Congressional Record, Volume 165 Issue 53 (Wednesday, March 27, 2019)

[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 27, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2011-S2035]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019--MOTION TO PROCEED--Resumed

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 268, which the
clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 15, H.R. 268, a bill
making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2019, and for other purposes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1
minute as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Green New Deal

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, yesterday, we had debate on the Green
New Deal. I wonder how many Americans realize that this debate on the
Green New Deal was not on a bill before the Congress that would become
law but was on nothing but a nonbinding resolution. Rather than working
on specific changes in the law, the authors chose vague aspirations for
dramatic action in the future. That is the difference between an active
environmentalist and an environmental activist.
I am proud of my accomplishments that have had a real, positive
impact on the environment. For instance, I authored the production tax
credit for wind energy back in 1992. During my leadership on the Senate
Finance Committee in the 2000s, I oversaw the establishment,
enhancement, and renewal of numerous clean energy tax incentives.
My point is not to say that I made some impact on the environment but
to say that there is a difference between offering a bill and, in turn,
just a nonbinding resolution, which--the Democrats haven't put forth
any real law.
I yield the floor.

Recognition Of The Majority Leader

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, yesterday, my Democratic colleagues
in this body offered the American people a crystal-clear picture of
what the Democratic Party stands for in 2019 and whom it represents.
Nearly all of our Democratic colleagues wrapped their arms around the
radical policy they have marketed to the public as the Green New Deal.
I am sure we will be hearing carefully crafted spin about the
transparent political maneuvering behind voting present instead of
voting yes. Not exactly ``Profiles in Courage.'' Not exactly ``Profiles
in Courage.''
I am also certain that we will hear more indignant claims that I
somehow sabotaged the legislation they said they support by actually
bringing it to a vote. That is a fascinating sight in the Senate--the
cosponsors of a policy complaining bitterly that they actually had to
go on record to actually vote for a bill they supposedly support, but
go on record they did. They can call it voting present. They can call
it voting yes. But when every single Senate Democrat running for
President has signed on as a cosponsor, when all of the energy and
momentum in the Democratic Party is behind this, when just a tiny
handful of Democratic Senators could bring themselves to vote against
it on the floor, what we have is a Democratic Party that is fixated on
satisfying the far left, even at the cost of crushing--crushing--
working-class and middle-class American life as we know it.
Yesterday, the vast majority of Senate Democrats could not dismiss
something as crazy as ending the production of American oil, coal,
natural gas, and nuclear energy within a decade. They couldn't vote
against that.
Senate Democrats could not dismiss something as absolutely ludicrous
as a federally mandated overhaul of every building in America to meet
the greenness--greenness--standards of Washington bureaucrats.
Senate Democrats could not reject a plan to take more control over
where Americans choose to live, how they

[[Page S2012]]

choose to get around, and how they earn a living.
Senate Democrats could not even reject a plan that, according to
rough estimates, could raise families' utility bills by hundreds of
dollars a month and cost the U.S. Government more than the entire 2017
GDP of the whole world. They couldn't vote against that.
American manufacturing, American agriculture, industries, jobs,
houses, farms, buildings, and cars that make up daily life for millions
of working Americans--Democrats want Washington, DC, to declare war on
all of that because it doesn't comply with the latest fashions in
Brooklyn or San Francisco. They want to march the entire country toward
extreme environmentalist goals that even President Obama's former
Secretary of Energy has dismissed as impossible. That is what the
Democratic Party of 2019 apparently has become.
Remember, their last Presidential nominee bragged, after her loss,
that at least she had won all the places in America that are
``optimistic, diverse, dynamic, [and] moving forward.'' We can fill in
the blanks and see how they view all the other places that millions of
Americans call home, those places that just aren't enlightened enough
to vote for Democrats, places where farm jobs and factory jobs really
matter, places where expensive high-speed rail and electric cars and
trucks simply will not get the job done, places where soaring electric
bills represent a kitchen-table crisis and not just a minor
inconvenience, and places that are actually home to the workers who
would be, as the resolution breezily puts it, ``affected by the
transition''--in other words, jobs shipped overseas and workers out in
the cold. In Democrats' eyes, all of us in these places are just
backward and out-of-date. People who live in those areas are just
backward and out-of-date. Our lives need to be transformed by
Washington, DC, bureaucrats, whether we like it or not.
The disruption isn't limited to just environmental and energy issues;
there are so many more things Washington Democrats want to get their
hands around.
Democrats are pushing Medicare for None, a scheme that would make it
unlawful to provide the private health insurance policies that American
families rely on and force everyone into a brandnew government scheme
designed, of course, right here in Washington. It is ironic that this
approach would mean long waiting lists for people with preexisting
conditions and cause over 180 million Americans to lose the coverage
they choose and rely on. Republicans are dedicated to protecting
Americans with preexisting conditions. Republicans are the ones
fighting for American families as they try to navigate the unaffordable
wreckage of ObamaCare.
The story is the same on every issue: Democrats aren't interested in
security and stability for American families; they are interested in
Washington redesigning middle-class Americans' lives from scratch so
they can conform better to leftwing dreams.
Forty-plus--forty-plus--of our Democratic colleagues, including all
of their Presidential candidates, could not even bring themselves to
vote against the obviously absurd socialist wish list we considered
yesterday. This is what the modern Democratic Party wants to be. These
are their plans for the country. At least the American people are
certainly offered a very, very clear contrast.

Disaster Funding

Madam President, on an entirely different matter, in recent months,
natural disasters have occupied an outsized share of headlines across
our country. We have seen counties in Alabama and Georgia bear the
blows of a vicious tornado, and we support the loved ones of those 23
people whose lives it claimed. We have seen a spate of powerful
hurricanes tear across the shores of Florida and the Carolinas, leaving
tens of billions of dollars in damage behind. Flooding has repeatedly
caused damage in my home State of Kentucky, and, of course, it is
currently at major disaster levels in communities across the Midwest.
In some places, the process of rebuilding has already dragged on for
months. Families have faced the daily struggle of getting things back
to normal.
Others are still literally--literally--underwater. Residents are
wading through the wreckage of homes and businesses. Normal seems a
long way away.
From the gulf coast to the heartland, there are Americans calling for
our help. Here in Congress we must have their back. We must take swift
and comprehensive action. I am pleased to say, a number of our
colleagues have crafted legislation that would allow us to answer these
calls for help from our people.
The supplemental funding measure advanced by the Senate yesterday
would deliver over $13 billion to help American communities recover and
rebuild following recent natural disasters. It would mean more help for
victims of tornadoes in our Southern States, victims of hurricanes from
North Carolina to Puerto Rico, and the families in Iowa, Nebraska,
Missouri, and Kansas, who are still, as we speak, waiting for the
waters of a truly catastrophic flood to recede. The legislation before
us would equip the Department of Defense to conduct urgent repairs to
bases and installations damaged by storms. It would help America's
farmers and ranchers cover storm-related losses, and it would help get
local schools, healthcare facilities, and major infrastructure back on
track more quickly.
I am proud of the work put in by many Members to prepare this latest
package so swiftly and thoroughly on behalf of our communities in need.
We owe thanks to the leadership of Chairman Shelby, along with the
efforts of Senator Perdue, Senator Isakson, Senator Scott, Senator
Rubio, and others who made this effort possible. Thanks to them, the
Senate can take action soon on a comprehensive measure to support our
fellow citizens.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.

Unanimous Consent Request--H. Con. Res. 24

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 24,
expressing the sense of Congress that the report of Special Counsel
Mueller should be made available to the public and to Congress and
which is at the desk; further, that the concurrent resolution be agreed
to; the preamble be agreed to; and the motions to reconsider be
considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or
debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, reserving the right to object. As I
mentioned yesterday, when a similar unanimous consent proposal was
propounded, I have consistently supported the proposition that the
special counsel should be allowed to complete his work without
interference, and I have consistently supported the proposition that
his report ought to be released, to the greatest extent possible,
consistent with the law and with the need to protect sources and
methods and the need to preserve the integrity of ongoing
investigations, including investigations the special counsel has
referred to others.
The Attorney General has committed to as much transparency as
possible in the release of the report, and he is working with the
special counsel toward that end. I think we should be consistent in
letting the special counsel actually finish his work and not just when
we think it may be politically advantageous to one side or the other
for him to do so.
Therefore, Madam President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to make
remarks as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, last Friday, Special Counsel Mueller
submitted his report to Attorney General Barr. On Sunday, the Attorney
General provided a four-page summary of that report to Congress and the
American people.
Unfortunately, the Attorney General's summary tells us little about
what Special Counsel Mueller actually found. In fact, according to the
summary, Mueller's office spent 2 years investigating, with a team of
19 lawyers and 40 FBI agents and other professional staff. The special
counsel issued

[[Page S2013]]

more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants,
obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost
50 orders authorizing the use of pen registers, made 13 requests to
foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500
witnesses. That is quite a record.
The fact is, a four-page summary cannot possibly illuminate what this
thorough of an investigation uncovered. I find it so disappointing that
so many are rushing to judgment without being able to see the full
report or all of the underlying facts.
This report should be made public. As has been, I think, well stated,
not only is the official government interested, but the American public
is interested in our findings as well.
We know the Russian Government interfered with the U.S. election.
That has been reported by the intelligence community and intelligence
committee--I sit on that committee--and it has been reaffirmed by the
special counsel's investigation.
We also know, from court filings, documents, and press reports, that
the President and at least 17 people associated with his campaign had
more than 100 contacts with Russia or Russia's intermediaries.
However, Attorney General Barr's summary provides no information
about any of these contacts or multiple offers from Russian-affiliated
individuals to assist the campaign, and that is a quote--``multiple
offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the campaign''--
referenced in the Attorney General's summary.
Congress must determine the risks to national security, whether there
was, in fact, misconduct, whether existing laws are sufficient to deter
and punish election interference, and what next steps are appropriate.
The American people also have a right to the truth about what happened
in the 2016 election and to judge the facts for themselves.
Special Counsel Mueller also did not draw a conclusion, one way or
the other, as to whether the President committed a crime through his
efforts to obstruct the investigation. Instead, Mr. Mueller wrote:
``While this report does not conclude that the President committed a
crime, it also does not exonerate him.''
Since Special Counsel Mueller elected to describe the facts but did
not decide whether to charge the President with a crime, we don't know
why he made this decision, but clearly we do need to see the facts for
ourselves to be able to make a decision about how to proceed and what,
if any, additional steps are necessary.
While the Attorney General concluded there was no crime of
obstruction committed, we knew that was his conclusion 9 months ago
when he wrote a 10-page memo explaining why the President can't be
charged with obstruction of justice. Special Counsel Mueller found that
there is ``evidence on both sides of the question.'' Congress and the
American people should be able to see that evidence and make a
determination, including what the appropriate next steps are, if any.
I am very disappointed that some Republicans are saying Democrats
need to move on before we even see the report or underlying evidence.
Many of these Republicans called for eight congressional investigations
into the Benghazi attack and demanded and received 880,000 pages of
documents related to the Clinton email investigation. We have also
already obtained documents related to Mueller's investigation,
including classified FISA Court applications.
Of course, unwarranted foot-dragging is really not good, and really
bad for this country. I had thought we were past that with prior events
where we did take action, and we were able to see both sides. After 37
indictments, 6 of whom were indicted Trump advisers, as well as 7
guilty pleas, surely spending more than a week on understanding what
happened and asking for the full report is warranted. How can we have
37 indictments, 6 Trump advisers, as well as guilty pleas, without
being able to understand what actually happened and not be afforded the
material to gain that understanding?
I hope this can be a bipartisan effort to ensure the full record is
produced and the facts are uncovered. It is really puzzling to me why
the Republican side would not want to do this. Do they presume guilt on
their side, and therefore they want to hide it from the public? If you
don't, why wouldn't you want whatever the true facts are to come out?
The American people deserve no less.
On March 14, the House of Representatives passed a resolution calling
for Special Counsel Mueller's report to be made public. The vote was
unanimous, 420 to 0--420 to 0. Both sides of the House of
Representatives said this should happen.
Senator Schumer, our minority leader, has now twice sought unanimous
consent for the Senate to consider that resolution. These requests have
been blocked by Republicans. I don't understand that. If the House can
consider this, why can't we look at what the House has done? This, to
my knowledge, in the quarter of a century that I have been in this
body, has never happened before, where the Senate has actually refused
to look at information.
I very much hope there can be a change of mind and allow the U.S.
Senate to do its due diligence in this matter. Hiding the information
will not solve the problem.
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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cramer). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, there is so much going on. So I will be
addressing several topics today: healthcare, climate change, Mr.
Mueller's report, and Puerto Rico.

