[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 17 (Monday, January 28, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S688-S696]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




STRENGTHENING AMERICA'S SECURITY IN THE MIDDLE EAST ACT OF 2019--MOTION 
                          TO PROCEED--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1, which the clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to the consideration of S. 1, a bill to 
     make improvements to certain defense and security assistance 
     provisions and to authorize the appropriation of funds to 
     Israel, to reauthorize the United States-Jordan Defense 
     Cooperation Act of 2015, and to halt the wholesale slaughter 
     of the Syrian people, and for other purposes.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, 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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                           Government Funding

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, as the dust settles from the longest 
shutdown in American history, we have work to do to get our country 
back on track. Hundreds of thousands of Federal workers who endured a 
month without compensation need to get their paychecks and backpay as 
soon as possible. So I have written a letter to President Trump urging 
him to expedite the delivery of those paychecks.
  At the same time, we must be mindful of the hardships that persist 
for Federal contractors, who may not receive the backpay they have 
missed and who may have lost health insurance during the shutdown. We 
need to find a solution as well for those contractors. Senator Smith of 
Minnesota is working on that, and I hope we can do something to help 
them. It is of no fault of their own that they lost pay.
  But there are some costs from the Trump shutdown that cannot be 
recouped. The CBO today released a report about the lasting damage that 
the Trump shutdown has done to the American economy. According to the 
CBO, the 5-week shutdown cost the U.S. economy $11 billion overall, 
including $3 billion in economic activity that can never be recovered.
  Let me repeat that. The Trump shutdown has cost the U.S. economy $11 
billion. What a devastating and pointless exercise this has been. If 
President Trump didn't appreciate the error of his ways already, his 
CBO ought to set him straight--no more shutdowns. They accomplish 
nothing. They only inflict pain and suffering on the country, our 
citizens, our economy, and our national security. That is a lesson we 
all must keep in mind.
  The continuing resolution we passed on Friday only runs until 
February 15. In 3 weeks, we must pass additional appropriations to 
avoid another shutdown. Let the CBO report be a dire warning to 
President Trump and my Republican colleagues in the Senate against 
shutting down the government again.
  Now, in these next 3 weeks, House and Senate appropriators named to 
the conference committee on Department of Homeland Security will 
endeavor to strike a bipartisan deal on border security. The good news 
is that we begin this process with plenty of common ground. Democrats 
and Republicans alike agree on the need for stronger border security. 
Though Democrats sharply disagree with the President on the need for an 
expensive and ineffective border wall, we agree on the need to 
strengthen our ports of entry, as well as the need to provide more drug 
inspection technology and humanitarian assistance. Since so many of the 
drugs come through the portals, a border wall will do no good at all, 
but strengthening those portals is vital.
  Because we have set this up as a conference, Democratic and 
Republican leadership--House and Senate--will be involved, as well as 
the appropriators from those committees. Everyone has skin in the game. 
So in the next 3 weeks, the goal of the committee should be to find 
areas where we agree and work on them together.
  In the past, when the President has stayed out of it, when the 
President has given Congress room, we have been repeatedly able to 
forge bipartisan agreements, including two budget agreements and the 
Russia sanctions. When the President injects maximalist partisan 
demands into the process, negotiations tend to fall apart. The 
President should allow the conference committee to proceed with good 
faith negotiations. I genuinely hope it will produce something that is 
good for the country and acceptable to both sides.
  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. 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.


                           Government Funding

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, after a 35-day government shutdown, more 
than 800,000 Federal workers and their families are finally back at 
work. Their families have endured unnecessary and needless hardship 
over the past several weeks because, frankly, the Speaker of the House, 
Ms. Pelosi, was more determined to try to win the political battle than 
solve the problem. I could give the same comment to our friend the 
Democratic leader here in the Senate. I hope now, after we have been 
through this exercise in futility, that our colleagues will take 
seriously our responsibility to solve the problem before us, and that 
is to reach an agreement so we don't end up in the same position 3 
weeks hence when this continuing resolution expires.
  I tell people that we solve problems like this every single day here 
in the Congress. You don't read about it, necessarily, or hear about it 
because when we build consensus and negotiate compromises, it is not 
news. The only time it is news is when we disagree and when it is 
broadcast across cable TV or the subject of talk radio or social media.
  It is unfortunate that dedicated public servants were caught in the 
crosshairs over a partisan fight on border security. What we have seen 
over the last months is that many Members desire to score those 
political points and win a fight against the President, and that desire 
is much greater than their desire to build legislation that benefits 
the American people.
  There is a solution to be had. As I said, we do it every day. The 
only question is, Are we willing to work together to find it? I know I 
am.
  I have been speaking with many Members of the Texas delegation, both 
Republicans and Democrats, to try to find that common ground for our 
constituents for border security. We don't consider these to be 
political footballs or talking points; we consider these matters to be 
part of their daily lives and part of our responsibility as their 
elected representatives.
  In the last few days, I have had the chance to be in Dallas, TX, and 
also in

[[Page S689]]

Austin, TX. I was in Austin, TX, to talk about the CyberTipline we 
reauthorized working with Facebook and Microsoft and other social media 
platforms to talk about how we can work together to combat child 
pornography and child exploitation, using the authority of the 
CyberTipline. We were joined by the new U.S. attorney there, John Bash. 
I asked him whether his prosecutors who were prosecuting these cases or 
the FBI agents who would investigate them or his support staff who 
support the U.S. attorney's office--whether any of them were getting 
paid, and he said no. But everybody showed up at work, doing their job, 
fighting the scourge of child exploitation, even though they weren't 
getting paid.
  Ditto in the Northern District of Texas, where I visited with the 
U.S. attorney, who gave me the same story. We were there talking about 
the scourge of human trafficking. Erin Nealy Cox, the U.S. attorney in 
Dallas, pointed out that, yes, the prosecutors were there at work, the 
investigators were there, and the support staff were there, even though 
they were the ones probably earning the most modest paychecks of 
anybody in the office. Everybody was there, doing their job, even 
though during these 35 days they had missed two different Federal 
paychecks.
  Thinking now about the solution to our standoff on border security, I 
wanted to mention that a couple of weeks ago the President flew to 
McAllen, TX. Senator Cruz and I joined him in the Rio Grande Valley to 
hear from the experts. By ``the experts,'' I don't mean folks who run 
for office here in Washington, DC. I mean the Border Patrol, Customs 
and Border Protection, and Department of Homeland Security experts who 
actually work on the ground there along the border.
  We also met with mayors and county judges and other folks who live in 
those communities and are most concerned about safety and security but 
also the economy of the border region. We discussed with them what 
sensible border security actually looks like.
  We know that physical barriers didn't use to be a partisan issue when 
the Senator from New York--the Democratic leader--Barack Obama, and 
Hillary Clinton all voted for the Secure Fence Act back in 2006. We 
called it a fence then and not a wall, but it was a physical barrier, 
and it was a nonpartisan issue.
  That was then and this is now. When we were talking about physical 
barriers along the border, my friend Cameron County Judge Eddie Trevino 
said something that stuck with me, and I have repeated it a number of 
times, and I think it could be a lesson to all of us about how to 
approach this entire debate. He said that if law enforcement officials 
say where barriers are needed, he is all in, but if politicians say 
where they are needed and they are trying to micromanage border 
security, consider him a skeptic.

