[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 188 (Thursday, November 29, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7225-S7229]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--CALENDAR NO. 670, S. 3405

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 670, S. 3405. I 
further ask that the committee-reported substitute amendment be 
withdrawn; the Johnson substitute amendment at the desk be considered 
and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time 
and passed; and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  In the wake of 9/11, Congress took a fresh--I want us to walk back in 
time a little bit to how we actually got here today.
  In the wake of 9/11, Congress took a fresh look at some of our 
Nation's vulnerabilities and realized that our country's chemical 
facilities--part of our industry that our Presiding Officer knows a lot 
about--realized that our country's chemical facilities could be 
potential targets for terrorist attacks. So we created the Chemical 
Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Program, known as CFATS, to better 
protect high-risk chemical facilities from those looking to do us harm.
  My recollection is not perfect, but my recollection is that among the 
people who were the prime authors of that were, I believe, Senator 
Collins from Maine and possibly Senator Lieberman from Connecticut, the 
senior Democrat and senior Republican on the Homeland Security 
Committee at that time. The program that was created--I believe, and I 
hope I am not mistaken, with their guidance and leadership at that 
time, roughly 10 years ago--started out with some stumbles out of the 
gate, as some of you may recall. The Department of Homeland Security--
then a younger organization--lacked the trust of industry. The program 
also lacked a long-term authorization. There was a fair amount of 
concern about predictability, and we know how businesses like 
predictability and certainty, which is understandable.
  In 2014, Senator Coburn and I, the chairman of the committee at the 
time--and he was the ranking member--we had what turned out to be a 
great partnership on a lot of issues, including this one. We worked 
with industry stakeholders, the Department of Homeland Security, their 
folks, labor groups, and others in order to provide CFATS with a clear 
statutory authorization laying out the roles and responsibilities of 
chemical facility owners in securing their sites against attack.
  What was first created when CFATS was a brandnew bill becoming a 
brandnew law was obviously not perfect. That is why we came back 
roughly 5 years later to perfect it. What we did in 2014--I think that 
is the right year--what we did then was not perfect

[[Page S7226]]