Healthcare

Mr. President, two nights ago, President Donald Trump and Attorney
General Barr decided to escalate their 2-year war against healthcare to
a whole new level. They declared that the entire Affordable Care Act,
and the healthcare for tens of millions of Americans and protections
for more than 100 million, is unconstitutional and ought to be
eliminated.
Now, the President wants to go back to repeal and replace again? Make
our day. The Republicans here in the Senate tried over and over to deal
with repeal and replace. They couldn't because they have no
replacement. The American people spoke loud and clear in the November
2018 elections and addressed the Republican antics by defeating them
resoundingly. The American people resoundingly rejected the Republican
plan of repeal and replace for healthcare. In fact, very few Republican
Senators would embrace it when they were running as candidates.
Indeed, if the Republican Party wants to be, in Donald Trump's words,
``the Party of healthcare,'' God help the middle class. God save the
middle class. God save people with disabilities. God save the hundreds
of millions with preexisting conditions.
If the administration had its way, the elimination of the Affordable
Care Act would send premiums soaring for millions of Americans. It
would revoke coverage for tens of millions more who gained coverage
through Medicaid expansions. It would strike protections for hundreds
of millions, even people who get coverage through their employer. It
would tell college students and graduates aged 21 to 26 that they could
no longer be on their parents' healthcare.
Let's not forget that this decision would impose billions of dollars
in new prescription drug costs for seniors on Medicare. Does the
Republican Party really want to raise the price for senior citizens
when they buy drugs? That is what they are doing. That is what
President Trump is doing. I wasn't at the lunch where the President
talked about this, but I didn't hear any reports of any Republican in
that room rejecting what the President said when he said repeal and
replace. This Republican Party is the Party of healthcare? Come on,
now.
You can't undo all the healthcare for tens of millions, the
protections for preexisting conditions for hundreds of millions, the
drug costs for tens of millions of seniors, the protections for
millions of young college graduates,

[[Page S2014]]

and say you are for healthcare. You just can't.
Compounding the injury, the President's latest budget wants to cut
more than $1 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid. In doing so, the
President is breaking his promise, blatantly and uncaringly. He doesn't
care about what he promised people. He is breaking his promise to the
American people that he would do no such thing. This is the party of
healthcare? The Department of Justice's decision is a moral and
institutional outrage. Not only would it harm Americans, but it would
undermine the rule of law.
Today I am announcing a new plan--a new way for my colleagues to show
that they mean what they say. I am introducing a simple amendment to
the pending appropriations bill we are considering here in the Senate.
It will very simply prohibit the Department of Justice from using any
funding to litigate the downfall of ACA in the circuit court. Let's see
how all of our Republican colleagues who said they don't want to take
away protections for preexisting conditions, who said they don't want
to take away healthcare for millions, and who said they want to lower
seniors' drug costs vote on this.
Will the leader do what he has been so characteristic of doing in the
majority and block a chance for this amendment? Will any Republican on
the other side stand up and say: Don't block it, Mr. Leader; we have to
protect the American people's healthcare.
We shall see.
My Republican friends, you are going to have the chance this
afternoon or when they vote on this bill to show us which side you are
on.

Climate Change

Mr. President, the Senate finally held the Republican leader's
promised political stunt vote on the issue of climate change and the
results did not make the Republicans happy. The stunt was exposed for
what it was. The whole issue of climate change--for the first time,
really--was debated here and turned on our Republican colleagues. It
became clear to the American people that our Republican colleagues have
no plan for climate change.
We have heard what they are against. We haven't heard a peep about a
comprehensive plan that they are for. The attempt by the Republicans to
make a mockery of the issue completely backfired. Leader McConnell was
forced to answer some questions that he has ducked for a very long
time. Whether or not Leader McConnell intended it, the fact is, at the
very least, that this Chamber is doing something it hasn't done in
years. It held an actual debate on the topic of climate change.
McConnell's stunt, again, boomeranged on him and his colleagues, and
they finally had to discuss this issue rather than do what they have
liked to do for the last 5 years and sweep it under the rug.
Yesterday, the day before, today, and continuing in the future, we
ask our Republican colleagues three simple questions to which they owe
an answer to their constituents. First, do you believe climate change
is real? Second, do you believe climate change is caused by human
activity? And third, do you believe Congress has to act immediately to
deal with this problem?
We are finally getting some answers, thanks to McConnell's trick that
he eventually played on himself. No less than Leader McConnell was
asked by the press yesterday afternoon at his Ohio Clock press camp if
he believes in climate change, and he said he believes it is real and
he believes it is caused by human activity. Well, there is one more
step if you believe all that: What is your answer--not what you are
against but what you are for?
I want to commend Senators Roberts, Alexander, and Murkowski. They
came to the floor and stated unequivocally and clearly that climate
change is real and caused by humans. Make no mistake, in this glacial
atmosphere controlled by the Republicans, when it comes to climate
change, this is real progress, but, of course, it is not close to
enough.
As to the third question, Leader McConnell offered no solution. All
we got was a sham vote that he voted against. So I ask Leader
McConnell: What is your plan? Some Republicans now seem to admit the
challenges of climate change. OK, that is good. Now, what is your
solution?
Turning the Senate floor into a campaign ad studio is not a solution
to climate change, nor is it very effective even for their own
purposes. Several Senators seemed to suggest that this problem can
simply be solved by funding for more research. I support funding for
research. It should be part of any climate plan. Yet I say to my
friends--particularly, those from coal States--that is not going to
solve the problem. Dealing with coal sequestration and coal technology
will, at best, solve 1 percent of the problem. So I say to my friends:
What about the other 99 percent, because 1 percent isn't enough?
Temperatures will still go up. The oceans will still rise. The terrible
kinds of disaster--flooding, tornadoes, and wildfires--that we have had
will continue. To simply say that you are doing some research into how
to deal with coal is not close to solving the problem.
Yesterday was a golden opportunity for this Chamber to come together
and show the American people that Republicans are serious about
tackling the threat. I asked to create a bipartisan select committee on
climate change. Let's get some of the people who are most interested in
this issue from different ideological stripes and from different places
in the country to come together and come up with a solution. Of course,
once again, the Republican leader blocked that genuine attempt.
Unfortunately, my good friend, the junior Senator from Wyoming,
objected when we asked for this. Instead, the Senate wasted the
American people's time on a ridiculous charade featuring a sham vote
that fooled no one.
Read the press today. Read the Wall Street Journal. Yesterday's vote
on the Republican version of the Green New Deal was not just a cynical
ploy--although it was--it was the ultimate ``tell'' that Republicans,
for all their talk, have no real plan to combat climate change, no real
plan on healthcare, and no real plan on climate change--just a lot of
political stunts.
I am glad that finally, though--this is the good news here--some of
my colleagues are starting to see the light and admit that it is real
and admit that it is caused by human activity. Now, they need to put
their money where their mouth is and work with us to take action that
matches the scale of the problem. If our colleagues refuse to join us
on a bipartisan basis in creating this select committee, we Democrats
aren't going to wait. We will take action on our own.
Later today, we will be announcing our own path. We are going on
offense on climate change, keeping a spotlight on this issue and making
sure that this Chamber keeps debating this most urgent issue of our
day.
We cannot play politics with our children's future any longer. I have
a new grandson. By the time he grows up, I don't want the waters to be
rising, the climate to be changing, and the whole world totally
discombobulated so he can't live a good and happy life. We should all
feel that way.
Avoiding the problem, whether it is because special interests are
saying to avoid it--the Koch brothers, coal industry, oil industry, and
everyone else--is not serving our country well.

Puerto Rico

Mr. President, the Republicans and the White House are refusing to
make several minor changes to the disaster bill under consideration
today--changes that will help Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and
the Northern Mariana Islands.
Puerto Rico was devastated by Hurricane Maria a year and a half ago--
devastation we haven't probably seen in any other part of our country.
It is reported that nearly $91 billion of damage was done by the
hurricane.
Puerto Rico is still struggling to recover. These are American
citizens. Let's not forget that. These are not people from some foreign
land. Yet it has been publicly reported that the President has told his
staff to find ways to limit Federal dollars from going to Puerto Rico.
It was even reported that at yesterday's lunch with Republicans, the
President complained that Puerto Rico has been getting too much aid. He
said he ``doesn't want another single dollar going to the island,''
even though he has held up the dollars that Democrats and Republicans
voted for.
We help Americans when there is a disaster. We don't pick and choose
because they may not vote for us--or

[[Page S2015]]

vote at all--or because we don't like the elected official. These are
people who are hurting.
What the President is doing with Puerto Rico is disgraceful but
typical of his view to divide and pick winners and losers. What the
President is doing is unacceptable and un-American.
I urge my Republican colleagues to come to the table, to accept the
commonsense changes we have proposed to help the territories recover--
the same proposals that passed the House--and to help us pass a
disaster package that addresses the needs not of some but of all
disaster survivors and that addresses the needs of all Americans who
are affected, not just those he happens to like. That is not what any
President before has done. That is not what America does.

Mueller Report

Mr. President, finally, I want to say a few words on the report by
Special Counsel Mueller.
From the start, the Democrats have argued that nothing short of full
transparency will satisfy the American people's right to know what
happened during Russia's attack on our election. That is why it is
unacceptable that Mr. Barr, who reached his initial conclusions
quickly--in 48 hours--now needs several weeks, he says, to review the
report, and there are reports that he may now only release a summary of
that finding.
First, let me talk about the time.
Attorney General Barr moved like a hare to get out the summary he
wrote with the purpose of exonerating the President. He is now moving
like a tortoise to issue Mueller's full report. People are going to
ask: What the heck is going on? Is there some political motivation
here? Americans are entitled to see the full report, not a summary.
We all know the intelligence community can redact parts of the
report--small they will be--to protect secret sources, but we also
expect the rest of the report to be issued, not a summary. Mr. Barr has
issued one brief summary already, and many Americans don't trust that
summary because they want to see the whole report before jumping to a
conclusion. So we need the report now, without delay. We can't have
political considerations enter into it. ``Oh, we will delay it for
several weeks to let things cool off.'' I hope that is not what is
happening.
In any case, we need the report now. This is too important for Mr.
Barr to be playing politics. He can remove any cloud of suspicion by
releasing the full report as the President and members of his party
call for. When we read reports that Barr only wants to release a
summary and that Leader McConnell is unsupportive of transparency,
something doesn't smell right.
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.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Green New Deal

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, yesterday afternoon, the Senate voted on
the Green New Deal--the Democrats' $93 trillion socialist fantasy.
How did the Democrats vote on this deal? They voted present. That is
right. There were 43 out of 47 Members of the Democratic caucus who
voted present.
This may be the first time in my experience here that I have ever
seen a piece of legislation and people who authored that legislation--
in this case, there were 13 Democrats who authored the bill,
cosponsored the bill, introduced the bill, and indicated that action on
the issue needed to be taken now--proceed to vote present. I have never
seen that in my time either in the House or in the Senate. There was
always an opportunity, as the Presiding Officer knows, in the House of
Representatives, when you voted by electronic machine, to punch the
yellow ``present'' option. You had red or green or present, but very
rarely was that used. Yet I don't think I have ever seen, in the U.S.
Senate, 13 U.S. Senators file a bill, introduce a bill, cosponsor a
bill, talk about how important it is that we deal with it and deal with
it immediately, and then proceed to vote present. That is what happened
yesterday.
I want to step back for a minute and talk about the Green New Deal--
the Democrats' plan to put the government in charge of everything from
your energy to your healthcare.
The costs of this plan would be staggeringly high. One think tank
released its first estimate that found that the Green New Deal would
cost somewhere between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over a 10-year
period--between $51 trillion and $93 trillion. The 2017 gross domestic
product for the entire world--the whole planet--only came to $80.7
trillion, which is more than $10 trillion less than the Democrats are
proposing to spend on the Green New Deal. This $93 trillion is more
than the amount of money the U.S. Government has spent in its entire
history.
So how do the Democrats plan to cover that $93 trillion? Well, they
don't actually have a plan. The Green New Deal resolution itself makes
a vague reference to ``community grants, public banks, and other public
financing.''
Then, of course, the Democrats have their favorite funding source,
which is taxing the rich. The problem is, there is no way taxing the
rich would even come close to paying for the Green New Deal. One
analyst found that three Democratic proposals--the New York
Representative's proposed 70-percent top tax rate, the Massachusetts
Senator's wealth tax, and the Hawaii Senator's financial transactions
tax--would together pay for approximately 4 percent of the Green New
Deal.
Taxing every millionaire in the United States at a 100-percent rate
for 10 years would bring in only a tiny fraction of $93 trillion.
Taxing every household making more than $200,000 a year at a 100-
percent rate for 10 years wouldn't get the Democrats anywhere close to
$93 trillion. Taxing every family making more than $100,000 a year at a
100-percent rate for 10 years would still leave the Democrats far short
of $93 trillion.
The Green New Deal is not a plan that can be paid for by taxing the
rich. This plan would be paid for on the backs of working families. The
size of the tax hikes that would be required to even begin to finance
this massive government expansion would sharply diminish Americans'
standard of living and usher in a new era of diminished prosperity, and
I haven't even mentioned the freedom of choice Americans would lose and
give up under the Green New Deal.
Your car's engine would likely soon become illegal. Washington
planners could force you to rebuild your house to meet strict, new,
energy-efficient guidelines. Your ability to travel by air might be
restricted or entirely eliminated.
The Green New Deal doesn't limit itself to massive government
expansion in the area of energy.
Among other things, it would also put the government in charge of
your healthcare. So, if you like your health plan, get ready to give it
up. Then there are the millions of current energy jobs that would be
lost under this plan. Plus, there would likely be significant job
losses in other industries as small businesses and larger companies
would find themselves being unable to cope with the Green New Deal's
mandates and taxes.
For American families, the Green New Deal would mean smaller
paychecks, fewer jobs, fewer choices, and a permanently reduced
standard of living.
You don't even have to take my word for it. Here is what the AFL-CIO,
which represents 12\1/2\ million workers in a number of unions, had to
say about the Green New Deal:

The Green New Deal resolution is far too short on specific
solutions that speak to the jobs of our members and the
critical sectors of our economy. It is not rooted in an
engineering-based approach and makes promises that are not
achievable or realistic. We will not accept proposals that
could cause immediate harm to millions of our members and
their families. We will not stand by and allow threats to our
members' jobs and their families' standard of living go
unanswered.