  I think what people want--and my sense is what my constituents along 
the border region and across the State of Texas want and, I dare say, 
across the country--is to come up with effective solutions that will 
make our border more secure. Since Texas has 1,200 miles of common 
border with Mexico, of course, I have thought about this a lot, and I 
have listened and learned a lot about this. What I have been told and I 
believe is that at any given place along the border, you are going to 
have some combination of three elements: physical barriers, technology, 
and personnel. We need a complement of each of those things in this 
border security bill that hopefully we will be voting on in the coming 
weeks.
  Many areas along the border are subject to high pedestrian traffic. 
They need physical barriers. That is why they make sense in El Paso and 
San Diego and Tucson, for examples. All of these saw a massive drop in 
apprehensions after fencing or physical barriers were put in place, 
along with a complement of technology and border agents when they were 
deployed in the 1990s and 2000s. We know that barriers can work. We 
have seen it proven time and again.
  We all agree that we don't need barriers across the entire 2,000-mile 
southwestern border. We don't need a great wall from sea to shining sea 
across the border. One example comes readily to mind. Big Bend National 
Park, for example, is home to massive canyons, and some of the cliffs 
reach more than 3,000 feet high along the Rio Grande River. It is a 
spectacular and beautiful place. It would not only be impractical but 
completely wasteful to build a physical barrier on top of a towering 
cliff. That is just one example of where you might want to use some 
other parts of that triad of technology and personnel because a 
physical barrier wouldn't make much sense.
  There are others who have suggested that we use the natural barrier 
of the Rio Grande River. Right now, much of that river is filled with 
something called carrizo cane, which makes it harder for the Border 
Patrol to actually locate people trying to enter the United States 
illegally. It reduces the effectiveness of that natural physical 
barrier of the Rio Grande River. We need to find a way to eradicate 
that in a way that will not only allow that river to be more of a 
natural barrier but also provide greater visibility for the Border 
Patrol.
  In some areas, as I said, physical barriers, either new, repaired, or 
replaced are desperately needed. In others, surveillance technology, 
such as sensors or drones, will do the trick. Many additional personnel 
are needed to improve efficiency or alleviate staffing shortages. It 
doesn't make sense to have a physical barrier if there is no Border 
Patrol agent to detain somebody entering the country illegally or to 
interdict the drugs that come across the border.
  As my friend Judge Trevino said, politicians shouldn't be the ones 
deciding exactly where along the border each of these three elements is 
applied. That is why we have asked and will continue to ask Customs and 
Border Protection--the experts--what we need and provide funding to 
implement the changes they have asked for.
  I think it is a statement of the obvious to say that, in addition to 
improving the physical security across our border, we need to make 
changes in our border security approach and immigration system as a 
whole. Unfortunately, we are not even dealing with the larger problem 
of our broken immigration system.
  Several years ago, I introduced legislation to the so-called Gang of 
8 immigration bill that we were debating at the time. The legislation I 
introduced was called the RESULTS amendment. I believe the foundation 
of that legislation should be incorporated in any future legislation we 
come up with here in the next few weeks. One of the main requirements 
was for the Department of Homeland Security to come up with a plan to 
achieve operational control of every single border sector, meaning a 
90-percent border apprehension rate. Requiring this sort of metric or 
apprehension rate will provide a clear, objective way to measure border 
security. Ironically, the way we measure border security now is that we 
know how many people are detained, but we don't know how many get away. 
It is a strange way to count effectiveness by counting the ones we 
detain but not the ones who get away--which obviously we can't do. If 
we come up with a better way to measure border security with a clear-
cut metric like a 90-percent operational control requirement, I think 
it would provide a better way for us to determine how to efficiently 
spend the tax dollars we are talking about, which we are stewards of 
here in the Congress, and ensure that we are focusing our resources on 
the highest priority areas. This requirement would allow us to do that.
  That particular legislation, the RESULTS amendment, would also 
require increased surveillance and provide solutions to commonsense 
problems. For example, it would have prevented violent criminals from 
acquiring legal status, provided law enforcement with critical national 
security and public safety information, and mitigated the problem of 
visa overstays. This RESULTS amendment would have strengthened 
biometric requirements.
  It is ironic, as we talk about border security and immigration, that 
we turn a blind eye to the 40 percent of illegal immigration that 
occurs when people enter the country legally and overstay their 
visas. Unless they commit some other crime in the course of their time 
here, they are largely not located. So we need to find a better way to 
enforce all of our immigration laws, including visa overstays.