either. I think he knew that, and I knew that as well.
  Having said that, it appears, for the most part, that the 
reauthorization that we worked on is working. It is not perfect, but it 
is working a whole lot better than what has been replaced. The GAO, for 
example, has reported that the Department eliminated the inspections 
backlog. We had a very long inspections backlog--huge. We have worked 
through that, and the Department has worked through that. I think we 
are seeing, over time, improved trust and a sense of cooperation 
between the Department and the stakeholders, including those in the 
industry.
  The authorization that Senator Coburn and I worked on, which was 
almost 5 years ago, is set to expire in January. If it does, this 
important anti-terrorism program will, most likely, go back to a year-
to-year authorization. Industry and labor groups and the Department 
deserve, I think, more certainty than that this time.
  To his credit, Chairman Ron Johnson and his staff have worked 
cooperatively with mine this week to address a number of outstanding 
issues with the bill that was reported out of committee. It was one of 
those bills that was reported out of the committee--and we have all 
been there with, I think, an implicit understanding, a tacit 
understanding, that some work would be done on the bill on the way to 
the floor. With that in mind, at least this week, there has been an 
effort to do that from his staff and, I think, from my staff.
  I thank him for his willingness to reinsert the enhancement to 
whistleblower protections that our ranking member of the Homeland 
Security Committee, Claire McCaskill, and her staff worked hard to try 
to enshrine. However, the bill still contains a number of concerning 
provisions.
  Most importantly, the bill would exempt facilities that store and 
manufacture some of the most dangerous materials--chemical explosives--
from regulation under CFATS if they are subject to a separate 
regulatory program. This change, as far as I know, has not been studied 
adequately, as a number of folks have suggested, and if enacted, it 
could expose our communities to significant harm.
  Earlier today, I was surprised to receive a copy of a letter that I 
hold here from the Secretary of Homeland Security. I think the chairman 
alluded to it already. This letter from Secretary Nielsen basically 
urges caution in making the kinds of changes that our chairman's bill 
would provide. She has urged the House and the Senate to pass a clean 
reauthorization of the program in order to ensure that it does not 
elapse. So I was surprised to get this today and, I think, anticipating 
I would have this opportunity to have a back-and-forth with our 
chairman on a unanimous consent request.
  I was also surprised to hear this morning that the chairs and the 
ranking members of the House's Homeland Security Committee and the 
Energy and Commerce Committee--committees that have shared jurisdiction 
over the CFATS Program--basically answered the administration's 
Secretary of Homeland Security's call by introducing a bipartisan bill 
to reauthorize the program for 2 years. Their bill--although, not 
perfect--would provide a 2-year extension--not perfect--or a 1-year 
extension--not perfect. Their bill would provide industry and 
stakeholders with the certainty they need but, maybe, not without some 
of the changes that should be made in the program as we know it.
  I am trying to remember the name of a Paul Newman movie. Maybe the 
chairman can help me. I think it was ``Cool Hand Luke.'' Maybe the 
Presiding Officer can help me with the movie Newman was in when he was 
captured and was a prisoner and an inmate. He escaped, and he was hard 
to catch. Before he escaped, he was always at odds with the warden, who 
was a short, stout guy. It was cast in the South, so this guy had a 
real southern accent--the warden. They tracked him down. They had dogs, 
and they were doing everything they could to track down the character 
who was played by Paul Newman.
  I see the Presiding Officer smile. He remembers this movie.
  They finally captured Paul Newman, and the warden was really happy 
that they had their guy. He looked at Paul Newman, and I will never 
forget what he said: ``What we've got here is failure to communicate.'' 
Yet I cannot do justice to his accent.
  I think, really, what we have here is a failure to communicate. 
Senator Ron Johnson and I get along pretty well, I hope. Until, 
actually, today or yesterday, we haven't had the kind of communication 
on this issue that we ought to have been having on something this 
important. I can object, and he can object to anything I might try to 
do with a 1- or a 2-year straight extension, but I think what we really 
need to do is kind of like lay down our arms--not literally our arms--
and go back not necessarily to our respective corners but to a 
negotiating table and, maybe, even invite some of our House colleagues 
and the Department--which, obviously, has a clear interest in doing 
this--and some other stakeholders to join us as well.
  We are going to be in session. What is today? Today is the 29th of 
November. We could be here for a couple more weeks. I think there is 
probably time to, maybe, hammer something out. At the end of the day, 
if we are not successful in doing that, then we come back out here and 
go through all of this machination and object and counter object and so 
forth.
  I think the folks who care about this and the communities that care 
about this--the folks who are in the chemicals business and the folks 
who make explosives--as well as the Department, which has jurisdiction, 
would like to see us try to work it out. As the chairman knows and as 
the Presiding Officer knows, we are working on a number of things 
together, and it is always my inclination to try to work things out. I 
think there is a win-win here. We just need to work a little harder to, 
as we say in Delaware, seize the day. I don't know much Latin, but I do 
know ``carpe diem.'' In Delaware, we say ``car-pa dee-um.'' We need to 
seize the day before time expires in a couple of weeks. That would be 
my thought.
  I yield to the chairman for any thoughts that he has. He may want to 
pour water on what I just said. I hope not.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I am happy to respond.
  The Senator from Delaware is well aware that we have been working. We 
have already agreed on three improvements from your standpoint. We 
increase the frequency of inspections for companies participating in 
CFATS recognition programs. We have added a third-party study to look 
at how workers can be made more aware of the fact that their facilities 
are covered by CFATS. We had a future GAO study to look back at how our 
provision exempting explosive materials covered by both CFATS and ATF 
is affecting the program.
  We are already making movement. If you want to discuss this for a few 
more days, fine. Time is, obviously, running out.
  I do want to make everybody aware of the fact that because we have 
done this work, because we have passed this out of our committee 
unanimously, I am not in any way, shape or form, accepting some of the 
typifications in terms of the fact that we have not communicated. We 
have been trying for months to work with the House. There has just been 
no yield whatsoever. There has been no give whatsoever. There has been 
very little desire on its part to do anything other than to have a 
``take it or leave it,'' a ``let's extend this,'' a ``no reforms.'' 
That is, simply, unacceptable to me.
  I have great respect for President Ronald Reagan. I don't want to 
prove him wrong. I, actually, want to reauthorize this thing. Yet if we 
can't come to an agreement with a reformed, reauthorized CFATS Program, 
I am more than willing to prove Ronald Reagan wrong when he said, to 
paraphrase, that the closest thing to eternal life on this Earth is a 
government program. I will let the program expire because I really do 
not think it really enhances the security of our Nation. It, certainly, 
has not been proven in that way, and without reforms, I am happy to let 
this program go by the way of the dinosaur.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. I am trying to think of a really quick comeback to this, 
but