Let me repeat that:

We will not accept proposals that could cause immediate
harm to millions of our members and their families. We will
not stand by and allow threats to our members' jobs and their
families' standard of living go unanswered.

Again, these are quotes from the AFL-CIO. That is what it is saying
about the Democrats' Green New Deal.
The American people have a right to know where the Democrats stand on

[[Page S2016]]

this massive government expansion. Are they for it or are they against
it? Their Presidential candidates have embraced this plan. There were
13 Senate Democrats, as I mentioned, who sponsored the original Green
New Deal resolution in the Senate, and there were 92 Democrats who
sponsored the original Green New Deal resolution in the House. Yet,
yesterday, just four Members of the Democratic caucus had the courage
to make their positions clear.
As for the rest, well, it is actually understandable that most
Democrats didn't want to go on the record as supporting, perhaps, the
most irresponsible and costly resolution ever to come before the U.S.
Senate. It is pretty difficult to tell your constituents that you
support cutting their paychecks, eliminating millions of their jobs,
and drastically reducing their choices.
I am sure there are more than four Members of the Democratic caucus
who don't support this plan, but the Democrats are more and more
enthralled with the far-left wing of their party, and, clearly, some
Democrats were afraid to actually reject this plan with their votes.
So what happened? There were 43 out of 47 Members of the Democratic
caucus here in the U.S. Senate who left the American people in limbo
about their views, and they ended up voting present.
I would love to think that every Democrat who voted present yesterday
has realized how damaging the Green New Deal would be to working
families. But the scary truth is that while some Democrats may have
voted present simply because they wanted to avoid angering the far-left
wing of their party, other Democrats really believe--they really
believe--in the Green New Deal.
The junior Senator from Vermont was asked if the Green New Deal goes
too far. His answer? ``No. You cannot go too far on the issue of
climate change.''
Really? You can't go too far? Not even if you saddle millions of
families with exorbitant taxes and other costs just for miniscule
gains? Not even if you permanently damage the American economy?
One of the Green New Deal's authors has actually stated that it is a
legitimate question whether people should have children because of
climate change. Is that something the Green New Deal supporters want to
legislate too? Really?
The Democrats' Green New Deal extremism is disturbing, and I am
deeply disappointed in yesterday's vote because the American people
deserve to hear where every Democrat stands on this dangerous plan.
Americans deserve to know whether Democrats are willing to hike their
taxes, eliminate their jobs, and diminish drastically their freedoms.
I hope more Democrats will join the four who rejected this massive
government overreach and will work with Republicans to develop
responsible solutions to protect our environment--solutions that don't
hurt American families.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.

Celebrating Vaisakhi

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise today to mark a very special day
for the Sikh religion and the Sikh community across America and in
Pennsylvania--and this is the holiday of Vaisakhi.
Although the youngest among the major religions of the world, Sikhism
has emerged as a distinct socio-religious community. By the numbers, it
is, I believe, the sixth largest religion in the world, with 30 million
adherents worldwide, and approximately 700,000 Sikhs have chosen to
make their home in the United States.
A large number of those Sikhs live in my State of Pennsylvania. In
fact, there are several Sikh places of worship across Pennsylvania.
They are known as a Gurdwara, and they are located in and around
Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Allentown, and Erie.
Sikhism itself was founded in the 15th century in South Asia on the
principles of equality, justice, and respect for all human beings.
Sikhs pray twice a day--in the morning and in the evening--and they
pray for the welfare of mankind.
Over a period of 239 years, Sikhism was established by 10 gurus. The
first among them was Guru Nanak. These gurus were learned, spiritual
guides devoted to improving the moral well-being of their followers and
the communities in which they lived.
In 1699, the 10th and final guru--Gobind Singh--founded a fellowship
of soldier saints called the Khalsa Panth. Today, Sikhs celebrate this
occasion with the holiday that they call Vaisakhi. This year, Sikhs
across the United States and around the world will celebrate Vaisakhi
on April 14.
For Sikhs, Vaisakhi is a very special time. It is a special time to
celebrate and share their faith with their friends and their neighbors.
The occasion is marked by dancing and parades. Everyone is welcome to
attend these celebrations, and they attract Americans from all
religious, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds.
Vaisakhi celebrations are a really vibrant affair, and members of the
Sikh community wear bright orange or yellow festive clothes to mark the
occasion. These colors represent the spirit and the joy of the
celebration.
It is interesting to note that when Vaisakhi is celebrated in the
Sikh homeland of Punjab, the gold and yellow wheat fields are ready to
be harvested.
This year, the Sikh Coordination Committee East Coast has organized a
parade in Washington, DC, on April 6 to commemorate Vaisakhi as
National Sikh Day. The theme of the parade is Sikh identity, Sikh
culture, and the Sikh way of life. Thousands of Sikhs from all over the
United States will be here participating and celebrating.
I came here this morning because I want to add my voice as one
wishing the Sikh community great luck and great joy at this parade and
in the very joyous celebration of Vaisakhi.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

The Green New Deal

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate had a significant
vote. Senators made their voices heard on the Green New Deal, and after
a lot of grandstanding from those Senate Democrats who initially rushed
to support this proposal, not a single one voted for the proposal.
However, my Republican colleagues and I didn't vote present. We don't
believe that is what our constituents sent us here to do. Instead, we
voted against the socialist grab bag of policies that would set us back
an estimated $93 trillion and would bankrupt the State of Texas. To be
clear, voting no on the Green New Deal isn't a referendum on the issue
of lowering carbon emissions or finding cleaner energy; it is saying no
to the litany of far-left proposals that would leave American families
footing the bill to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars each.

The Green New Deal promised things like free higher education. You
might have thought this was really about the environment; well, it was
a grab bag of government handouts and takeovers. It also included
Medicare for All, which means that if you have employer-provided health
insurance, you couldn't keep it. Even President Obama said: If you like
what you have, you can keep it. But not now--not with this new, radical
group of Democrats who now say: Forget that promise. We are going to
take what you have, even if you like it.
There, of course, was the guarantee of jobs. I noted yesterday that
the only thing missing from the Green New Deal is free beer and pizza
for everybody.
It has been estimated that implementing the full list of the Green
New Deal's promises would cost the average American family $65,000 a
year, which is well over what many Americans make annually.
These ludicrous proposals were pitched as a way to uplift the middle
class and create jobs, but in reality, they would have undone the
economic gains we made these past 2 years under the Trump
administration. We could say goodbye to the record-low unemployment
levels and the growth we have been seeing. What middle-class American
do you know who could afford an extra $65,000 each year to pay the
Federal Government for the litany of Green New Deal line items, such as
tearing down every building and replacing it with a green version?
Even the liberal AFL-CIO's energy committee had this to say:

[[Page S2017]]

This is the AFL-CIO.
Instead of the Green New Deal, we should follow the Texas model of
innovation. But it is not just Texas; there are some great private
sector initiatives taking place that deal with this concern about
CO2 emissions in a much more practical, rational, free
market way. We have a thriving energy sector in Texas, as the Presiding
Officer knows, and it isn't stifled by overregulation. That is one
reason it is thriving.
The Green New Deal would force us to rely on foreign energy sources
because we wouldn't be able to produce enough here in the United States
to keep the lights on. But with investment in innovative solutions and
new technologies, we can ensure that our country can remain energy
independent and deal with legitimate concerns about the environment.
I applaud our colleagues who voted against this legislation to ensure
that the American people won't have to pick up the tab for the far-left
wing agenda of our Democratic colleagues. Conversely, I stand ready to
work on real, achievable solutions and to find ways to reduce emissions
and lessen our environmental footprint without overregulating and
overcharging.

Deer Park, Texas

On another note, most people across the country hadn't heard of Deer
Park, TX, until last Sunday. They were probably more familiar with
nearby Houston, TX. But last Sunday morning was when the first reports
came rolling out that residents were forced to shelter in place when a
chemical tank at the Intercontinental Terminals Company, or ITC, caught
fire.
ITC's tanks hold petrochemical liquids and gases used to produce
gasoline--all highly flammable and hazardous. As many could have
predicted, but certainly no one had hoped, the fire spread quickly to a
nearby tank. By Wednesday, seven tanks were aflame. Firefighters fought
for 3 days to extinguish the massive flames, and just when it seemed as
if the fire was under control, it flared again last Friday, burning
through 11 storage tanks in total. A massive fireball and billowing
plumes of smoke could be seen for miles. This didn't stop, as new tanks
caught fire, forcing schools and businesses to close and residents to
rightfully question their safety.
Unfortunately, the story doesn't end there. By the end of the week,
as ITC drained chemicals from the remaining exposed tanks, the
containment wall surrounding the tank farm burst. Foam used to fight
the fires and contaminants leaked, forcing a portion of the Houston
Ship Channel to close and bringing a new round of health risks
associated with the release of airborne and liquid toxins.
Earlier this week, officials from ITC said that cleanup crews had
removed more than 33,000 barrels of an oily mixture from the ship
channel. That is 1 million gallons, which is more than I can even
imagine.
The chemical fire and resulting chemical spill not only brought grave
health concerns to those who live and work around Deer Park and
pollution to the air and environment, it also ground businesses in the
region to a halt. Because of the chemical spill, nearly 7 miles of the
Houston Ship Channel closed for 3 days, cutting off this booming area
of our economy from the waterway and delaying shipment of goods up and
down the ship channel. Some estimates show that the region's oil and
gas and petrochemical sectors lost $1 billion in revenue as a result of
the closure. This ship channel sees hundreds of shipments a day, with
tankers and freighters moving various products and goods up and down
the shoreline to businesses surrounding the Houston area.
The effects from the closure of facilities and companies in the area
will require a costly and lengthy recovery. Folks along the ship
channel in Southeast Houston will also be concerned about health
consequences until we can find out more answers.
The ITC's tanks contain chemicals commonly used in the production of
gasoline--xylene, naphtha, pyrolysis gasoline. Naphtha, in particular,
can irritate and burn the nose and throat when inhaled. When exposed to
fire, naphtha can produce poisonous gases. The health effects of these
chemicals are of grave concern, but it is not just the short-term
effects--the irritation and burning--that are concerning; contact with
these chemicals can potentially have lasting, long-term effects, making
it vital to discern the exact level of exposure to these chemicals
caused as a result of the fire.
It is important that we get to the bottom of this, and I am proud
that our local, State, and Federal officials have quickly jumped into
action. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the
Environmental Protection Agency, local responders, and the Coast Guard
were all on the scene quickly and have been working around the clock
since the start of the first fire. The U.S. Chemical Safety Board and
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, have opened
investigations into the fires. The Environmental Protection Agency,
along with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, are
conducting continuous air quality checks.
I appreciate the swift action by local, State, and Federal agencies
to protect my constituents in the region and conduct investigations to
ensure that we can prevent this type of event from ever occurring
again. I will monitor those investigations closely as they progress and
will ensure they have the resources they need in order to complete
their work.
Sometimes when people hear us talk about regulation, they act as if
our side of the aisle believes that no regulation is appropriate, which
is entirely false. It is important to have regulations to protect the
public safety of the American people and particularly in places around
tank farms like this one in Deer Park. I think it is very important
that any existing regulations--that we make sure those regulations and
laws are enforced.
As part of this investigation, I hope we will find out that there
were no violations of existing regulations and laws, but if there were,
then the people responsible should be held accountable. I am not going
to prejudge at this early point before the investigation takes place
whether there is any legal responsibility or whether anybody did things
they should not have done consistent with the laws and regulations that
do exist, but I will say that once the investigation is complete, if
there were violations of regulations designed to protect the public
safety or laws passed by Congress and signed by the President, that I
will be the first to demand there be accountability for violation of
those regulations and those laws.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

H.R. 268

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on January 16, more than 2 months ago, the
House passed a supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 268, which
addressed the needs of all communities impacted by recent natural
disasters. The House-passed disaster bill provided assistance to help
people impacted by Hurricanes Florence and Michael, the Hawaii
volcanoes, and the California wildfires. It provided aid to the people
in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Guam, who were
struck last year by typhoons, and the people of American Samoa, who
were devastated by Cyclone Gita. It continued assistance for Puerto
Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to help them continue their recovery
from Hurricanes Irma and Maria. They passed it 2 months ago.
Instead of moving quickly on this package to help those Americans in
need, Senate Republicans, at the President's insistence, held up the
House bill because it included assistance for Americans in Puerto Rico.
Instead of giving aid to the people who need it, the President has
chosen to delay it over petty grudges and political concerns.
The President's refusal to help Americans in Puerto Rico not only
delays the important disaster bill that many of the other States are
relying on to