  We can't ignore the fact that our border is not only a place that 
needs security but that is important to the economic vitality of not 
only my State

[[Page S690]]

but of our country. The financial impact of legitimate trade and travel 
is enormous. As a matter of fact, $300 billion worth of goods flow back 
and forth through Texas's ports of entry alone in a given year. That is 
why this type of legislation is so important--because it provides 
resources to significantly reduce wait times at border crossings, which 
makes the movement of people and goods faster but no less secure.
  Finally, this legislation took a stand against the brutal human 
rights violations we see along the southern border by stiffening 
penalties on abusive human smugglers and transnational criminal 
organizations. There may have been a time when the so-called coyotes 
were a mom-and-pop operation. ``Coyotes'' is just the name for human 
smugglers. Now it is big business, and the same criminal organizations 
that move drugs and economic migrants also traffic in human beings for 
sex and other involuntary servitude. It is no longer a mom-and-pop 
operation, to be sure, and we need to make sure the penalties for this 
illegal activity are increased and stiffened to meet the challenge of 
transnational criminal organizations.
  I believe that all of these points still deserve a place in our 
debate today. I look forward to working with our colleagues in the 
coming weeks to create meaningful and lasting change to strengthen our 
border security as well as to fix longstanding problems with our 
immigration system. I believe we can find common ground, and I hope our 
Democratic colleagues will follow through in their commitment to 
negotiating in good faith so that we do.
  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 (Ms. Ernst). The Senator from New Hampshire is 
recognized.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, after the longest shutdown in 
government history, Federal employees across the country are finally 
returning to work. National parks are reopening, grant programs are up 
and running again, and those who depend on essential government 
services are now being helped by our Nation's public servants.
  One of the things that impressed me the most during the shutdown was, 
as I met with our Federal employees who were affected, their dedication 
to their jobs and to the services they were providing to the American 
people. Like the rest of the Members of Congress and people in this 
country, I was thrilled when we were able to end that shutdown last 
week, and I was especially pleased to work with my colleagues to make 
sure government operations would return to normal. This shutdown should 
never have happened.
  For 35 days, partisan gamesmanship forced government Agencies to 
close their doors, and more than 380,000 Federal workers were 
furloughed and another 450,000 employees worked without pay.
  These Federal workers, some of whom live paycheck to paycheck, were 
forced to have very difficult conversations with their families on what 
bills will not be paid this month and how to make ends meet. I remember 
I was at the Coast Guard station in New Hampshire last week meeting 
with members of our Coast Guard who were talking about the Coast Guard 
cutter that is stationed there--the Reliance--heading out that morning 
and the families of those Coast Guard members who were on the Reliance 
not having any idea when they would again be paid.
  Thankfully, these 800,000 employees and thousands more Federal 
contractors are returning to work. Unfortunately, the prolonged 
economic effect of the shutdown and the morale of the Federal workforce 
is going to last much longer.
  A report released today by the Congressional Budget Office found that 
during the shutdown, the economy took an $11 billion hit, including $3 
billion that is gone forever, which we are never going to be able to 
recover. When people aren't paid, they don't shop. They don't travel. 
They miss payments. They default on loans. They can't participate in 
our economy if they have nothing in the bank.
  Although the shutdown has ended, some Federal employees who have gone 
without a paycheck for over a month still may not get paid until the 
end of this week. I know everybody is trying to make sure those 
paychecks go out as soon as possible. They can't go out soon enough for 
those workers who have missed their paychecks.
  As the President continues to threaten another shutdown in the coming 
weeks, Congress needs to take additional action to protect Federal 
workers. I am cosponsoring three bills that would provide some 
financial security to those employees. These bills would eliminate 
penalties for Federal workers who make early withdrawals from their 
savings plans, require the government to pay back all Federal employees 
with interest, just as the private sector does, and they would ensure 
that excepted Federal employees are eligible for unemployment insurance 
compensation.
  What we know happened during the shutdown is that those people who 
were working couldn't collect unemployment because they were working, 
even though they weren't getting paid. That is something we would never 
allow the private sector to do.
  I was very disappointed to hear the President and White House 
officials say over the weekend that if the President doesn't get what 
he wants, he is going to shut down the government again. The American 
people, our economy, can't afford another partisan shutdown that 
jeopardizes our Federal workforce and does nothing to increase border 
security. Our focus now needs to be on working together to pass 
bipartisan legislation that secures our borders and funds our 
government.
  Protecting our borders shouldn't be an exercise in partisanship. In 
the past, in the Senate, we have been able to garner support from 
across the ideological spectrum to fund commonsense proposals that 
provide effective security.
  If we look at this chart that traces appropriations for Customs and 
Border Protection from 2014 to 2018, we can see that Congress has 
consistently increased funding for Customs and Border Protection each 
of the past 5 fiscal years, providing nearly $60 billion for the 
Agency. In 2014, we provided $10.6 billion; 2015, $10.7 billion; 2016, 
$11.2 billion; 2017, $12.1 billion; and 2018, $14 billion. It is 
consistently increasing the dollars that are available.
  Just last year, Congress provided $1.3 billion for border fencing on 
our southern border--$1.3 billion last year. I am not sure everyone in 
the administration knows that is how much money we have provided. The 
money has yet to be spent on the actual construction of proposed 
fencing projects.
  As we are thinking about how we spend our money on border security, 
we need to be spending it in a way that is smart. We should not be 
putting aside money we can't spend yet when there are other needs we 
have for those dollars.
  We need to build on these proposals moving forward. We need to focus 
on technology, on infrastructure, and we need to focus on the personnel 
who are needed at the southern and northern borders to provide actual 
security that works. We need to make targeted investments and 
innovative technologies that provide comprehensive surveillance at our 
borders and ports of entry, along with increasing personnel and 
physical infrastructure where necessary.
  As a member of the Appropriations subcommittee that funds Homeland 
Security, I have supported these investments in the past and so has the 
majority of the members of the committee. We have worked in a 
bipartisan manner to secure our borders.
  I have supported funding for targeted fencing in vulnerable areas, 
funding for more Border Patrol agents, for better surveillance, for 
screening technologies, and for increased security at ports of entry. I 
intend to continue to support commonsense efforts such as these.
  Unfortunately, providing billions of dollars to fulfill a campaign 
promise to build a wall that has no plan that has been presented for 
how to do that is really not a serious proposal. It is unlikely to 
solve the problems it seeks to address.
  Our efforts to secure the border should focus on solutions that will 
stem the flow of opioids, fentanyl, and other drugs that have decimated 
our communities. Last year, New Hampshire had the second highest rate 
of

[[Page S691]]

overdose deaths due to opioids, primarily fentanyl.
  Physical infrastructure and some fencing in high-risk areas can help 
to disrupt drug trafficking across our borders, but it should be done 
in conjunction with and not at the expense of other technologies that 
allow law enforcement to identify and disrupt criminal activity.
  Several years ago, Senator Hoeven and I--when he was chair and I was 
ranking member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee--
visited the southern border. We had a chance to talk to Customs and 
Border Protection officials, to immigration officials at the border. 
They talked about the drugs that come across at the ports of entry. In 
Laredo, we saw dogs and CBP agents looking in a pickup truck for an 
area in front of the gas tank where they thought drugs were being 
secreted.