[[Page S7227]]

my memory fails me. I have a pretty good one from John Kennedy, who 
once said to never negotiate out of fear but always be ready to 
negotiate. That is the preference--to never negotiate out of fear but 
be willing to negotiate.
  I would just suggest that we kind of withdraw from what we are trying 
to do here in a parliamentary way and get back to negotiating. If, in 
the end, we come back here in a week or two, we come back, but I would 
like to give it the old college try.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CARPER. I yield to the Senator.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Again, I am happy to do that, but we have not had that 
kind of engagement. Right now, there is, basically, a gun to my head, 
threatening me to take it or leave it. That is not collegial, and that 
is not a very high-integrity approach. I am happy to sit down. Let's 
continue working on this thing. This program needs reforms. We have 
done the work, and I think that work needs to be recognized and 
respected. Again, let's sit down and get our staffs together on this, 
and let's reauthorize and reform the CFATS Program.
  Mr. CARPER. I welcome your words.
  I used to be a House Member. I think we need to respect their views 
as well. Obviously, they have some views that need to be taken into 
account. This is not something I have discussed with the Secretary. I 
don't even know how much she has thought about it, given everything 
else that is on her plate. Yet, clearly, she has people who work for 
her who have thought about it a lot, and I would very much welcome the 
chance to reengage with our chairman, his staff, and our staff but with 
some of the other stakeholders we have talked about here being engaged 
as well. We need to put some pedal to the metal and get something done.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Will the Senator please yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Had the House put an ounce of effort--of work--into 
this, I would have something to respect, but they have done nothing 
other than, basically, just to threaten me with these types of tactics. 
So, again, let's work together. Let's provide a product that we can 
present to the House and that they can pass.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is before the Senate a pending unanimous 
consent request.
  Is there objection?
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I was prepared to ask the Senator to 
modify his request to the Senate and, instead, take up a bill that I 
have introduced that basically reflects what the Secretary has done and 
what the House has done and is at the desk.
  Help me on this, Mr. President. I think the chairman of the committee 
is willing to withdraw his unanimous consent request. I think that is a 
good way to go.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am not withdrawing my unanimous consent 
request. He can object to it, and we will work with him, but I will not 
consider that the final say. We will work in very good faith to come up 
with something better and come back to the floor, hopefully, with a 
bill that we have agreed to.
  Mr. CARPER. I don't get to object to unanimous consent requests every 
day. I think I will do that in this case just to see what it feels 
like, but do it in the spirit of trying to get something done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an objection to the unanimous consent 
request.
  Mr. JOHNSON. The objection is taken in that spirit.
  Mr. CARPER. Good. All right. Thank you.
  Democracy. What did Churchill say? Democracy is the worst form of 
government devised by way of man, except for all the rest. He also said 
that you can always count on America to do the right thing in the end, 
after trying everything else. Hopefully, in the end, we will get a lot 
closer to perfection. So let's give it a shot.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                         Tribute to Ron Travis