[[Page S2018]]

speed their recovery efforts, it discriminates against the over 3
million Americans who reside in Puerto Rico, and that is wrong. We have
never--certainly in my years here--had disaster bills in which we say
that Americans in this State can be helped, but we do not like the
Americans in this State, so they cannot be helped.
This is the United States of America. We are supposed to take care of
all of our citizens when there is a crisis, not pick and choose who
gets assistance based on who we are aligned with politically. I have
voted for disaster relief for red States, for blue States, for purple
States because they are part of the United States of America. I feel
that as a country we have to come together to help each other when
there is a disaster.
Certainly Republican Senators and Democratic Senators helped the
State of Vermont when we were hit with a disaster a few years ago.
Well, today it is Puerto Rico, and all of the Americans in Puerto Rico
need our help.
A year and a half ago, it was hit by two back-to-back category 5
hurricanes. It is rare that anybody ever gets hit by two back-to-back
category 5 hurricanes. An estimated 2,975 Americans lost their lives.
Homes were demolished, communities destroyed. It was an extraordinary
disaster, and it requires a commensurate extraordinary response.
I am glad we are finally moving to debate on the House-passed bill
because we need that. We actually ought to just pass the House-passed
bill, but, unfortunately, the Republicans say they will file a
substitute that will take us backward, not forward.
Again, at the President's insistence, it eliminates critical
assistance for the Americans in Puerto Rico provided for in the House
bill, as well as assistance to other U.S. territories. It eliminates
State-revolving funds that would help Puerto Rico rebuild damaged water
systems and ensure they are resilient and can stand up to future
storms. It eliminates a 100-percent cost-share for FEMA that would help
cash-strapped Puerto Rico access Federal aid. It eliminates money to
help Americans ensure that Puerto Rico is able to rebuild their
electrical grid. It eliminates $68 million in Medicaid assistance for
American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, whose programs
face serious shortages due to the increased need.
Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle claim that this
money is not needed. They point to previous disaster supplemental bills
and argue that we have already addressed the needs of Puerto Rico, and
we should move on. Well, that is untrue. We provided Puerto Rico with
significant assistance, as we should have, given the extraordinary
nature of the storms that ravaged the island and given the extent of
the devastation, but as damage assessments come in and the full picture
of the devastation becomes clear, we must continually reassess and
provide them what is needed to fully recover.
I remember when this first happened, back when the White House was
saying there may be two or three or four or a dozen fatalities in
Puerto Rico. Well, they were off by thousands. There were 2,975 people
who lost their lives, not just a handful.
We don't simply appropriate the same amount of money to each State or
territory that is hit with a disaster no matter the level of damage. We
look at each place, and we provide what is needed for the people to
rebuild their homes, their communities, and their lives.
I will give you one example of why one size does not fit all. With
Katrina, we in Congress passed six supplemental disaster packages--not
one, six--to help rebuild Louisiana and Mississippi because the storm
was unlike anything we had ever seen. They needed the assistance coming
in over time. I supported the help for Louisiana and Mississippi. No
one at the time would have argued to stop after the first tranche of
funding we provided and then leave them to fend for themselves, because
they are Americans. We saw there were more problems, and we added
money.
This is no different.
The President reportedly came to the Capitol and met with Senators
yesterday and made his case as to why we should not continue aid to
Puerto Rico. Let me repeat. The President of the United States--
something I have never seen in my 45 years here with either a
Republican or Democratic President--affirmatively argued that we should
refrain from helping American citizens in need.
Of course, like so many things the President has said, it was not
based in fact or reality. He claimed that Puerto Rico had received over
$90 billion in Federal assistance, but it has not. He knows it has not.
Why does he keep saying this when he has to know that what he is saying
is not true? He claims it is using Federal money to pay off its debt.
It has not. The President knows that is not true. Why does he keep
saying it?
Some here in this body have claimed that Puerto Rico has in the bank
$20 billion in previously appropriated money that they have failed to
spend, and they argue that we should provide no more until it is drawn
down. I do not know if they are getting their talking points from the
White House or what, but that is simply false.
The bulk of the money to which they refer, which we Republicans and
Democrats alike voted to appropriate over 1 year ago, is being held up
by the administration in redtape and bureaucracy. It seems as though it
is being purposely held back because of inaction by this
administration. Billions of dollars that Congress approved over 1 year
ago for disaster recovery efforts remain in the U.S. Treasury in
Washington, DC, not where they belong--assisting the American citizens
of Puerto Rico. There is no excuse for that.
They cannot have it both ways. The administration cannot
simultaneously hold up recovery dollars for Puerto Rico and then point
to Puerto Rico's failure to spend it as an excuse not to provide
additional assistance. In other words, they are holding these billions
away from Puerto Rico, saying: You cannot have it, but why are you not
spending it?
Come on. You cannot do that. You cannot claim they are not spending
the money that is being held back from them, and then say that is why
they do not need additional assistance.
Yesterday, Senator Schumer and I sent a letter to the administration
about these bureaucratic delays and demanded answers.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of a
letter dated March 25, 2019, to Mick Mulvaney, Peter Gaynor, and Ben
Carson.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, March 25, 2019.
Hon. Mick Mulvaney,
Director, Office of Management and Budget,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Peter Gaynor,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Ben Carson,
Secretary, Department of Housing
and Urban Development, Washington, DC.
Dear Director Mulvaney, Honorable Gaynor, and Honorable
Carson, Last November, we wrote to express our concern about
the significant and unsupported delays related to the
immediate and long-term recovery needs of Puerto Rico in the
aftermath of catastrophic Hurricanes Irma and Maria.
Specifically, we highlighted the lack of effective Federal
interagency coordination under the leadership of the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), which has and continues to
impede on the Commonwealth's ability to finalize emergency
repairs through FEMA's Public Assistance categories A and B
programs, and subsequently its efforts to move toward
permanent reconstruction. These delays are not unique to
FEMA, as the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) has also been affected by OMB's micromanagement and
excessive bureaucracy as they attempt to administer and
oversee Puerto Rico's Community Development Block Grant--
Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funding. The lack of leadership
and coordination, combined with delays in meeting the basic
needs of the island, more than eighteen months after
receiving a presidential disaster declaration, has left far
too many children and elderly citizens in unhealthy and
unsafe conditions, families in severely damaged homes, and
communities without adequate infrastructure to sustain a
decent quality of life.
The response that we received, several months later, was
wholly inadequate and contained no information to respond to
our concerns. Specifically, we raised concerns about OMB's
failure to work expeditiously with HUD to finalize and issue
a Federal Register Notice for nearly $16 billion in CDBG-DR
mitigation funding that Congress appropriated in February
2018, of which $8.3 billion has been allocated to Puerto
Rico. As a result, this critical source of funding remains
unavailable for obligation more than a year after it was
appropriated, and nearly

[[Page S2019]]

a year and half after the historic hurricanes made landfall.
The purpose of the mitigation allocation was to provide not
only Puerto Rico, but more than 15 other cities, states and
territories the resources necessary to rebuild their homes,
businesses, and critical infrastructure to updated
construction standards in order to prevent the same level of
destruction in future disaster events. As you are probably
aware, some reconstruction has started to take place, but
without the availability of the mitigation funding, Puerto
Rico is unable to strategically adopt these improved
standards, or leverage this critical resource toward a
comprehensive island-wide rebuild strategy. Further delays in
the availability of funding is unacceptable. We insist
that you finalize the mitigation notice in the next 30
days.
It has also come to our attention that several issues have
reached a critical point with FEMA that are hindering the
recovery efforts in Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands as
well. FEMA needs to work with the territories to develop ways
to expedite approvals and obligations of funding, especially
for priority projects. In addition, FEMA needs to develop
clear policies with regard to the issues laid out below,
share them openly with Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands,
and Congress, and ensure that they are being implemented in a
consistent way.
First, finalizing the consistent implementation of the
``pre-disaster condition'' language from section 20601 of the
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 is paramount. The intent of
this provision was to facilitate the rebuilding of
infrastructure, including the electric grid, in a way that is
resilient to future weather events, reduces the need for
future federal disaster assistance, and makes use of
technology and modern standards when rebuilding. Congress
specifically wished to avoid a situation where the islands
would be forced to simply plug new pieces into antiquated
infrastructure, which would only lead to more frequent
failures in the future. It has come to our attention that
there is a lack of consistency and transparency in the way
that FEMA is implementing this language, and that FEMA's
interpretation of this language may be contrary to
congressional intent. For example, recent news reports
indicate that FEMA has reduced its cost estimate for a
Project Worksheet covering rebuilding of a number of schools
because upgrades to meet industry standards were removed from
the scope of work, after previously being discussed by the
stakeholders involved. FEMA must immediately rectify this
situation and issue clear guidance and expectations on its
approach to implementing both the ``pre-disaster condition''
and the ``industry standards'' portion of the Bipartisan
Budget Act. If FEMA needs additional guidance from Congress,
we must be informed of this need immediately.
Second, we are also concerned about changing FEMA guidance
and approaches leading to substantial replication of efforts
and excessive delays in approving and obligating funding for
priority projects in the territories. For example, according
to representatives of the Commonwealth, in March of 2018 FEMA
determined that the level of damage to the Vieques Hospital
justified replacement of the building, instead of repair.
Accordingly, in August of 2018, a scope of work was agreed
upon by the stakeholders involved, and coordination between
FEMA, COR3, and the municipality began on the cost estimate
of the replacement project. However, two months later, FEMA
representatives informed COR3 and the municipality that they
intended to review the validity of the replacement decision
that FEMA had previously made, sending the agreed upon
decision to the Expert Panel for their review. A year after
the initial decision to replace the building was made, the
fate of the Vieques Hospital project remains in question, and
it appears that no real progress has been made in addressing
the long-term health care needs of the people of Vieques, who
continue to rely on a mobile clinic.
Last, when FEMA provides disaster assistance, the receiving
State or Territory is responsible for implementing financial
controls to ensure that funds obligated for a project by FEMA
are drawn down by the grantee for the approved purpose.
Currently, FEMA applies additional fiscal oversight
requirements specifically to Puerto Rico, which require the
Commonwealth to provide detailed documentation to validate
that any costs incurred with disaster assistance funding are
for allowable expenses. FEMA manually validates a percentage
of those actions. Negotiations to end these additional
oversight measures and expedite the processing of recovery
funding have been ongoing; however, it's unclear what
remaining steps Puerto Rico must take to assume full
responsibility of their recovery assistance. Until FEMA
approves the transition of fiscal oversight to Puerto Rico,
these extraordinary measures will stay in place. FEMA must be
clear about the changes Puerto Rico needs to make in order to
properly manage its own recovery expenses and eliminate any
unnecessary bureaucratic steps.
As the territories continue to recover, it is crucial that
FEMA address these issues and move forward with a stronger
sense of urgency and consideration for the unique issues that
they face. A recovery of this scale requires consistency,
transparency, and constant coordination with territory
officials.
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands were hit by back-
to-back Category 5 hurricanes, and the damage to the islands
was catastrophic. An estimated 2,975 people lost their lives,
homes were demolished, and communities destroyed. This
extraordinary disaster requires a commensurate extraordinary
response. We have a responsibility to come to the aid of
fellow U.S. citizens in times of need, and this is certainly
one of those times.
We ask for a detailed response providing an update on the
status of these issues and the projected timeframe for their
final resolution be provided without delay. Please respond by
April 5, 2019.
Sincerely,
Patrick Leahy,
U.S. Senator.
Charles E. Schumer,
U.S. Senator.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday the inspector general of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development announced that it will
review whether the White House has deliberately interfered with the
timely distribution of hurricane funds to Puerto Rico. That is pretty
amazing. I have never seen a case that I remember where the inspector
general of Housing and Urban Development had to look into whether the
White House was deliberately interfering with funds to go to a disaster
area.
I know firsthand what it is like to see a State hit by disaster.
Tropical Storm Irene hit Vermont in 2011, and it devastated our State.
People lost their homes, roads were washed out, bridges destroyed, and
communities forever changed. I saw bridges twisted like a child's toy.
I saw farmhouses that had been on the north side of the river, which
were now on the south side of the river, upside down and destroyed. I
saw farmers' fields wiped out, businesses ruined, schools destroyed,
roads necessary to bring medical supplies into villages gone. I know
firsthand. I know as a lifelong Vermonter that in these moments the
Federal Government is a critical partner in the effort to recover and
rebuild.
It is the same in other States--North Carolina, South Carolina,
Florida, Texas, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands. They are
all counting on us to get this bill across the finish line.
That is why, 3 weeks ago, I put a compromise on the table to create a
path forward. I did it in my capacity as chairman of the Appropriations
Committee. It was a reasonable proposal. It does not restore everything
that had been eliminated from the House bill, but it was a compromise
that focused on the most critical proposals and the immediate needs.
Had Senate Republicans accepted this proposal, we likely would have
seen quick passage of a disaster bill in a bipartisan fashion in both
the Senate and the House. It actually would have eliminated the need
for a conference and would have gotten the assistance to the people who
need it sooner rather than later.
Unfortunately, it appears the President will not accept even this
reasonable offer. It makes me think about when he closed down the
government for over 1 month because the Congress gave him only $1.6
billion for a wall, and then he reopened the government when we gave
him $1.3 billion. I don't know if they actually read the proposals and
bills that we sent.