  We are not going to intercept those drugs that are affecting our 
States and communities by building a wall. We have to have new 
screening technologies at our ports of entry, new technologies that 
utilize artificial intelligence and advanced imaging so they can assist 
in identifying contraband and weapons that are hidden in commercial 
cargo.
  Sensor technologies and other surveillance techniques, such as 
unmanned aerial systems, or drones, allow our border agents to expand 
their region and respond immediately to illegal activity at our 
borders. When resourced and deployed appropriately, these types of 
smart investments are far more likely to interrupt the flow of 
narcotics than a costly and ineffective border wall.
  It is also important to remember that the United States and Canada 
share the longest international border in the world, and the northern 
border may not face the same threats as those posed at the southern 
border, but transnational criminal organizations and other bad actors 
still attempt to exploit vulnerabilities and enter the country 
illegally through our northern border.
  Coming from a State that shares a small portion of our border with 
Canada, I have heard from law enforcement authorities in New Hampshire. 
Our law enforcement officials face unique challenges with enforcement 
and security. These challenges include a lack of broadband in highly 
rural areas that impedes law enforcement activities. If we see somebody 
coming across the border in northern New Hampshire from Canada, we 
can't pick up a cellphone and call law enforcement because we don't 
have cell service in northern New Hampshire along our border.
  Truly comprehensive border security must recognize the threat at our 
northern border and invest in technologies to address the unique 
challenges that law enforcement faces there. We need broadband access 
in northern New Hampshire and all along our northern border.
  We also need to improve the functioning of our immigration port 
system. We really need comprehensive immigration reform, but we are not 
going to get there, I don't think, by the February 15 deadline. We can 
look at what is slowing down our immigration court system and help 
support those efforts to adjudicate immigration cases fairly and 
expeditiously and reduce the enormous immigration court case backlog.
  Again, as a ranking member of the Appropriations subcommittee that 
funds the Department of Justice, I have supported strong funding to 
increase the number of immigration judges, including an increase of $59 
million for fiscal year 2019. This increased amount is, in fact, the 
President's request that would support new immigration judge teams. We 
already put that money into the 2019 budget, if we are allowed to go 
forward with what the Appropriations Committee in the Senate agreed to.
  Our immigration courts currently have a backlog of more than 800,000 
cases waiting to be heard, and the shutdown exacerbated this problem by 
forcing more than 80,000--80,000--court hearings to be canceled. The 
average wait time to hear an immigration case is already longer than 2 
years, and these unnecessarily canceled hearings will be rescheduled 
into 2020 and beyond.
  This shutdown-caused delay means years longer that people who should 
be deported, who may pose a threat in this country, will be able to 
stay here and years longer that the people who may deserve relief, who 
should be allowed to stay in the United States, will have to wait in 
limbo.
  Now that the shutdown has ended, now that cooler heads can prevail, 
and we can look at what makes sense to secure our borders, look at what 
we have already done, how we can build on that and how we can address 
legitimate concerns about what is going on at our borders, it is time 
for all of us--Republicans and Democrats--to put aside gamesmanship and 
to support commonsense proposals.
  It is my hope that the conference committee that has already been 
appointed to negotiate funding for the Department of Homeland Security 
will focus on the solutions that work rather than proposals that score 
political points. This shutdown took an enormous economic and emotional 
toll not only on our Federal workforce but on everyone who accesses 
government services.
  As we craft a bipartisan proposal to fund the government and secure 
our borders, let's not forget the impact that has had on the people we 
serve and on the potential impact if we don't get this resolved by 
February 15.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  (The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 240 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I come to talk about the bill before us, S. 
1. We have had multiple attempts to get onto this bill. I am hopeful 
that today will be that day.


                               Venezuela

  Mr. President, I wanted to briefly, for just a moment, divert to a 
different topic on Venezuela that was in the news about an hour and a 
half ago. The administration announced additional measures. It has been 
covered in the press, largely as sanctions on the regime of Nicolas 
Maduro, the illegitimate usurper and head of the criminal syndicate 
that controls the security agencies in that country.
  While it most certainly is going to hurt him, I think it is important 
to point out that the more accurate way to describe it is that 
Venezuela sends about 500 billion barrels of crude oil a day to the 
United States to be refined. That belongs to the Venezuelan people. 
What has been happening is that U.S. refineries pay for it. It is about 
three-quarters of the cash generated by the state-run oil company.
  Then, Maduro and his cronies steal that money--not to build roads or 
feed people. They steal it to bribe and keep people loyal to him. If 
you are a high-ranking general in Venezuela, with the fancy uniforms 
and the stars and bars, in those pictures that you see--why are they 
loyal to Maduro? They are ``loyal'' to him because he keeps providing 
them access to corruption. One way is by pilfering and completely 
taking all that cash out of the state-run oil company. That ends today.
  What is going to be done now is that U.S. refineries are still 
allowed to buy crude, but the payments, instead of being made to Maduro 
so he can steal it, will be set aside in an account to be used by the 
legitimate government of that country. If you are one of these corrupt 
officials who has been ``loyal'' to Maduro up until today because of 
the money, that is about to end, as well, and perhaps you should 
reevaluate your loyalty, for lack of a better term.

[[Page S692]]

  



