
but find they still have an active lifestyle well beyond that. The 
required minimum distribution works against them being able to maintain 
an adequate amount of retirement funds for later in life.
  This bill takes a step forward in increasing the date in which you 
are required to take out a minimum distribution to 72 years of age.
  We are now also providing retirement opportunities for part-time 
workers. This is a major improvement on our retirement programs. I 
might tell my colleagues that part-time work affects women much more 
than men. This is something that was long overdue, and I am very 
pleased that this is also included in this legislation.
  Part of the legislation that Senator Portman and I have worked on 
deals with the fact that we have defined benefit plans that are 
available today, but in some cases employers have found it impossible 
to continue these plans for new employees. These are called ``closed 
plans.''
  Well, these defined benefit plans are still there to protect those 
who were enrolled in the plan before they became closed. Here is the 
problem. As more and more people are employed by the company who are 
not in this plan and more of the people who were in the defined benefit 
plans are no longer around, the nondiscrimination rule test is much 
harder to be met, and, as a result, these plans may have to be frozen 
or canceled, and that would be to the detriment of those who are 
currently protected under these closed plans. I have been told that as 
many as 400,000 workers would risk losing benefits by the end of this 
year if we do not take action to change the nondiscrimination rules in 
regards to these closed plans. The SECURE Act includes the provision to 
do this. I was very happy to work with Senator Portman in getting that 
done. That is included

[[Page S7141]]

in this legislation, and it is very important that we enact it before 
the end of December.
  There is a provision in here that I worked on with Senator Roberts, a 
bipartisan proposal to deal with church pension plans. We have had a 
church pension plan on the books for many years, but we have gotten 
inconsistent IRS regulations as it relates to the management of these 
pension plans, particularly when you are dealing with church-affiliated 
institutions, such as daycare centers or nursing homes. This 
legislation will clarify that so that these church plans can continue. 
It affects thousands of workers, and it makes a positive difference on 
retirement security.
  The SECURE Act also includes a provision that will exempt State and 
local firefighters and emergency responders from income tax liability 
that was never intended on some pension plans. All of that is included 
in the SECURE Act, and it will help a great deal in dealing with the 
issue I raised at the beginning of my remarks, retirement security for 
individuals.
  Now, we will get that done, I hope, this week. We expect to vote on 
the bill, hopefully, within the next day. That will be a major step 
forward for retirement security, but it is not the end. We have to do a 
lot more, and that is why Senator Portman and I have filed the 
Retirement Security and Savings Act. That is a bill that contains 
almost 50 different provisions. Some are included in the SECURE Act, 
and we are grateful for that, but most are not. What is included in the 
Retirement Security and Savings Act builds on the SECURE Act to provide 
greater opportunities for retirement security.

  Let me just give you a couple of examples. It improves the 
requirement for distribution, allowing individuals to be able to 
reserve more for the later years of their life. It also provides 
tremendous incentives for lifetime income.
  Here is the problem. People may have retirement savings, and they 
say: Look, I guess I will live another 15 years. So they take their 
money out over 15 years, and, guess what, after 15 years, they are 
still healthy, but they have no money. Lifetime income guarantees that 
you will have income throughout your entire life. We provide incentives 
in our legislation on lifetime income options for retirement options 
when you retire.
  We also make it easier for those who have student loans to be able to 
participate in retirement security. A lot of times, people would like 
to contribute to a pension plan but they have to pay off student loans. 
Well, we allow the paying off of student loans to act as a match for an 
employer's contribution--again, offering additional opportunities for 
people to participate in retirement savings.
  We have provisions in here that particularly help low-wage workers. 
The bottom line is that low-wage workers are the most challenged in 
order to participate in retirement security plans early in life. If you 
start a savings for retirement when you are young, it will produce the 
type of savings you need when you retire. Younger people have lots of 
obligations, including starting a family, paying off student loans, and 
all the things that we know about. So they need incentive. We have 
found that just the tax incentives alone will not be enough to get 
younger workers to participate in retirement.
  We have the Thrift Savings Plan here for Federal workers, which is 
wonderful, because the Federal Government matches some of those 
contributions. What we are suggesting in the bill that we filed is 
expanding the tax credit program for savings, making it refundable 
directly into retirement accounts so that younger, lower wage workers 
will participate in retirement savings.
  We provide provisions in this bill that help small businesses so 
small businesses can start retirement savings plans. All of that is 
included in the next step.
  So, yes, let's approve the SECURE Act in the budget agreement, an 
important step forward, but let's recognize that we need to do a lot 
more. Let's work in a bipartisan manner in 2020 to build on the success 
of the SECURE Act to help Americans save for their retirement.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                 Nomination of Stephanie Dawkins Davis

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today because I am very glad to 
see the Senate moving forward in taking up the nomination of Stephanie 
Davis to be the district court judge for the Eastern District of 
Michigan.
  Judge Davis was nominated by President Trump back in March to be a 
U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Michigan. Our 
bipartisan Eastern District Judicial Nominations Advisory Committee 
strongly supported her. She was reported out of committee by a voice 
vote on May 22, and no one has expressed any concerns about her record, 
nor would they have a reason to express a concern. She is exceedingly 
qualified.
  Judge Davis has been working in the U.S. Attorney's Office in the 
Eastern District of Michigan since 1997. During her time there, she has 
served in both the civil and criminal divisions. She has prosecuted 
fraud, bank robbery, embezzlement, violent crime, public corruption, 
and criminal conspiracies involving drug trafficking and money 
laundering. We are very lucky to have someone of her experience 
stepping forward and wanting to serve in this position. She has also 
overseen community and law enforcement initiatives and led the office's 
diversity efforts.
  I have had the opportunity to meet with Judge Davis. I came away from 
my very first meeting, as well as subsequent conversations, being very 
impressed with her background and her commitment to public service. She 
will be an excellent addition to the Federal judiciary, and I urge my 
colleagues to support her nomination.
  I yield the floor.


                     Nomination of anuraag singhal

  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, Judge Anuraag Singhal has 
honorably served the State of Florida for several years, and I proudly 
support his confirmation as a district judge for the Southern District 
of Florida today. He has built a distinguished legal career, serving as 
a criminal prosecutor for Florida's Seventeenth Judicial Circuit and 
later opening a private practice focused on criminal defense and 
appellate work. Throughout his career, he has demonstrated a firm 
commitment to the rule of law, and as Governor of Florida, I had the 
distinct honor to appoint Judge Singhal to Florida's Seventeenth 
Judicial Circuit court in 2011. I am equally honored to support his 
confirmation to the United States District Court for the Southern 
District of Florida today and know he will continue to serve our State 
and Nation well.
  Ms. STABENOW. 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. BRAUN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________