In this case, I think it is obvious what is happening. The President
is willing to endanger the entire disaster package for all of the
United States because he wants to pick winners and losers. When there
is a disaster, there are no winners and losers. Americans come together
to help everybody. Yet he wants to say who gets assistance in the wake
of disasters based on his own arbitrary standards and political
grudges. That is unacceptable. Where is it going to end? Which State
will the President disfavor next? Remember that just a few months ago,
the President, in a tweet, threatened to cut off aid to California as
they were reeling from some of the worst fires in recent history. He
sent a tweet telling millions of Americans he doesn't want to help. We
are an independent branch of government. We have to have a responsible
party in the room, and it should be Congress.
I think back to when Vermont was hit by disaster and hurricane
flooding. As I was traveling around the State the day after, surveying
the damage, I was receiving emails from a number of Senators,
Republicans and Democrats, saying: Vermont stood with us when we had a
disaster; we will stand with you today.

[[Page S2020]]

That is what I want to do. I want to help, just as I voted to help
Louisiana six times and Mississippi for their damage. It wasn't for a
political benefit for Vermont, but it was because we are Americans and
we all stand together.
To think that we might consider a disaster package that picks and
chooses which Americans are helped when they have all suffered equally
from disasters, and to say: OK, you, American, we favor you, you get
money. You, American, I don't like you. So you are not going to get
money. That is not the American way. That is not the way the Senate
should be.
Let's pass a bill that addresses the needs of all communities
impacted by disaster and do it now. People are waiting. The needs are
pressing.
I will file an amendment today with my recommended compromise. It
provides a reasonable path forward--one that allows us to move quickly
to get assistance to the people who need it now. I hope all Members
will support it.
The Governor of Puerto Rico made a strong statement this morning.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a statement by Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rossello.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Statement by Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rossello

(March 26, 2019)

San Juan, Puerto Rico.--``The comments attributed to Donald
Trump today by senators from his own party are below the
dignity of a sitting President of the United States. They
continue to lack empathy, are irresponsible, regrettable and,
above all, unjustified.
``I want to be very clear: Not a single federal dollar has
been used to make debt payments. This has been the most
transparent recovery in the history of the United States,
providing unprecedented access and collaboration with federal
agencies. In fact, just yesterday we reached an agreement
with FEMA on the transition of responsibilities for the
reimbursement of recovery funds. An agreement predicated on
the acknowledgment by the federal government that appropriate
fiscal controls are in fact established.
``I can only assume that Trump is receiving misleading
information from his own staff. I have now made several
requests to meet with the President to discuss Puerto Rico's
recovery and reconstruction, but up to this day we haven't
received a confirmation or a date, even though Trump told me
we would meet after his visit to Vietnam earlier this year.
``I invite the President to stop listening to ignorant and
completely wrong advice. Instead he should come to Puerto
Rico to hear firsthand from the people on the ground. I
invite him to put all of the resources at his disposal to
help Americans in Puerto Rico, like he did for Texas and
Alabama. No more, no less.
``Of course, today the world knows the unpleasant truth
that Puerto Rico is a colonial territory of the United States
and are well aware of the democratic deficiencies we endure:
We are not allowed to vote for our President nor have voting
representation in Congress. Even as we have asked
democratically for statehood twice in the past seven years,
the federal government has delayed their responsibility to
act.
People from all over the nation, and the world, have
witnessed the inequalities Americans face on the island. The
federal response and its treatment during these past months
in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria is clear evidence of our
second-class citizenship.
``Mr. President: Enough with the insults and demeaning
mischaracterizations. We are not your political adversaries;
we are your citizens.
``We are not asking for anything more than any other U.S.
state has received. We are merely asking for equality.''

Mr. LEAHY. The Americans in Puerto Rico do not have representation in
this body. Vermont is probably as far away from Puerto Rico as just
about any State, with the exception of Alaska and Hawaii. They do not
have anybody to speak directly on their behalf on such an important
matter. The Governor has spoken out. I urge every Member to read what
the Governor has to say. I agree with him. Americans in Puerto Rico
should be helped just as Americans in Texas, Americans in Oklahoma,
Americans in California, or Americans in New York, or wherever disaster
has struck. We are the United States of America. Let's start acting
like that on behalf of all Americans, not on behalf of political
biases.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Climate Change

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to join again my
colleagues to speak of the need for bipartisan action to address
climate warming.
Throughout the past year, we have received warning after warning
about the warming and about the devastating consequences of climate
change that are coming much sooner than some people actually expected.
I remember when I first got to the Senate. I was part of the
Environment Committee, and we had military leaders come to speak. We
had scientists, and they basically predicted everything that we have
seen coming, from the wildfires in the West to the rising ocean levels,
to weird weather events like more tornadoes, to the type of flooding
that we are seeing in the Midwest as we speak and the type of flooding
we have seen in Florida as a result of hurricanes.
They also talked about the economic consequences of this. I think it
is really important that people don't see this as environment versus
economics. If we do nothing, the economics are bad. If we do nothing,
we are going to continue to see homeowners' insurance increase, like we
have nationwide--a 50-percent increase in the last 10 years.
If we do something and we do it right and we do it smartly, we are
going to see a bunch of new jobs in the field of green energy. We are
going to see more solar. We are going to see more wind. We are going to
see a whole new industry of an electric grid and things that we need to
do to bring down greenhouse gases and be a leader once again in energy
for the world.
Last October, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change issued a special report explaining the potential impact of
climate change if the Earth warms 1.5 degrees Celsius above historic
global temperature levels dating back to before the Industrial
Revolution started. That report predicted that in just over 20 years,
we could see even more of what we have seen this last year: persistent
drought, food shortages, worsening wildfires, and increased flooding--
damage that could cost an estimated $54 trillion.
Then, in November, the ``Fourth National Climate Assessment'' issued
a special report that concluded that without significant global efforts
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, climate change will threaten the
health and safety of people, will slow economic growth, will damage our
Nation's infrastructure, which we are seeing right now in the Midwest,
and will impede the production of energy and food.
Finally, in January of this year, the U.S. Department of Defense
released a report on the effects of a changing climate to U.S. military
installations and their operational viability. All of these experts--
yes, scientists, and, yes, military leaders--have made it clear that
inaction is not an option for our economy, for our environment, for our
country, or for our world.
Military and security experts have repeatedly reminded us that
climate change is a threat to our national security. Look at the
examples of refugees coming up from Africa--people who used to be
subsistence farmers who no longer can make their livings. They used to
eek by, which was not easy, but now they are moving up; they are moving
to Europe. That is just one example of what we are seeing.
I am from a State of refugees. Our refugees are a major part of our
economy, but we know we want to have a sensible refugee policy and that
we can't have sudden droves of people moving up because of
environmental catastrophes that are going on in their countries. Yet we
are going to see more and more and more of that. At some point, we have
to realize, you know what, we want thriving economies in Africa; we
want thriving economies throughout the world; and climate change is
going to be an impediment to that.
If you want to close your eyes to the rest of the world and pretend
it is not happening, it is going to come knocking at your door. It is
what is going to keep happening if we don't do something about climate
change. There will

[[Page S2021]]

be more severe weather--heat waves that could reduce our water supply,
extreme rainfall that could damage critical infrastructure, a decrease
in agricultural productivity that could threaten, in my State alone, a
$20 billion ag industry, which ranks fifth in the Nation. We cannot
close our eyes to climate change because it is happening right now
around us.
That is why it is all the more disappointing that the Senate has
failed to seriously consider legislation that would address climate
change. I have been here for these close calls. When I first came to
the Senate, we were so close to getting a renewable electricity
standard put in place nationwide. I had a bill that would have done
that. It would have been combined with the renewable fuel standard, and
I think it would have been a good way to have brought people in from
both parties, from both sides of the aisle, and from all parts of the
country. I remember standing in the back of this Chamber with Senator
Cantwell, bemoaning the fact that we were just one vote short of
getting it done. That was over a decade ago.
Meanwhile, yes, States are taking action. With our having a
Republican Governor at the time, Tim Pawlenty, my State was able to get
a renewable electricity standard put in place--something like 20 to 25
percent by 2025--and we are making that. We wouldn't have made it if we
had not set a goal, which, at that time, seemed bold, and we did it on
a bipartisan basis--with Democrats, Republicans, and the legislature.
We combined it politically with a renewable fuel standard so it would
get some of our farmers and other people on board. We had two
provisions in there--a strong renewable electricity standard and a
strong renewable fuel standard, with a Republican Governor leading the
way. Why? We could see ahead. We could see the effect climate change
would have on our outdoor economy. We could see the effect it would
have on hunting and fishing and recreation in our State.
Here is what happened. We barely missed doing something on the
renewable electricity standard. Then President Obama got elected, and
we were in the middle of a downturn. I had actually hoped we would have
moved on renewable electricity, but the decision was made to go with
cap and trade. I supported cap and trade. In the end, despite its
passing in the House, we couldn't get the votes in the Senate, in part,
because we were in the middle of a downturn.
Since then, we have done a few things on energy efficiency, which
have been good, that Secretary Chu called the low-hanging fruit. We
have done some things in the farm bill with conservation, with the
sodsaver provision that I have with Senator Thune, but we haven't done
anything that significantly makes a difference.
Instead, the administration has taken us out of the international
climate change agreement, which means we are the only country in the
world that isn't in it. When the President first made his announcement,
Syria and Nicaragua were not in it. Now they are. This is not what
leadership is when we are the only country that is not part of this
agreement. No, that is not what leadership is, and it certainly impedes
our doing business around the world when it comes to green energy.
Other countries can go in there and ask: Why are you going to do
business with this country? It is the only one that hasn't signed on to
the international climate change agreement? That happens. I have heard
from businesspeople. That happens. That is one thing that happens.
When it came to greenhouse gases, the standards we had in place at
the EPA were a compromise that had been worked on over years. It is now
on the cutting room floor because this administration went backward.
The gas mileage standard is something else we could do. Again, we
went backward. Instead of working on these things--coming up with more
comprehensive legislation--unfortunately, our colleagues on the other
side of the aisle decided, yesterday, to play politics by bringing up
the Green New Deal resolution with the explicit intention of trying
to create a divide by voting it down.

Do you know what? The resolution, as I have said, is aspirational. It
sets out some audacious goals. We know we can't meet everything that is
in that resolution in 10 years. Yet what has it done that I think is so
good? It has reignited the debate on how the United States can lead the
way in addressing global climate change while building a clean energy
future that benefits American businesses, factories, and workers.
We are a country that sets audacious goals. We put a man on the Moon,
right? We won World War II. We are a country that sets audacious goals.
Sometimes it takes us longer to meet them, which is OK. If we see a
problem, we don't just put our heads down. We look ahead; we look at
each other; and we figure out how we are going to meet the challenge.
That is what we have to do with climate change.
At the same time that our Republican colleagues brought up the Green
New Deal resolution for a vote, they declined to consider the
resolution that was offered by Senator Carper that simply says climate
change is real, that human activity during the last century has been
the dominant cause of the climate crisis, and that the United States
and Congress should take immediate action to address the challenges of
climate change.
The challenges we face are too great to waste time on show votes and
political stunts. For years, we have heard of the things we can do to
make a difference. There is not one approach; it is an ``all of the
above'' approach. We know--and I have seen the models--what we can do
to start bringing the temperature down to an international goal, by the
way, of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. That is a lot, but our wanting to stay
under that amount is actually a realistic goal right now.
Instead of spending time debating these kinds of show resolutions, we
should be taking real action to combat climate change. We need a
comprehensive approach that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
promote energy-efficient technologies and homegrown energy resources.
That is what we should do. When Senator McConnell brought up what was
an aspirational resolution to bring people together, he did it as a
show to divide people. That is not what we want to do here. We have
people from all over the country who have some different views on this,
and we should be coming together to figure out solutions. As I noted, I
believe we must reinstate the Clean Power Plan rules and the gas
mileage standards that the administration has reversed, which has
rolled back the progress we have made.
I also want to talk today about my home State's work on these issues.
I am proud Minnesota has taken a proactive and innovative approach to
energy use and sustainability, which is critical to addressing carbon
emissions and climate change. As I noted, that 25-percent electricity
standard would be met and is going to be met by 2025. This bipartisan
bill was signed into law by Governor Pawlenty in 2007, and it passed
the House back then.
By the way, that was 2007, right? Since then, everything we have
learned has reinforced what we know, which is that climate change is
happening. Back in 2007, we had not seen this big push against doing
something about it. We had not seen all of the dark money that went in
to take care of not doing something about it and to back up this
inertia we are seeing. Yet, somehow, back in 2007, in my State, I guess
we got it through--we got around some of this--because that legislation
that was signed by a Republican Governor received overwhelmingly
bipartisan support. It passed the Minnesota House by a vote of 123 to
10 and passed the Minnesota Senate by 63 to 3.
Earlier this month, our new Governor, Governor Walz, announced a
proposal that would build on that earlier work by setting a goal of
generating 100 percent of the State's energy from clean sources by
2050. We have also seen other Governors doing this across the country.
I think that is great. Justice Brandeis once said that the States are
laboratories of democracy, which is a good thing. We can't just sit
there and expect States, on an individual basis, to change the national
dialogue. Some of these things have to be done by us in this Chamber in
Washington, DC.
Once we set those goals, which started with the Republican Governor
of Minnesota and then moved on to two Democratic Governors, what we saw