                                  S. 1

  Mr. President, the topic before us today is S. 1. This bill, among 
other things, is a response to decisions that were made recently on the 
U.S. presence in Syria. I believe that the decision to draw down is a 
mistake. I have communicated that to the President, and he invited us 
to the White House a couple of weeks ago to have a conversation with a 
group of us. Irrespective of what ends up happening, there are going to 
be byproducts of that decision. There will be consequences of it. 
Several of those consequences are going to directly impact our allies 
in the region.
  Let me begin by saying that it will directly impact the United 
States. We already see that ISIS in Syria was on the path to morphing 
into an insurgency. An insurgency is different than what they used to 
be. ISIS used to take over big pieces of land and fly their black flag, 
and they had buildings. In some ways, that is terrifying because they 
control land and they have people under their command. In some ways, it 
is easier to target them. They are telling you where they are, and you 
can see it, and it is out in the open.
  Insurgency is different. It is when you blend into the population. By 
day, you might be a baker or guy who runs a cafe. By night, you are an 
ISIS killer. They sort of come in and out of the population. They don't 
control large swaths of territory. They sort of embed themselves. This 
insurgency is the threat we face and the challenge we had in Iraq that 
led to the surge to have to come back in and rectify it. ISIS was 
already on the path to doing that. This will make it easier for them. 
It is harder to target an insurgency than it is to target the 
caliphate.
  I am deeply concerned that the U.S. withdrawal will make it easier 
for them not to just establish an insurgency but, worst of all, it will 
provide greater operational safety. That means more space in which they 
can plot to attack the United States and our interests around the 
world, and even here in the Homeland. There is real reason to be 
concerned about that. You know, 9/11 doesn't happen if al-Qaida doesn't 
have a safe haven in Afghanistan. I fear what ISIS might be able to do 
if, in portions of Syria, they are able to establish a safe haven from 
which they can raise money, produce videos, recruit, try to inspire 
terrorist attacks abroad, and even direct them.
  But one of the other byproducts is the impact it has with regard to 
Israel. Envision for a moment a small country whose narrowest point is 
only 9 or 10 miles wide, and it faces a threat to its north in Syria. 
In Syria already, in addition to ISIS and all of these other criminal 
and terrorist elements that are there, you have a growing Iranian 
presence. That growing Iranian presence begins with Iran itself. If 
current trends continue, Iran is going to base within Syria surface-to-
air missiles designed to shoot down airplanes. They are going to base 
ballistic missiles even closer now to Syria. They don't have to launch 
them up to Israel. They don't have to launch them from Iran. They can 
now launch them from Syrian territory, just off the Israeli border. 
They have UAVs. We have seen how the Houthis have helped to 
operationalize those. All of that is sponsored by Iran operating out of 
Yemen.
  One of the mortal enemies that Israel faces is Hezbollah. They are 
headquartered primarily in Lebanon, but there are Hezbollah elements 
all over Syria. For a long time now, they have been getting their 
armaments and weaponry from Iran, but it had to be flown, especially in 
the middle of this conflict.
  Imagine that now Iran has the ability to arm and equip Hezbollah with 
all of these things, not just from the air but through a ground route 
where they can actually ship things to them from the ground. That is 
why they so desperately care about what is happening in Syria. It gains 
them operational space--not to mention that Hezbollah is in Syria.
  There is a wing of Hezbollah that is inside of Syria. Imagine that 
now, if you are Israel, you already face the threat of Hezbollah. 
Hezbollah has already developed rockets that they are now making. They 
are not shipping them anymore. They are now building these rockets. 
They are developing these rockets in Lebanese territory. They are not 
the rockets from the last time they had a war with Israel. These new 
rockets are precision guided, meaning they can actually aim them to hit 
certain areas and avoid hitting others.
  They have a lot more than they used to have. Just by volume, they can 
overwhelm Israeli defenses very quickly or potentially. You already 
have that problem in Lebanon. Imagine that exact same problem, not just 
from Lebanon but to the north of you, coming from Syria, just across 
the Golan Heights.
  Imagine you are Israel and you have your mortal enemy Iran, your 
mortal enemy Assad, your mortal enemy Hezbollah, and these other 
radical Shia groups all to the north of you in that country. Israel is 
taking action. They are increasingly and openly acknowledging this as 
they launch these attacks into Syria to try to degrade their 
capabilities and put themselves in that position. They cannot allow 
people and they cannot allow organizations whose very existence is 
justified by the destruction of the Jewish State to openly operate and 
increase their capacity just north of their borders. That is what is 
happening, and that is why Israel is increasingly striking.
  Listen to the words in a broadcast that I believe was yesterday or 
the day before. The head of Hezbollah was on television in an open 
television interview, and he basically warned Israel. He said: If 
Israel continues to strike within Syria in this way, it is going to 
lead to a war. It is going to lead to a war because Syria and its 
allies, including them, but also Iran, are going to have to retaliate 
for these attacks.
  Walk through this with me. Israel attacks out of self-defense because 
they have to. Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran, and a gang of others respond 
against Israel. Then, Israel has to respond in kind, potentially, even 
hitting Hezbollah inside of Lebanon, and suddenly we have another 
Israel-Hezbollah war, but much broader than the last one because it 
will involve Syria and it will involve Iran, and it will be far 
deadlier because, unlike the last time, they now have a lot more of 
these missiles and these missiles are precision-guided.
  This is the threat that Israel faces. It is very real. Events there 
can quickly spiral into that. One of the things our bill does is it 
puts in law the memorandum of understanding between the United States 
and Israel that says that, in the case of conflict, the United States 
will be there to help Israel rearm and reequip itself, and we will work 
hand-in-hand with them on things like missile defense, which are 
mutually beneficial, by the way, because all these innovations 
happening there can also benefit us here or by protecting our presence 
around the world.
  Why is this bill important? First, because of the practical 
implications of it. We want Israelis to be able to defend and protect 
themselves. It sets aside, in our arsenal, weapons that are held there 
for purposes of if Israel ever needs them. For those who are worried 
about whether that would degrade our own capability, the law says it 
has to be done in a way that doesn't degrade our own capabilities to 
defend ourselves. It sets in place the assurance that if Israel gets 
into one of these wars that quickly escalates against multiple 
parties--Hezbollah, Iran, potentially Syria, themselves--and they start 
running out of weaponry--rockets to defend themselves, munitions and 
the like--we will be there to quickly rearm them. That is just the 
practical implication of it.
  Here is the other: Israel's adversaries will know this too. They 
would know that if their goal is to overwhelm Israel and deplete 
Israel, it will not work because the United States is committed to 
them.
  Our hope here is two-fold. One is to strengthen Israel so they would 
be able to withstand such an assault, but the other is to hopefully 
deter a war by making it very clear that Israel will never run out of 
missiles. They will never run out of munitions to defend themselves 
because the United States will be there to support them every step of 
the way.
  One of the first things this bill does is it establishes that into 
our law because this is not a threat that is going to go away in 2 
years or even 5 years. This threat is an ancient one. It has grown more 
dangerous.