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, it is Thursday, and that means it is 
typically time for me to recognize somebody in my State who has made a 
big difference for Alaska, sometimes someone who has made a big 
difference for America. We like to call that person the Alaskan of the 
Week.
  For the pages, I know this is your favorite time of the week because 
these are usually great stories about great Alaskans, great Americans. 
Today, I guarantee you I am not going to disappoint you talking about 
another great Alaskan.
  I like to brag about Alaska--its beauty, its mystique, its great 
people, its vastness, its welcoming communities, its tough people, and 
its tough environment. Everybody should visit.
  If you are watching, come on up, and come on up in winter, by the 
way, not just the summer. The northern lights are out. You can see 
them. They are beautiful. We actually get a lot of tourists in the 
winter, believe it or not.
  There is something else that is very unique about my State, very 
special, and it is this: It is one of the most patriotic States in the 
entire country. There are more veterans per capita than any State in 
America. We like to brag about that. I certainly like to brag about my 
constituents who serve in the military and their families' sacrifice. 
So many of these veterans--like they do throughout the country, so many 
of our Alaskan veterans devote time, energy, and resources to giving 
back to the community but to also helping with other veterans.
  We all know that a few weeks ago we celebrated Veterans Day. As part 
of that celebration and as part of our ``Alaskan of the Week'' series, 
I want to recognize today's Alaskan of the Week, Mr. Ron Travis, along 
with his wife Linda, and what they have done in terms of spending years 
making a difference for American veterans--Alaskan veterans--hundreds, 
if not thousands.
  Let me tell you a little bit about Ron. He came from a patriotic 
family. His father fought in World War II. His mother was a member of 
the VFW Auxiliary. In 1961, Ron joined the Navy, where he served from 
1960 to 1964 as a machinist's mate, third class, on the USS Providence. 
This was a guided-missile cruiser and was the first U.S. Navy ship to 
travel up the Saigon River and park in front of Saigon during the 
Vietnam war. So he is a Vietnam vet. We love our Vietnam vets.
  After he got out of the military, he used the GI bill to go to 
college at what was then Eastern Washington College in 1967. There was 
a lot of turmoil during that time in our country, particularly on 
college campuses. This was during the height of the Vietnam war. There 
were a lot of protests.
  When he was in college, like so many Vietnam veterans, he was 
certainly upset to see a lot of the protests. He was particularly 
infuriated to see his professors canceling class so they could join the 
protestors. He said: ``A lot of the teachers we had didn't even know 
what Vietnam was,'' but they went out and protested.
  However, there was a rule on campus that even if one student showed 
up for class, the professor couldn't cancel the class to join the 
protestors. So Ron and other veterans formed a club. They organized a 
club at their university to make sure there was a veteran in every 
classroom. It was a pretty good idea--keep the professors doing what 
they were supposed to be doing, teaching.
  They also helped veterans pay for books they needed and got them help 
with their classes. Again, veterans helping veterans is what Ron has 
been doing his whole life. It turned into the biggest club on campus.
  There was another club on campus--it is kind of infamous--the 
Students for a Democratic Society, better known as the SDS. It was not 
necessarily the most pro-military group in the country at the time, to 
say the least. At one point, they tried to take over the veterans 
club's canteen, but that didn't work. As Ron said, ``They forgot one 
thing. We would fight for what we believe in.'' We had already done 
that.
  Now, fortunately, it never came to blows. He is quick to point that 
out, but the SDS certainly backed down to Ron's veterans club.
  Eventually, Ron made his way up to the great State of Alaska to work 
on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Like so many people who come up to our 
State, he fell in love with it. He brought his

[[Page S7228]]

wife Linda to Alaska to settle. They settled in a wonderful community 
called Big Lake--it is about an hour's drive from Anchorage--and they 
made a wonderful life for themselves. They built a cabin off the grid. 
They raised their kids in Alaska.
  Ron worked as a mechanic all across the State, then as a parole 
officer. Eventually, he realized he had health issues associated with 
the service in Vietnam--exposure to Agent Orange.
  The American Legion advocated for him to get help, so he joined the 
American Legion--Post 35, in particular--in Wasilla, AK, and began to 
get more and more involved in veterans' issues, eventually becoming the 
commander of the post.
  Then, again, duty called another time for Ron to help with regard to 
our veterans.
  I say to the Presiding Officer, no doubt you and most other people 
watching have heard about this great network of Americans called the 
Honor Flight Network. This network has chapters in individual States 
that bring veterans to Washington, DC, at no cost to the veteran so 
they can visit the memorials that, in many ways, they have dedicated 
their lives to--the World War II Memorial, the Korean War Memorial, the 
Vietnam Memorial.
  It is an outstanding program that started with bringing World War II 
veterans here who haven't seen the wonderful World War II Memorial on 
the Mall that was built for them and finished in 2004.
  Because of Alaska's distance--literally thousands of miles from DC--
we did not have a program. Despite having all of these veterans, we did 
not have an Honor Flight Program. Well, guess who changed that. Ron and 
his wife Linda.
  They were at a veterans facility when they were down in Washington 
State visiting Ron's mother in a rest home. At that facility, they met 
another veteran. He told him all about the Honor Flight Program and 
showed him pictures of a recent trip. He said: Do you know what? Alaska 
needs to do this. Alaska needs to do this. Ron said: Someone should 
start one. Someone should start one of these programs. He looked at his 
wife, and they realized they were going to start it, and the Last 
Frontier Honor Flight Program was born.
  Two times every year, since 2013, they organize a trip for up to 25 
veterans, their escorts, a photographer, a doctor, and two staff 
members. They come to Washington, DC, to visit the different memorials 
for our veterans living in Alaska--World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. 
All told, they have organized trips for 286 veterans. One hundred 
fifty-five of them fought in World War II just from Alaska.
  It is not an easy flight, especially for some of our older veterans, 
but they are all doing it through Ron's and Linda's love and care and 
dedication.
  His goal is to try to reach out to as many World War II veterans as 
they can while they are still with us. Of course, it is a trip of a 
lifetime for so many of these veterans. A ``wonderful gift,'' one 
veteran called it. Others have referred to it as their ``final 
mission.''
  Ron says, the veterans often shed tears in front of the World War II 
Memorial. ``It takes them by surprise,'' he said. ``They often don't 
realize how much they feel'' until they see it. It is a healing mission 
and trip for them. They do a lot of things during these trips. ``It's 
an honor to be part of it.''
  I try to see Ron and his team every time they come to Washington, DC. 
We usually greet them with a couple dozen doughnuts when they are out 
looking at these wonderful memorials.
  Ron recalls one particularly wonderful moment with one of the World 
War II veterans he brought from Alaska when he was in front of the 
World War II Memorial. He was approached by a woman who was also 
visiting the memorial. He saw them talking. Then they hugged. Then they 
cried--total strangers. What was going on there?
  This woman's parents had been at the concentration camp, Dachau. The 
veteran--the World War II veteran, the Alaskan veteran--had been part 
of the unit that liberated the camp. Her parents, she said, were in 
some ways alive because of what he and his unit did to liberate them. 
That happened right here on the Mall--powerful.
  Ron credits the community in Alaska for making these trips possible. 
Of course, he and Linda are being humble. There has been great 
community involvement. Alaska Airlines pays for the flights for the 
veterans and offers discounts for the escorts. Various community 
organizations and veterans groups and businesses help pay for the hotel 
rooms and all of the food. Volunteers and board members come together 
to raise money.
  The community that helps with these trips includes our Active-Duty 
and Reserve Forces in Alaska. Back home, when they come home--many of 
whom are in wheelchairs--hundreds of Alaskans come out to greet them in 
the airport. It is great. It is wonderful.
  It is the community of my State and really the community of this 
great country coming together, but it needs leaders. It needs leaders, 
and Ron and Linda have been those leaders, founding the Alaska Last 
Frontier Honor Flight.
  I thank Ron and Linda for their great service to Alaska, great 
service to their country, great service to our veterans, for all they 
have done, and congratulate them on being our Alaskans of the Week.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                    Empowering Our Local Communities