[[Page S2022]]

was Xcel Energy--Minnesota's largest utility--as being the earliest
supporter of the last administration's Clean Power Plan. This is an
electric utility--the biggest one in our State--that recently announced
plans to deliver 100-percent carbon-free electricity to its customers
by 2050. As part of that pledge, it plans to reduce carbon emissions by
80 percent by 2030 in the eight States it serves. It is an electric
company--a power utility--that has realized this is in its best long-
term interest and that it is certainly in the best long-term interest
of its customers.
If energy utilities like Xcel understand the need to reduce our use
of fossil fuels and to embrace setting ambitious goals that will
eventually get us to 100-percent clean renewable energy, then so should
we and so should the administration.
We know energy innovation can't really take root--not in any kind of
serious way--without there being certainty, stability, and a clear path
forward. Yes, some of that can happen in the States, and that is
exciting. It can happen in our businesses and in businesses in
Minnesota, like Cargill--the biggest private company in the country--
that looks at the world and sees what is going to happen to its
investors and its employees if we don't do something about climate
change. It has joined in an effort with major businesses to take this
on. So, yes, States are doing things, and Governors are doing things.
Yes, electric utilities are doing things. Some of our small electric
utilities in Minnesota have actually started creating incentives for
solar panels. One of the most innovative ones will give its customers--
this is a very small town in a small county--large water heaters that
cost about $1,000 if, in exchange, they will get solar panels.
Senator Hoeven and I worked on a bill to make sure people in this
Chamber understood that these large water heaters were really helpful
in the basements of farmhouses and that they were actually more energy
efficient. Then this utility--a little electric co-op--took a step
forward and actually offered a free water heater in exchange for buying
a long-term interest in a solar panel. It is not as easy when you are a
small electric co-op. I have a ton of them in my State, and I have
worked with them extensively, but they, too, are starting to see the
future and are starting to do their part.
In my State, we have big businesses like Cargill, big electric
utilities like Xcel, and little electric co-ops. We have our Governors.
We have businesses that are not in the electric business but that see
what is happening to their customers around the world. We have
universities, nonprofits, churches, synagogues, and mosques that want
to retrofit and make their places of worship more energy efficient,
which is another bill I have with Senator Hoeven. When all of this is
going on, how can we just sit here and do nothing and instead have
negative show votes for no reason at all? We are going to keep talking
about this and not let it go because what we need is action.
We need policies that encourage reduction in greenhouse gasses. We
must leave our children with a world that is as good as the one we got.
There is an old Ojibwe saying--we have a lot of proud Indian Tribes
in Minnesota--that says: You make decisions not for now but for seven
generations from now.
You know what. That is our duty. But guess what. With climate change,
it is no longer just seven generations now; it is for the pages who are
sitting right here, because this is happening right now. The
predictions are dire.
I was in Florida just a few weeks ago, and they predict that in a
decade, 1 out of 10 of their homes is going to be flooded in their
State--1 out of 10 of their homes.
You see what is happening in Norfolk, VA. You look at these pages and
you think: This is not just seven generations from now; this is 7 years
from now or 70 years from now. That is what we are dealing with. It is
upon us. So it is our duty, our constitutional duty as elected
representatives, to do our job. It is our moral duty to do the right
thing for this country. So let's get to work and get this done.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.

Nominations

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor to correct the
record concerning statements the President reportedly made yesterday
afternoon when he met with Senate Republicans.
Apparently, in between his efforts to stiff hurricane victims in
Puerto Rico and tear affordable healthcare away from millions of
Americans, the President claimed that Democrats were holding up
ambassadorial nominations in the Senate. Just weeks ago, we heard
similar comments from the Senate majority leader, who claimed that GEN
John Abizaid's nomination to be Ambassador to Saudi Arabia was ``being
held up.''
Let me be clear. No one wants to see the State Department vested with
all the resources it needs to effectively conduct American foreign
policy, including qualified and capable staff, more than I do. We
cannot promote our foreign policy, protect American citizens, advocate
for American businesses, or advance American values without a robust
diplomatic core.
I want all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to know that
each time the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has received
nominations, I have dedicated my time and staff resources to
efficiently and diligently vet and advance these nominations. In the
last Congress, the committee reported 169 nominations. So I reject the
assertion that we have not done our part to ensure that the State
Department is appropriately staffed.
Now let me speak to General Abizaid because no one can honestly claim
that the Foreign Relations Committee has been anything but extremely
diligent and expeditious with this nomination.
With my full support, General Abizaid appeared in the very first
committee nominations hearing of this Congress, and I very much look
forward to voting in favor of his nomination as soon as our chairman--
our Republican chairman--exercises his prerogative and puts him before
the committee for a vote.
As with all nominees, the timing of his consideration by the full
Senate is under the control of the majority leader.
It is clear that President Trump has an inaccurate or dishonest view
of the nominations situation in the Senate and particularly in the
Foreign Relations Committee.
We cannot confirm diplomats we do not have. All too often, the
committee has received nominations late or not at all. The Trump
administration took nearly 2 years before it even bothered to nominate
General Abizaid, leaving a gaping hole in our diplomatic posture to
Saudi Arabia and the region.
To go nearly 2 years without putting forward a nominee is a failure
of leadership, pure and simple. Saudi Arabia's actions over the past 2
years highlight the fact that we need an adult on the ground, which is
why I wholeheartedly support General Abizaid and look forward to what I
hope is his speedy confirmation.
Sadly, Saudi Arabia is not an isolated example. It took even longer--
more than 2 years--for the Trump administration to nominate a candidate
to be U.S. Ambassador to Turkey. Astonishingly enough, it was only this
week that the President sent up an ambassadorial nominee for Mexico. We
are now 26 months into the Trump administration, and we still lack
ambassadorial nominees to critical countries such as Egypt, Pakistan,
and our close ally, Jordan.
Let's be clear. This is the President's reckless abdication of a
constitutional responsibility essential to projecting American power
abroad. When you don't nominate someone, President Trump has only
himself to blame.
Furthermore, there is unfortunately another severe problem that we
cannot ignore with regard to the administration's nominees. When the
Trump administration repeatedly fails to appropriately vet political
nominations, Congress must exercise appropriate oversight. The
President has nominated and renominated individuals with restraining
orders for threats of violence; people who made material omissions,
sometimes on a repeated basis, in their nomination materials; people
who tweeted and retweeted vile things about Senators and their families
and who have engaged in incidents that should, frankly, mean they
should never have been nominated.
One nominee attacked my late colleague and good friend Senator John

[[Page S2023]]

McCain, claiming that John McCain, an American hero, was rolling ``out
the welcome mat for ISIS on America's southern border.'' But
unfortunately we know that attacking McCain does not cross any redlines
for this President.
Another nominee has claimed, with no evidence, that Senator Cruz's
wife is part of a sinister cabal seeking to combine the Governments of
Canada, Mexico, and the United States. This nominee called Hillary
Clinton a ``terrorist with amnesia'' and retweeted someone calling
Senator Romney a ``dumbass.''
You can't make this stuff up.
Senator Sasse's office said that nominee should ``put on his tinfoil
hat and visit our office with evidence for his salacious conspiracy
theories and cuckoo allegations'' and went on to observe that ``People
who want to serve Americans as our diplomats and spokespersons abroad
should know that words and truth matter, even during campaigns. Cynics
and nuts are probably going to have a hard time securing Senate
confirmation.'' I couldn't agree with him more.
Yet the President thought highly enough of this individual and lowly
enough of the U.S. Senate that he nominated him for an ambassadorship
in two successive Congresses.
Another ambassadorial nominee was the subject of a temporary
restraining order after she left a bullet-ridden target practice sheet
on her doctor's chair.
Again, you cannot make this up.
As for being unresponsive to committee requirements for all nominees,
I can understand that nominees may accidentally leave off a few
businesses they were involved in, but we had one nominee who failed to
inform the committee of dozens of businesses and another nominee who,
even more egregiously, failed to mention multiple lawsuits he was
involved in, including one in which he was alleged to have fired a
female employee who complained of sexual harassment. Given the nature
and frequency of these omissions, it is hard to believe they were
unintentional.
So when the White House, either through negligence or incompetence,
sends us unvetted, unqualified nominees--incapable and oftentimes
offensive--my staff and I exercise due diligence on behalf of the
American people.
To make this crystal clear, the President can speed up this process.
All he has to do is start nominating Americans with appropriate
credentials and honorable conduct in their careers. It is not rocket
science.
The United States and our allies continue to face tremendous
challenges around the world. We must continue to lead on the
international stage and work in collaboration with international
partners to achieve our shared security goals. But to have our
diplomats in place, they must be nominated in a timely fashion and
vetted properly. That is what the real holdup here is--not Senate
Democrats. And I refuse to let the President point the finger at us
when he should be pointing the finger at himself.
I yield the floor.
(Mr. SCOTT of Florida assumed the Chair.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The Senate democratic whip.

S. 874

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about
the Dream Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation that would give
immigrant students who grew up in the United States a chance to earn
their citizenship. This is not a new topic. It was 19 years ago that I
introduced the Dream Act. It hasn't become law yet, but it has inspired
a movement of thousands of young people across this country.
Back in the day when I introduced this bill and talked about the
Dreamers, people thought you were talking about a British rock group.
In this case, the Dreamers happened to be a group of people living in
America who were desperately trying to become part of America's future.
They came to the United States as children, infants, toddlers, and
kids. They are American in every way except for a piece of paper on
their immigration status. They have gone to our schools. They sit next
to us in church. They are the kids whom you see on the playground with
your own kids, but they are undocumented. Because they are
undocumented, they are subject to deportation at any moment in their
lives.
They end up going to school, but it is tougher for them. They don't
qualify for Pell grants or Federal loans. They have to find a way to
save the money or find a way to secure a scholarship that just might be
available to them, but it is rare. Most of the time it means a longer
period of time in college before they can finish, as they save up the
money. Ultimately, they are trained to become our teachers, our nurses,
our doctors, our engineers, and even our soldiers.
Yesterday I reintroduced the Dream Act. My cosponsor is Senator
Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina and chairman of the
Senate Judiciary Committee. I want to thank Lindsey Graham for joining
me in this bipartisan effort. Bipartisanship is rare in this Chamber,
and on an issue of controversy, it is even rarer.
Senator Graham and I have a long history of working together because
we believe that Congress has an obligation to do the job we were
elected to do and pass legislation that solves problems. Senator Graham
and I were partners in the Gang of 8--four Democratic Senators and four
Republican Senators. That was the gang with the great John McCain,
Chuck Schumer, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, Jeff Flake, Bob Menendez,
and Michael Bennet.
We wrote a comprehensive immigration reform bill a few years back in
2013. We brought it to the floor of the Senate. We covered virtually
every aspect of immigration law. Believe me, immigration law is a mess,
and it needed that kind of comprehensive approach. We brought it up to
a vote on the floor, and the vote was 68 to 32. It was a bipartisan
vote. After months of working on this bill, we couldn't have been
happier. We finally had a bipartisan bill to address the immigration
challenge in America.
The bill left here and went to the House of Representatives under a
Republican leadership, and it died. They wouldn't even consider it,
wouldn't debate it, and, certainly, wouldn't vote on it. Look at the
mess we have today in the United States because of our immigration
laws, and consider the possibility that 6 years ago we had finally
found a path that could lead us to a bipartisan solution. That path is
still there.
Part of that immigration law was the Dream Act, which we are
reintroducing. In 2010 I joined with Republican Senator Dick Lugar of
Indiana. We called on President Obama to use his authority as President
to protect these Dreamers from deportation. In other words, if we
couldn't pass the law, could the President do something to help protect
them?
President Barack Obama responded. He created a program called the
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, known as DACA. Here is
what DACA said: We will give you, 2 years at a time, temporary legal
status to stay in the United States and not be deported and be able to
work in this country. If you want the temporary status that is
renewable every 2 years, you have to report to the government, go
through a comprehensive background investigation, pay a fee, and, then,
we will give you a chance to stay here, go to school and work, and not
be afraid of that knock on the door.