[[Page S693]]

  This bill was held up because my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle said they didn't want to hear any bills until the shutdown was 
over if the bill didn't have to do with the shutdown. The shutdown is 
over. I am hopeful today that this bill, which I believe enjoys wide 
bipartisan support, when we finally get the vote on it and passage, 
that we will have an extraordinary number of votes across the aisle and 
across this Chamber and that we will finally begin debate on this 
important topic.
  There are other elements in this bill involving human rights 
violations that occurred in Syria, supporting Jordan, and the BDS 
movement, which we will talk more about tomorrow. At its core, the 
linchpin is helping Israel defend itself.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, let me associate myself with the remarks 
made by my friend and distinguished colleague from Florida.
  The importance of this bill cannot be overstated. It is an incredibly 
important bill. I rise today, once again, to bring it to my colleagues 
here in the Senate. This time, hopefully, we can get enough votes to 
move it forward. It is the Strengthening America's Security in the 
Middle East Act of 2019. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to support moving ahead on this commonsense bipartisan 
legislation.
  This package of bills is important and time sensitive. Israel and 
Jordan are our steadfast allies and friends in the Middle East, and 
they need support and the critical aid that this legislation would 
deliver. Our nations depend on one another, and we should not let them 
down.
  Included in this legislation also is a very important bill, the 
Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act, which, as I have noted numerous 
times before, very nearly passed the full Senate by unanimous consent 
last year. We were within one vote of getting unanimous consent on it.
  This legislation is long overdue. Half a million Syrians have died at 
the hands of the Syrian dictator, Assad, his friends, and their allies, 
and it is past time that we put an end to it.
  This bill includes strong financial sanctions to target those 
responsible in the Assad regime for the terrible loss of life and 
destruction in Syria. Further, it extends sanctions to those who would 
support the Syrian regime's actions in the war in Syria, such as Iran 
and Russia. The tragic loss of life in Syria has gone on far too long. 
We need to take action now to pressure those who have the ability to 
bring this war to an end--and they do have the ability to bring this 
war to an end.
  The State of Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. It is 
surrounded by oppressive nations, many of which, like Iran, wish to do 
Israel harm. Their security and stability in the region is of extreme 
importance to all Americans. This legislation would protect Israel 
where we can here in the United States by rejecting anti-Israel 
boycotts.
  I hope that today you will all join me in a bipartisan way in moving 
forward on this important legislation.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
proceed to the motion to reconsider the motion to invoke cloture on the 
motion to proceed to S. 1 is agreed to, and the motion to reconsider 
the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1 is agreed 
to.


                             Cloture Motion

  Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending 
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 1, S. 1, a bill to make improvements 
     to certain defense and security assistance provisions and to 
     authorize the appropriation of funds to Israel, to 
     reauthorize the United States-Jordan Defense Cooperation Act 
     of 2015, and to halt the wholesale slaughter of the Syrian 
     people, and for other purposes.
          Todd Young, Mike Rounds, Richard C. Shelby, James E. 
           Risch, Mike Lee, Josh Hawley, John Boozman, Shelley 
           Moore Capito, Mike Crapo, Tim Scott, Cory Gardner, Roy 
           Blunt, Steve Daines, Marco Rubio, Rob Portman, John 
           Barrasso, Mitch McConnell.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 1, a bill to make improvements to certain 
defense and security assistance provisions and to authorize the 
appropriation of funds to Israel, to reauthorize the United States-
Jordan Defense Cooperation Act of 2015, and to halt the wholesale 
slaughter of the Syrian people, and for other purposes, shall be 
brought to a close upon reconsideration?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. 
Hoeven), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), and the Senator from 
North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. 
Hoeven) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from North Carolina 
(Mr. Tillis) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 
the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), and the Senator from Hawaii 
(Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 74, nays 19, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 11 Leg.]

                                YEAS--74

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McConnell
     McSally
     Menendez
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--19

     Baldwin
     Brown
     Carper
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Leahy
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Shaheen
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warren

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Booker
     Cramer
     Harris
     Hoeven
     Paul
     Schatz
     Tillis
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 74, the nays are 
19.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion was agreed to, upon reconsideration.
  The senior Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. What is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to proceed to S. 1.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Data Privacy Day

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, today is Data Privacy Day, a day set aside 
to raise awareness about how personal information is being used, 
collected, and shared in today's digital society. It is also an 
opportunity to educate the public about how to safeguard individual 
data and also an opportunity to encourage businesses to respect 
consumer privacy when correcting and dealing with data.
  As we all know, data-driven innovation is exploding today, and that 
is a good thing. It allows developers, entrepreneurs, small businesses, 
and large companies to create applications, products, and services that 
are increasingly customized for users. This is great for consumers and 
great for the economy.
  The benefits from this explosion of data come in the form of 
increased productivity, convenience, and cost savings. The benefits 
also extend to our

[[Page S694]]

very health and safety. In using data and in using this data economy, 
we can serve to improve the daily quality of life for every American.
  All in all, opportunity in this digital era is potentially limitless. 
However, to realize our Nation's economic and societal potential in the 
global digital economy, consumers need to have trust and confidence 
that their data will be protected and secure in the internet 
marketplace. That is the reason we are emphasizing data privacy today.
  I want to talk briefly about the potential for legislation in this 
Congress. Over the last decade, there have been numerous calls at all 
levels of government in the United States and elsewhere for baseline 
privacy legislation to protect consumers in a world of Big Data. Some 
jurisdictions have already acted. For example, the European Union 
recently enacted the General Data Protection Regulation--commonly known 
as GDPR. California has enacted and signed into law the California 
Consumer Privacy Act, CCPA. We see some American companies, not based 
in California, certainly not based in Europe but who are dealing with 
data across the board, calling on Congress to act and enact baseline 
privacy protections across the board in the United States of America.
  I say that we have reached a point where Congress needs to act to 
develop Federal privacy legislation, and this is a viewpoint that is 
accepted and supported across the aisle by Democrats and Republicans in 
both Houses of the Congress. Strengthening consumer data protections 
will be a top legislative priority for the Commerce Committee during 
this Congress. We will continue to build on the current momentum in the 
Senate as we discuss how to approach the development of bipartisan 
privacy legislation in this Congress.
  This is one of the best opportunities in this Congress, will be one 
of the best opportunities for Democrats and Republicans to work 
together and put something on the President's desk for his signature. I 
know that through collaboration, we can develop a legislative proposal 
that provides consumers with meaningful choices and strong protections 
of their data, both online and offline. We need a legislative proposal 
that will be balanced, balancing the need for flexibility, for 
businesses to innovate, invest, and compete. This issue is critical to 
maintaining U.S. leadership in the global digital economy.
  I hope next year, at this point in time, we will be discussing and 
celebrating the enactment of bipartisan legislation to ensure both 
consumer protection and continued innovation in the United States. 
Happy Data Privacy Day.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.