  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I want to talk about trickle-down 
economics and give my colleagues an example of why it doesn't work, 
particularly in parts of the country that have long been neglected by 
the power structures in those communities.
  Let's take, for example, South St. Petersburg, FL. St. Petersburg is 
a part of Pinellas County. It is one of our major cities in Florida. It 
is at the tip of a peninsula that wraps around Tampa Bay. South St. 
Pete is riddled with poverty. According to the Census Bureau, 16.4 
percent of the people who live there live below the Federal poverty 
line, 6.7 percent of which have jobs, but they still live in poverty. 
Now, there is something wrong with that. If you have a job, you 
shouldn't be living in poverty.
  What we know, as a result of a survey by the United Way, is that 44 
percent of people in Florida, according to this survey taken in 2016--
44 percent of the people in Florida, almost half--do not earn enough 
money to make ends meet. That means they don't have enough money for 
food, for housing, for healthcare, for transportation, and for child 
care--essentials for someone who is working to be able to have enough 
to live day to day. So there is something wrong with this.
  We find people living in pockets of poverty all across this country, 
but I want to give an example of it in South St. Petersburg, FL. Many 
people there don't make enough to make ends meet and, of course, that 
means that you have to have both spouses working. Forty-four percent of 
the people do not have an economic situation that enables them to make 
ends meet. So what do they do to compensate? They work two, three jobs 
in order to compensate.
  So in South St. Petersburg there are a lot of people who don't even 
have a job. It is not because they don't want jobs. It is because a lot 
of the established financial power--including banks, corporations, and 
big investors--in areas that are depressed like this one see it as a 
lost cause. They don't believe it has the economic potential to support 
new business.
  I want to tell you a great success story about what a husband and 
wife team, Elihu and Carolyn Brayboy, found out when they tried to open 
a restaurant on 22nd Street in South St. Pete, an economically 
depressed part of the town that was long overlooked by those at the top 
of the economic ladder. I want to show my colleagues a picture of them. 
This is the Brayboys.
  In fact, the building the Brayboys wanted to use for their restaurant 
sat idle for the previous 35 years. It was basically wasting away. When 
the Brayboys went looking for a loan to buy the building, every lender 
they went to said: No, it is too depressed. It sat vacant for 35 years.
  Everywhere they went, they heard the same thing: The community will 
not be able to bring in enough business, and you will not be able to 
get enough customers from outside the community to visit that area.
  Most people would have given up after receiving so many noes or given