More than 800,000 Dreamers stepped forward. They came forward in an
extraordinary way. I can remember the first day when then-Congressman
Luis Gutierrez and I decided at Navy Pier in Chicago, which is a huge
gathering place, that we would have a sit-down for these young people
so they could fill out the forms and apply for DACA status. Initially,
we thought we were going to have 1,000. We didn't know what we would do
with it. Then, there were 2,000, and then 3,000, and it turned out that
families literally stood in line all night long for the chance to come
across that threshold to sit down with a volunteer and fill out their
form for DACA status. Mothers and fathers were in tears with their kids
thinking: At least my son or my daughter will have a chance not to be
deported and to be part of America. More than 800,000 of these Dreamers
came forward, and they received DACA protection because of President
Obama's Executive order. Forty-three thousand were in my State of
Illinois.

[[Page S2024]]

DACA has unleashed the full potential of these Dreamers, who are
contributing to our country in so many ways--teachers, soldiers,
engineers, and small business owners.
Then came the day with a new President--President Donald Trump. On
September 5, 2017, President Trump announced that he would repeal DACA
and the protections that it gave to these people. Hundreds of thousands
of Dreamers faced losing their work permits and, even worse, being
deported from the only country they had ever known and being sent back
to places they couldn't even remember.
When President Trump announced the repeal of DACA, he called on
Congress to legalize DACA. Since then, President Trump has rejected
every single bipartisan deal we offered him on the subject. I am not
giving up on the Dream Act, and I am not giving up on the Dreamers. You
would think that after all these years and all these young people,
people would be coming to the floor who are against the Dream Act and
against DACA, telling horrible stories about the young people who we
are talking about today. Strangely, that has never happened. I am sure
there is going to be somebody to disappoint me. That is human nature.
Overwhelmingly, these young people are just nothing short of amazing.
I have come to the floor of the Senate more than 100 times to tell
their stories because I think that is the best way for you to
understand why this issue is so important.
This is an amazing young woman. Her name is Karla Robles. Karla
Robles is the 116th Dreamer whose story I have told on the floor of the
Senate. She was brought to the United States from Mexico when she was 8
years old. She grew up in Chicago, where her mom and dad worked long
hours in a pizza restaurant. Karla's parents told her and her brothers
and sisters: No matter what happens, make sure to stay out of trouble
and study really hard. It will all pay off one day.
That is exactly what Karla did. When Karla started school in the
third grade, she didn't speak English, but she worked hard and quickly
became an excellent student. Karla wrote me a letter and she said:
``Education has been an important part of my life and the teachers who
took the time to guide my family and me are a big reason I want to go
into this field.''
In the seventh grade, Karla received the American Legion Award--this
undocumented young girl--which was given to one boy and one girl in the
class who ``are deemed most worthy of the high qualities of citizenship
and of true Americanism.''
In high school, Karla Robles was a member of the National Honor
Society and the President's Club, and she was active in student
government.
She participated in a program called TRUST, where she agreed to
volunteer her personal time to mentor younger students. She was captain
and MVP of the varsity tennis team. She received her associate's degree
from Harper College. She is now a senior at Loyola University in
Chicago.
Here is a special word about Loyola University in Chicago. This is an
amazing campus that is doing its best to give people just like Karla a
chance in life. They have created something called Arrupe College,
which is a low cost approach to higher education for some of the
poorest families in Chicago, and they don't exclude kids who are
protected by DACA or are Dreamers. The Loyola medical school is one of
the few in the United States with open competition where DACA students
can apply. There are 32 medical students at Loyola in Chicago who are
undocumented. They are DACA Dreamers. They desperately want to be part
of America. Part of the agreement is if they go to medical school at
Loyola and borrow money to do it, they have to pay back a year of
service in an underserved area in the State of Illinois for the money
that they are receiving to go to school.
Back to Karla.
During college, she was on the National Honor Roll and the Dean's
List. She also volunteers with an outreach program for at-risk kids and
with AmeriCorps VISTA, and she founded a tutoring program for
elementary school students.
I know Karla a little better than I know some of the Dreamers because
she interned here in my Washington, DC, office last year. What does she
want to do at the end of this journey if she can stay in America? She
wants to be a teacher in the Chicago Public Schools. She wants to
pursue her master's degree and become a high school guidance counselor.
There are some people who look at this picture and say: This is not
an American citizen. Tell her to leave. I look at this picture and
think that we are lucky to have her, that this Nation of immigrants is
lucky to have this young woman who simply wants to give back to
America. That is all she is asking for--nothing special--just to let
her give back to this country.
So we have reintroduced the Dream Act. I hope my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle will come forward and join me and Senator Lindsey
Graham, my Republican cosponsor.
We think there are about 1.8 million young people who are eligible
for the Dream Act in the United States. They have never known another
country. In the mornings, when they walk into the classrooms in their
schools, they stand up and put their hands on their chests and pledge
allegiance to the only flag they have ever known. They were just kids
when they were brought here. Shouldn't we do the right thing in
America--this Nation of immigrants, this country of opportunity, this
bright city on the hill, this shining city on the hill?
Yes, we should.
For the Dreamers and for their moms and dads, we have to renew our
commitment that the next generation of Americans who will come from all
over the world will continue to make this one of the finest countries
on Earth.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The Senator from Iowa.

Women's History Month

Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, we rise to celebrate Women's History Month.
This month is, of course, very personal to me as a woman, a daughter,
and a mother. One of the sayings I love is: ``Well-behaved women seldom
make history.'' This is so true. I want to reflect on a few of these
fearless females--trailblazers--who have made history and who have
shaped our future.
These are women like suffrage leader Carrie Chapman Catt. She founded
the League of Women Voters in 1920, which was 2 years after she helped
women gain the right to vote. Catt relocated to Iowa when she was 7
years old, and she graduated from what is now Iowa State University, my
alma mater. She was so committed to the cause of women that she helped
found the International Woman Suffrage Alliance to help spread rights
for women all around our globe.
I fast-forward to today, when one can see the fruits of her labor. In
Iowa, we just elected our first female Governor--my friend and a
fearless female, Kim Reynolds. We also gained two new women lawmakers
with the election of Abby Finkenauer and Cindy Axne and a record number
of women in the Iowa State House, led by Speaker of the House Linda
Upmeyer. In Congress, we have a record number of women who serve in the
U.S. House and 25 who serve in the U.S. Senate. While we come from
differing backgrounds and political stripes, I admire these women for
jumping into the arena.
I also reflect on a woman named Deborah Sampson. Sampson is credited
as the first woman to serve in the U.S. Army. This hero, who couldn't
serve openly as a female, disguised herself as a male and joined the
Continental Army in 1781. She led forces on a mission that helped to
capture 15 enemy soldiers. She served as a scout, dug trenches, and
endured battle wounds. She even extracted a pistol ball from her own
leg so no one would know she was a female.
Fast-forward to today, when thousands of women are serving in the
military and are taking on bigger and badder roles. They are all brave,
fierce, and honorable. They are modern-day Deborah Sampsons.
I think of the wonderful women with whom I served in the Army and of
all of those whom I commanded--my wonderful mechanics, my truckdrivers,
my admin specialists. I think of my daughter, who is a cadet at West
Point, as well as Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson, and so many other
women who serve in Active Duty, as reservists, and as National
Guardsmen. They all serve our great Nation.

[[Page S2025]]

Finally, I reflect on Gertrude Dieken. Dieken was from Grundy County,
IA. She was an editor and the first woman vice president of the Farm
Journal--a renowned magazine that is dedicated to farming. Savvy in
business, economics, and journalism, Dieken established a book
publishing division and became the first female member of its board of
directors.
Iowa women are today exercising their girl power, making it happen on
the shop floor, in the boardroom, on the farm, and in every occupation
in between. Iowa is now ranked eighth for growth in the number of
women-owned businesses.
As part of my 99 County Tour, I have met many of these phenomenal
women and have heard their stories and dreams for their futures. I am
continually inspired by these fearless females and the thousands of
other women like them who have paved the path forward and broken--
shattered--that glass ceiling. They are changing lives and are helping
our economy and our communities grow.
We know it isn't always easy today to be a fearless female, just as
it was not easy for the trailblazing women of the past. We must
continue to take on the challenges that confront women from all walks
of life--harassment, abuse, and discrimination. Keeping the economy
strong, along with issues like childcare access, criminal justice
reform, healthcare, and paid parental leave, are areas in which I am
working to move that ball forward.
Melinda Gates often says, ``When women and girls are empowered to
participate fully in society, everyone benefits.'' I believe that to be
true.
The future is bright for women today--in particular, for young
women--because of the sacrifices of those who have come before us. We
have a common bond as females, sisters, mothers, grandmothers, and
daughters. It is easy to look at these historical examples as a mere
recitation of facts and figures, but I view them as a challenge--a
challenge to all women to stand strong and reject the status quo, to
achieve greatness, to be a friend and a mentor, and to prove all of
those doubters wrong. Whether you are a stay-at-home mom or a woman in
America's boardrooms or anywhere in between, you are making a
difference.
As Peggy Whitson--famed astronaut and first female to command the
International Space Station--once said: ``If a farmer's daughter from
Iowa can be an astronaut, you can be just about anything you want to
be.''
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, it is my honor to be here with my fellow
woman Senator from the State of Iowa. I enjoy learning more about Iowa
and about the strength of Iowan women and in our Nation.
I join my colleague to highlight and celebrate not only the women
leaders in the Senate but the millions of women throughout history and
across the country who have made and continue to make a difference in
their homes, in their communities, and in society in general.
I am very proud to represent the State of West Virginia--a State with
a long and rich history of female trailblazers. It is a State that
respects and celebrates those women. Maybe you have heard that phrase
``mountain mamas.'' Well, Mother's Day was actually originated in West
Virginia by Grafton resident Anna Jarvis in 1908. President Woodrow
Wilson made it an official national holiday in the year 1914, and it is
an annual reminder today to cherish and thank one of the, if not the,
most influential women in many people's lives--their mothers.
I miss my mother every day. I know my mother, who was the First Lady
of West Virginia, was an incredible role model for me and an
inspiration. Seeing all she did for our State and for our fellow West
Virginians through her public service was a driving force throughout my
life. Not only that, she was a great and loving mother, and as I said,
I still miss her every day.
Another West Virginia woman who has been an incredible inspiration is
Katherine Johnson. Katherine was born in White Sulpher Springs, WV, in
1918. In her being brilliant with numbers, she attended West Virginia
State College and was later one of the first Black students to
integrate West Virginia University's graduate school in 1939. That is
pretty notable in and of itself, but Katherine didn't stop there.
In 1953, she took a job at NASA and began working as a human
computer. She literally calculated how to get men into space. Remember,
with the launch of the Soviets' satellite Sputnik in 1957, the space
race was on. America needed a win, and Katherine Johnson played a major
role in facilitating that win. Her work put John Glenn into space and
into history. The success of that mission marked a turning point in the
space race altogether, and it made a significant impact in the future
of space travel and exploration. Some may better recognize Katherine's
name from the movie ``Hidden Figures.''
I am proud to say that in tribute to Katherine and her incredible
legacy at NASA, I introduced legislation to rename West Virginia's only
NASA facility after her. President Trump signed that bill into law last
year, and Fairmont, WV, is now the home of the Katherine Johnson
Independent Verification & Validation Facility. At 100 years young,
Katherine still serves as a tremendous role model to me and to women
everywhere.
Of course, all of our States are home to brilliant women. My home of
West Virginia is home to numerous amazing women who have made
significant contributions, and we are proud to claim them all.
I don't know if one remembers America's sweetheart of 1984, Olympic
gold medalist Mary Lou Retton, who is a native of West Virginia; Mother
Jones, who is a champion of the working class and a labor organizer who
campaigned for the United Mine Workers; Pulitzer Prize-winning author
Pearl S. Buck; the host of the ``TODAY'' show, Hoda Kotb; actress and
advocate Jennifer Garner; and Saira Blair. Many of you have never heard
of Saira Blair. Several years ago, at the age of 18, she became the
youngest person ever--male or female--to get elected to a State or
Federal office. She served in the West Virginia House of Delegates.
These incredible women and so many others have helped to shape
history and society, and they have paved the way for the next
generation of leaders--girls and young women who might not yet have
realized or achieved their full potential.
In 2015, I was sworn in as West Virginia's first female Senator. This
distinction is a privilege for me, and it is an honor. It is certainly
nothing I take lightly. I may well be the very first female Senator
from West Virginia, but I am very confident that I will not be the
last--certainly, not if I can help it.
So, shortly after I came to the Senate, I started an initiative
called West Virginia Girls Rise Up because I want to inspire the next
generation of leaders. Through that program, I visit fifth grade girls
across the State. We talk about their dreams, what they can be when
they grow up, and how they can be the best versions of themselves.
As a matter of fact, the Senator from Iowa mentioned the astronaut,
Peggy Whitson. She was with me when I did two Girls Rise Up in West
Virginia, and we talked about three different accomplishments that
girls can do to reach their full potential--education, physical
fitness, and self-confidence. I believe these are the building blocks
for a successful future for whatever you want to do.
Then we set goals. Maybe it is reading more. Maybe it is eating
healthier. Maybe it is raising your hand more in class. Most
importantly, I challenged these girls to achieve these goals.
What I hope the girls get out of this is that you can reach a goal
you set for yourself now--or at least really work hard to--and you can
reach your next goal when you get older. Then you can reach your next
goal and your next goal and your next goal, until you find yourself
doing groundbreaking research in a lab, being a CEO of a Fortune 500
company, designing a skyscraper at an architectural firm, or working to
make our country a better place from the floor of the U.S. Senate or, I
will add, as President of the United States.
The possibilities are endless, but the common thread is this: Think
about what it is you want, work hard to make your dreams a reality, and
have confidence to never back down.
As I travel across West Virginia with my West Virginia Girls Rise Up
Program, I am constantly amazed at the