                              Nominations

  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, there has been a lot of conversation 
about the damage to our economy and to the basic operations of 
government from the shutdown. Rightfully so, it is something we should 
talk about and spend some time trying to figure out how to manage this 
for the future, what shutdowns do to our future.
  What has been interesting is how absent that same conversation has 
been over the last 2 years as my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle actively worked to shut down the basic operations of government 
by not allowing nominations to proceed in the normal process.
  In December, with little fanfare and into early January, 386 
nominations from the Trump administration were returned back to the 
Trump administration with a ``no action''--386 people. Those were 
judges, those were potential board members, those were individuals, 
many of them Deputy Assistant Secretaries of different Agencies, 
individuals who keep the basic functioning of government open and 
working. Three hundred and eighty-six of those nominations had no 
action on this floor because something very different was happening 
during the last 2 years. It had not happened like this before in the 
beginning of any Presidency--in the first 2 years--that his nominations 
were blocked on the floor not with a vote, with time.
  In the past, with nominations, a person would be nominated by the 
President. They would go to the committees. They would get a full 
background check investigation. There would be questions for the 
record. The committees would then have an open debate in the committee. 
They would vote as a committee. If they were voted out of committee, 
there would be additional questions for the record. Then, once those 
were done, they would get an up-or-down vote. Often those were voice 
votes, even here. It was something that was assumed because they had 
been approved by committees, and the background checks had been done.
  In the last 2 years, 128 times, Members of the Senate required what 
is called a cloture vote--one more hurdle to go through--so that 
literally they would have to file cloture on those, allow for an 
intervening day for them to sit out there, and then 30 hours of debate 
on that person--30 hours of additional debate. That is after the 
intervening day. You have 24 hours, plus another 30 that is all set out 
there, to add a little additional time.
  With over 1,000 nominees whom the executive branch would do, it is 
not possible to get through all of those if you continue to request an 
additional 2 days in the process to work on each of them.
  For individuals to prevent these different Agencies from working and 
functioning, to prevent the activities of government, you can just 
request cloture votes over and over again--128 times to basically slow 
down the Senate so much and to slow down the workings of government all 
over DC so much that it can't operate at its capacity.
  This has to be resolved.
  Two years ago, I saw this trend that was moving in the Senate, and I 
said that long-term for the Senate, this will damage the functioning of 
government and of the Senate. We have to address it.
  So 2 years ago I asked for a reach-out to say: How do we actually 
resolve this? We had some ongoing meetings. We had a full committee 
hearing dealing with the issue of the nominations process and how to 
resolve this in December of 2017. That was after months and months and 
months of meetings in preparation for that.
  We had a markup in April of 2018 to talk about how we could resolve 
this and what proposals are out there.
  I had numerous conversations with Republican and Democratic Members 
of the Senate to be able to resolve the issue in the Senate because, 
although in the past you could always request a cloture vote on someone 
if there was someone truly controversial, this was being used 
differently. This was not being used to address someone truly 
controversial; this was being used to shut down the functioning of 
government.
  Many of those individuals--once they did get their cloture vote and 
that obligatory time--passed with 80 and 90 votes. They weren't 
people--I have heard people say that if Trump would put up better 
nominees, then this would be easier. It wasn't that. It was purely 
dilatory, to slow down or shut down Agencies' operations based on not 
allowing them to hire staff to actually do the job. That government 
shutdown, which has been ongoing for 2 years' time, will continue to go 
until this Senate resolves it.
  So after 2 years of meetings, I am making a proposal to this body: We 
need to fix this. We need to fix the nomination process to have an 
orderly process so that when there is a controversial nominee, they can 
be addressed with additional time on the floor, even past the committee 
time, even past the background checks, even past the additional 
questions they are asked--to give additional time but in a reasonable 
way so we can continue to operate as the Senate.
  My simple proposal is that we have 2 hours of additional debate, if 
additional time is allotted, and, quite frankly, that is after the 
intervening day, so there would be a full day of debate and then an 
additional 2 hours on the next day that would be allotted to give full 
time to anyone who may be a problem. That is 2 hours of additional 
blocked-off time in addition to the additional day that is put in 
place. I think that is plenty of time.
  If it is a Supreme Court Justice we are talking about, if it is a 
Cabinet official, maybe 30 hours would be the best option for that, as 
well. So we would do 2 hours for most nominees, 30 hours for Cabinet 
level and for the Supreme Court or circuit courts. That

[[Page S695]]

would give plenty of time to do additional debate, and it would 
simplify the process.
  This proposal is not really all that controversial. I have talked to 
many of my Democratic colleagues, and they seem to nod their heads and 
say: Yes, this is a better way to resolve it. The answer I am getting 
back is: Let's vote for that now but let it not start until January of 
2021.
  Their assumption is that they are going to beat President Trump in an 
election, and they will take over, and they certainly don't want the 
Senate to function when there is a Democratic President the same way it 
is functioning when there is a Republican President.
  My gentle nod back to them is that there is absolutely no way we 
should ever agree to that. Why would we ever do that? What is happening 
is, the last 2 years of this shutdown--the slowdown of all of these 
Agencies, which has happened by blocking all of these nominees--have 
created this muscle memory in the Senate, and if we don't fix it now, 
it is going to keep going.
  My Democratic colleagues who say ``We are going to continue to block 
you for the next 2 years the same way to shut down the functioning of 
Agencies'' with some delusional belief that 2 years from now this will 
not happen to them if they happen to win the Presidency--that is false, 
and they know it. If we don't resolve this now and allow this President 
to be able to function with his nominees, as any President in the past 
has, then this is going to just keep going, and it will hurt the long-
term functioning of our government. So it is an absurd thought to say: 
We will vote on it now, but it will not actually take effect until 
2021. The reasonable thing is, let's resolve it now.
  This simple proposal I am putting out in the next few days will make 
it public, and in February I hope there will be a meeting with the 
Rules Committee to allow open debate in the Rules Committee, for 
Republicans and Democrats alike to look at this issue and resolve it, 
to make any edits or changes. If there is a different way to resolve 
this, I am open to any other resolution. But for the long-term health 
of our government and of the Senate and how it operates, we have to 
resolve this because we can't have individuals hanging out there for 
over a year and expect that this is going to get better.
  Let me give you some examples. For over a year, the Assistant 
Secretary of Health and Human Services sat out there and then was 
returned back to the President at the end of the session and will have 
to start all over again. It is the same with the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy in the Small Business Administration, the inspector general in 
the Office of Personnel Management, Governors for the U.S. Postal 
Service, the Assistant Secretary of Commerce, the Ambassador to 
Colombia, the Ambassador to Morocco, and the General Counsel for the 
Department of Navy. These were all individuals who were out there for 
over a year with no action, waiting.
  We will not get the best and brightest in our country to set aside 
their life for a nomination process that is over 1 year and then goes 
back to the White House, and then they have to start all over again the 
next year, and maybe it goes another year. Who in America can put their 
life on hold for all of that time? We want the best and brightest to be 
able to serve. Blocking them with slowdown tactics will prevent that 
from happening in the future.
  I am trying to be fair in this process. Let's do this the right way, 
the way we all know it should be done. Let's take it to the Rules 
Committee. Let's put a proposal out there to fix the nomination 
process. Let's get the 60 votes that are required to resolve the 
nomination process through the Rules Committee to the floor of the 
Senate and actually fix that as a standing order. Let's resolve it now, 
lest this drags on for another 2 years and it never gets better.
  This has been a 2-year process to get to this point, and in the days 
ahead, when we release this text, I hope my colleagues will engage in 
reasonable conversation to resolve that. I am open to that, but I want 
us to fix the problem and admit that a problem needs to be fixed and 
solved.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Sullivan).


