[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for the quorum call be rescinded.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.
____________________