[[Page S7229]]

in to the pressure to put the restaurant in a more acceptable part of 
town, but like most people in South St. Pete, the Brayboys are a 
different cut because they are not easily deterred. If there is one 
thing my colleagues should know about the people of South St. Pete, it 
is this: Don't test their resolve, because you are in for a surprise.
  Undeterred, Mr. and Mrs. Brayboys took money out of their 401(k) 
accounts and poured all of their life savings into buying that hulk of 
a building on 22nd Street. After gutting the inside and pouring in 
their blood, sweat, and tears into remodeling the property, Chief's 
Creole Cafe opened in November of 2014 and has been going strong ever 
since, creating jobs and changing the way people think about South St. 
Pete. This is a picture of how the restaurant looks today.
  Despite the warnings of all of those doubtful lenders, they have been 
able to sustain the business by attracting both locals and customers 
from outside of the area of South St. Pete. Does that not look like 
something that is a well-run, growing, successful business?
  So the old saying stands: If you build it, and if you really try, 
they will come.
  Now, this is a great story of stubborn determination triumphing over 
fear and adversity and rejection after rejection, but this type of 
story is few and far between in too many parts of Florida and across 
the country.
  So let me show you another picture. This is the Three Oaks Plaza. The 
Three Oaks Plaza used to be the location of a Dollar Tree store, but 
the store closed last year. This is how it used to look, and this is 
how it looks now. The closing of the Dollar Tree store came on the 
heels of the closing of the local Walmart nearby.
  Unfortunately, this is all too common in South St. Pete and too many 
other parts of Florida. The problem isn't new, but we need a new way to 
think about it. We need economic policies that rely less on outside 
investors and outside companies to come in and remake the image of the 
area and rely more, instead, on empowering local residents to create 
their own businesses. They are more likely to keep profits in the 
community, creating a more sustainable loop of economic activity.
  That is what I want to recommend that this Senate and future Senates 
do with legislation. Consider the example of legislation that I 
introduced earlier this year called the Economic Modernization Act. 
That bill does a lot of things, but one key thing it does is to create 
a new tax break for local businesses that move into buildings that have 
long sat idle and vacant. Under a piece of legislation such as that, if 
a business moves into a building that has been vacant for 2 or more 
years and renovates the property, the business would be able to get a 
tax deduction worth many more times than what it put into it. Any 
profits earned at the property, for the first 3 years in that building, 
would be a tax deduction. The deduction would be capped. It could be, 
in legislation, at 50 percent of the business's wages to make sure that 
the employees are also getting a benefit, and the more the business 
pays its employees, the more the business saves with that tax deduction 
and, therefore, saves in taxes.
  Simply put, the bill, or legislation like it, will make it easier for 
local entrepreneurs to rebuild their community, helping to turn more 
places like this first photo into places like Chief's Creole Cafe.
  Now, that is what we ought to be doing, not digging out old policies 
from the 1980s and calling it something new like our colleagues here in 
the Congress did last year with the tax bill. The tax bill added 
trillions to the national debt and made it easier for big corporations 
to game the tax system and put Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, our 
infrastructure, and all other sorts of priorities at risk because the 
entire national debt is run up $2 trillion over a 10-year period.
  Where is the money to do all of these other priorities--Medicaid, 
Medicare, infrastructure, Social Security?
  When big corporations see places like South St. Pete, they don't 
necessarily see the financial opportunity that Mr. and Mrs. Brayboy saw 
and turn it into a going concern. They don't necessarily want to 
empower places. Sometimes it just goes over their heads, and they miss 
the opportunity.
  We need to incentivize local people to revitalize a community and, in 
the process, to be economically successful. We need to create more 
stories like the successful story of the Brayboys. We need to make it 
easier for locals to take old, abandoned buildings and turn them into 
new, thriving businesses that value their people and employ local 
residents. We need to encourage local communities, which understand 
their own needs, to be financially successful and have an opportunity 
to do that.
  Despite what others say, instead of a tax bill that raises the 
national debt by $2 trillion, wouldn't you believe that if we could do 
this all over America, it would help so much of the economic 
underpinnings of our country?
  Let's think of a way that it should be, and this is one way. We need 
to do more to lift up those at the bottom and help them help 
themselves. I hope our colleagues will agree, and I hope our colleagues 
will consider legislation like this in the future.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________