         WOMEN'S ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT ACT

  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss legislation that 
Senator Cardin and I introduced last year and successfully worked to 
move through the legislative process, with lots of help from many 
others.
  The Women's Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act was passed 
by the House and Senate near the end of the 115th Congress and was 
signed into law in January of this year. We are thankful that our 
colleagues in both Chambers joined us in supporting this meaningful 
legislation focused on improving the lives of women and families around 
the world.
  Because women make up the majority of the world's poor and are often 
held back by gender-specific constraints to economic empowerment, such 
as lack of access to financial services and credit, it was important to 
recognize that it is within our power to help elevate and enable them 
to achieve their economic dreams and aspirations.
  In many corners of the world, cultural and historical barriers that 
make it difficult for women to start businesses, build savings, and 
make meaningful economic contributions to their communities are long 
established and serve to prevent many women from attaining greater 
stability in their everyday lives--to the detriment of their own 
societies as well as the global economy.
  Building on our own past and experiences in the United States, we can 
help women in the world overcome obstacles that impede their ability to 
substantially contribute to economic activity and industry at home and, 
more broadly, within the world economy.
  The Women's Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act provides an 
avenue to address this inequality by tapping into the proven abilities 
of existing U.S. Agencies for international development programs.
  USAID, which uses strategic investments to promote growth and 
development while advancing U.S. interests and influence, is perfectly 
situated to implement this initiative because it understands how to 
effectively deploy resources to--as its mission states--``lift lives, 
build communities, and establish self-sufficiency.'' The WEEE Act will 
help the more than 1 billion women who are left out of the world's 
formal financial system by working to close the nearly $300 billion 
credit gap that exists for women-owned small and medium-sized 
businesses.
  Expanding USAID's microenterprise development assistance authority to 
include small and medium-sized enterprises with an emphasis on 
supporting those owned, managed, and controlled by women is critical 
because if these promising, industrious entrepreneurs and innovators 
are given the opportunity to succeed, the benefits will undoubtedly 
reach far and wide.
  The WEEE Act will also modernize USAID's development assistance 
toolkit to include innovative credit scoring models, financial 
technology, financial literacy, insurance, and more to improve property 
and inheritance rights--all of which are vital in helping to overcome 
deep-rooted cultural and institutional hurdles that preclude women from 
accessing the resources necessary for economic success.
  Finally, the law directs USAID to include efforts that promote 
equality and female empowerment throughout its programs. This may seem 
like a small step, but in reality, it can help transform the way 
international aid is implemented to the benefit of many women across 
the globe, poised to succeed when provided the same tools and resources 
as their peers in nations where those hurdles are absent.
  USAID, especially under the leadership of Mark Green, the 
Administrator, does an exceptional job of stretching a finite amount of 
resources to achieve meaningful results in some of the world's most 
impoverished nations.
  I have complete confidence that Administrator Green and his team will 
implement the Women's Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act in 
a way that will simultaneously, and even necessarily, work to the 
benefit of our international aid mission, while also helping to uplift 
and empower women in countries all over the world to succeed in a way 
that has been just beyond their reach until now.
  Research shows investing in women has a high rate of return, and that 
is

[[Page S696]]

exactly what the WEEE Act recognizes and seeks to capitalize on.
  As Senator Cardin, senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee, noted when we introduced the bill: ``Investment in women 
creates a positive cycle of change that can lift women, families, 
communities, and entire countries out of poverty, and this legislation 
will help us make inroads toward that important goal.''
  I would like to thank former Chairman Ed Royce and Congresswoman 
Frankel, as well as their staffs, for their leadership on this bill in 
the House.
  I would also like to thank Senator Cardin for joining me in 
sponsoring the bill here in the Senate, as well as our former colleague 
and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, for his 
work to move this bill through the committee process.
  Finally, I would like to acknowledge the support and assistance 
provided by the White House, particularly from Presidential Advisor 
Ivanka Trump, who worked tirelessly to advocate for this bill, garner 
support from NGOs, and ultimately helped us see it across the finish 
line.
  All of those who worked on this bill share an understanding that 
because women in some parts of the world are pushed so far to the 
margins that they are denied access to even the most basic financial 
services, much less business loans, leveling the playing field is the 
right thing to do. If we can achieve this goal, the world economy 
stands to grow significantly.
  Now that the WEEE Act has become law, we have taken one significant 
step forward to realizing this laudable aim, and women in developing 
nations stand to benefit from USAID's upcoming efforts to help them 
find and secure their place in our global economy.
  The Women's Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act advances 
U.S. values and stimulates real, lasting economic opportunities around 
the globe for women. It will change lives and communities, promote 
equality, and help entrepreneurs and innovators thrive--all of which 
will benefit the global economy and the pursuit of prosperity.
  Once again, I extend my thanks and gratitude to all who have worked 
so hard and helped this bill become law, and I look forward to 
following its implementation and results.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

                          ____________________