[[Page S2026]]

potential of the young women I see. I know the same is true in States
across this country.
I hope those girls are watching us here in this Chamber today. I hope
they are hearing the stories of the incredible women and trailblazers
who have come before us. I hope they are thinking to themselves: That
could be me one day.
I am incredibly proud to be a part of what female leaders are doing
right now, but I am more incredibly optimistic to see what our future
female leaders will do in the years ahead.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in
recognizing Women's History Month and celebrating the countless women
who have shaped our Nation and those who continue to devote their time
and energy to the pursuit of equality here at home and abroad.
Women have demonstrated incredible perseverance in the face of
adversity. Their stories of fighting for equal opportunity are
ingrained in the history of our country. We wouldn't be the great
Nation that we are without those who paved the path for a more
promising future for women.
We honor the individuals whose remarkable courage and dedication to
challenging the status quo helped advance women's rights and those who
followed their dreams while breaking the glass ceiling.
In 1932, Arkansas elected Hattie Caraway to the U.S. Senate, which
made her the first woman elected to this body. She broke barriers,
changed norms, and helped lay the foundation for the new role women
were beginning to be recognized as deserving to play in the Senate
throughout her legislative career.
Senator Caraway served nearly 14 years in the Senate, where in 1933
she was the first woman to chair a Senate committee and in 1943 became
the first woman to preside officially over the Senate.
Arkansans are particularly proud that our legacy in the U.S. Senate
includes electing the first woman to serve in this Chamber. The path
that Hattie Caraway trailblazed for more women to enter the ranks of
the world's greatest deliberative body has, without a doubt, made the
Senate a better, stronger institution and has benefited our Nation
immensely.
Today, more women are serving in Congress than ever before. We need
to look no further than Hattie Caraway to understand the magnitude of
her decision to step forward and serve her State and country.
More women are also answering the call to serve our Nation in
uniform. Women are the fastest growing demographic of veterans, but
many Department of Veterans Affairs facilities don't have the ability
to provide equitable care or services to our women veterans.
This Congress, Senator Tester and I have reintroduced legislation to
eliminate barriers to care and services that many women veterans face.
The legislation is appropriately named for Deborah Sampson--the Deborah
Sampson Act--which honors the service and sacrifice of the American
Revolution hero who actually disguised herself as a man in order to
serve in the Continental Army.
We can be proud of Deborah Sampson and the countless women patriots
who have followed in her footsteps.
We must update VA services to support the unique needs of our entire
veteran population, including the growing number of women relying on VA
for care.
While opportunities remain to advance women's equality, the United
States recently took an important step to empower women worldwide.
Congress approved and President Trump signed into law the Women's
Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act. Senator Cardin and I
introduced the legislation to eliminate global gender-related barriers
and empower female entrepreneurs around the world.
In some parts of the world, women are pushed so far to the sidelines
that they are denied access to even the most basic financial services.
Cultural and historical barriers prevent women from launching a
business, building savings, and supporting economic growth in their
communities. Leveling the playing field will help the world economy
grow substantially.
Providing women access to tools for economic success supports global
prosperity. Our country can lead by example and help deliver these
tools and empower women. I look forward to seeing women succeed because
of this legislative effort.
I am a dad of three daughters and a grandfather to two little girls.
I want women across the globe to have the same access to resources and
opportunities that my girls have because I have seen with my own eyes
how limitless their potential is.
Earlier this year, President Trump launched the Women's Global
Development and Prosperity Initiative to empower women around the world
to fulfill their economic potential. The Women's Entrepreneurship and
Economic Empowerment Act is an essential piece of this plan to deliver
global results.
Empowering women strengthens families, communities, and our Nation.
As we take this time to reflect on the challenges women have overcome
and still face, let us continue the momentum started generations ago by
hard-working, courageous, and determined women who envisioned a country
full of opportunities for success for all.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

The Green New Deal

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, the Senate has unanimously rejected the
so-called Green New Deal. In a display of political courage for the
ages, 43 Democrats voted present, including many of the bill's own
sponsors.
Now, many of them are running for President. In fact, these days, it
seems that all of the Democratic Senators are running for President and
perhaps may realize what a disaster the Green New Deal is for them.
The Green New Deal would force a transition in just 10 years--one
decade--to 100 percent green energy, whatever that is. But it is an
impossible goal that would require trillions of dollars of taxes and
the effective nationalization of private industry in America.
That is not all--no, not all.
The Green New Deal would also overhaul or rebuild all existing
buildings in the United States to achieve maximum energy efficiency--
all--every single home and building in America. I guess you could call
it the ``Extreme Home Makeover Mandate.''
The Green New Deal also calls for taxpayer-funded college and jobs
for every person in the country, even for illegal aliens and even if
you are unable or unwilling to work. That is according to a press
release the Democrats sent out and then tried to send down the memory
hole when it was justly mocked, and understandably so.
Jobs for everyone who is unable to work and unwilling to work--there
is a big difference between those two groups of people.
The radical nature of the Green New Deal cannot be overstated. The
amount of control it would give to politicians and planners in
Washington would be the envy of Soviet Russia. Actually, it would make
Stalin blush. And it would take Stalinist tactics to achieve a Green
New Deal.
To borrow from Churchill, ``Socialism may begin with the best of
intentions, but it always ends with the Gestapo.'' Who else is going to
come into your home and make sure that it is energy compliant? Who else
is going to confiscate your gas-using pickup truck? Who else is going
to ensure that you don't commit the terrible crime of eating a
hamburger?
Perhaps we can come up with a better name for the Green New Deal--one
that reflects its true lineage. Might I suggest the Red New Deal, the
color of Communist regimes the world over, or perhaps the Green Leap
Forward in honor of Mao.
I gather some House freshmen might actually feel pretty comfortable
with those labels. They claim these radical ideas are necessary to stop
the threat of climate change--a threat so dire, the Democrats insist--
so dire that we will all be dead in 12 years--12 years--if we don't
surrender to totalitarian levels of power over our lives to central
planners in Washington.
Yet we gave them a chance to vote on this existential, apocalyptic
threat and they all said: Meh, maybe later.
So this isn't really about climate change or even the environment. I

[[Page S2027]]

mean, come on. What do free college for rich kids and guaranteed jobs
for lazy bums have to do with climate change?
The answer is: Nothing. And that tells you all you need to know about
what the Democrats are up to.
The Green New Deal isn't a real policy proposal. It is just the
Democrats' most fanciful and frightful dreams wrapped in one shiny
package. I would call it a policy platform, but that would probably
give it too much credit for substance.
The President put it very well. He said the Green New Deal is more
like an undergraduate term paper, one written late at night after too
many bong hits, judging from its botched rollout.
If you really feared a climate catastrophe, you would do a couple of
simple things. First, you would build as many new, beautiful, carbon-
free nuclear powerplants as you could. But the Green New Deal omits
nuclear energy entirely, no doubt to please the Democrats' crony
renewable energy lobbyists and the anti-nuclear know-nothings in the
Democrats' base.
Second, you would get tough on the world's biggest polluters,
especially on China. Foreign nations, after all, have driven almost all
of the growth in global carbon emissions since the turn of the century.
But the Green New Dealers seem to believe America is the root of all
of the world's problems, even though our emissions have been declining.
It is just another case of the Democrats' guiding principle: Blame
America first.
Of course, if we did something as stupid as pass the Green New Deal,
most foreign nations would just laugh at us and keep building their
economies and keep polluting while we tanked our own economy,
immiserated our citizens, and lost millions of jobs in pursuit of a
fantasy.
The Green New Deal would amount to America's unilateral disarmament
on the world stage, which for some Democrats is probably a feature and
not a bug. But sometimes even terrible ideas deserve a vote. So we gave
them a vote on the Green New Deal, and the bill's own sponsors
complained.
In any event, the Senate flunked the Democrats' term paper
unanimously, and the only reason the Green New Deal got an F is that
there is not a lower grade. So common sense prevailed this time,
although I have a feeling this is not the last time we have heard of
the Green New Deal.
Remember, this is not the hobby horse of some eccentric socialist
fringe of the Democratic Party--oh, no, not at all. The Green New Deal
has 90 Democratic cosponsors in the House. That is nearly two out of
every five House Democrats, and the Democratic Presidential candidates
have rushed to endorse the Green New Deal. Remember that when you step
into the voting booth in 2020.

But let me wrap up on a more serious note. I have made a lot of jokes
about the Green New Deal, and, believe me, the Green New Deal is
laughable. But for many Americans, the Green New Deal is no laughing
matter.
Imagine, if you will, a mom and dad and a couple young kids outside
Little Rock, let's say. Every day, they drive the kids to school. They
commute into the city where they work and back out to the suburbs, just
so they can afford a home. When they are home on the weekends, maybe
they try to fire up the grill on the patio to have a little cookout for
the kids.
This working-class family is doing its best to live the American
dream and pass it on to their kids. The Green New Deal is not for that
family. It would outlaw their entire way of life, from the minivan in
the garage to the hamburgers on their grill, to the house they call
home.
The Green New Deal would be a death sentence for America's families.
Yet the Democrats have the nerve to sell it as a rescue mission. I
reject that fraud on America, and now so does the Senate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, March is Women's History Month. A number of
my colleagues have been coming to the floor and talking about the
accomplishments of particular women in their States. I want to do the
same thing.
When Virginia Minor, a St. Louisan, was denied the ability to
register to vote in 1872, she took her case all the way to the Supreme
Court. While she wasn't successful at the Supreme Court level, she
remained a leader in the suffrage movement and later testified before
the Senate Select Committee on Woman Suffrage in 1889. Remember that
women didn't get the right to vote until 1920. So she was working on
this with thousands of others for a long time. She is also one of seven
women represented in the Missouri State Capitol's Hall of Famous
Missourians.
Virginia Minor and her fellow suffragettes blazed a trail of
political leadership that others followed. In 1952 Leonor Sullivan
became the first woman in Congress from Missouri. During the 24 years
that she served in the House, she became the first woman appointed to
the House Democratic Steering Committee. She was elected secretary, one
of the elected leaders, of the House Democratic caucus for five terms.
Our former colleague, Senator Claire McCaskill, won her Senate race
in 2006. With that, she became the first woman elected to the U.S.
Senate from Missouri. Certainly, Senator McCaskill and I disagreed on
plenty of things over the years, but, frankly, when it came to the big
issues affecting our State, we always figured out how to work together
to get things done.
Also from our State, I want to recognize Margaret Kelly, who in 1984
was appointed to the position of State auditor. When that happened,
that made her the first woman to hold statewide office in Missouri. She
was elected to a full term in 1986 and reelected two more times after
that.
In Missouri, at least, you can't talk about politics and the impact
on politics without talking about Phyllis Schlafly, who was a vocal and
tireless advocate for conservative ideas. She was never afraid of a
fight, but she also knew when to celebrate what was possible. One of
the great things about Phyllis Schlafly was that she knew how to win,
when you could win, and what you could win, when you could win it, and,
then, how to come back and fight for what you didn't get the first time
and continue to work for more. She was a friend of mine. I value her
legacy. There is no question that she impacted the political landscape
of the country.
As I mentioned earlier, there are seven women represented in the Hall
of Famous Missourians. Two of them were committed lifelong to
education. In 1873 Susan Blow, who was born in St. Louis, founded the
first public kindergarten in the United States in the Des Peres public
school in Carondelet. In 1818 Saint Rose Duchesne opened the first
Sacred Heart school outside of Europe. The Academy of the Sacred Heart
was the first free school west of the Mississippi and the first
Catholic school in what would eventually become the St. Louis
Archdiocese. I mentioned that this was Saint Rose Duchesne, one of the
first women to be an American who rose to the level of sainthood.
There are also a few world figures in that hall of fame, like
Josephine Baker, who was not only an iconic entertainer but also a
civil rights activist and, interestingly, a member of the French
resistance during World War II while she was entertaining in Europe. In
our hall of fame, she is joined by other entertainers, like Ginger
Rogers and Betty Grable.
The seventh woman honored in the State capitol is Sacagawea, who, of
course, was part of the Lewis and Clark expedition into Missouri and up
the Missouri River and other territories of the Louisiana Purchase.
To cover all of the notable Missouri women in history would be
impossible. To talk about the countless women who are making an
incredible impact in our State today would be impossible--people who
are devoted to public service, who are successful entrepreneurs, who
serve our country in the Armed Forces, and so much more. Those women
and others continue to help lead our country and to inspire younger
women. There is a reason that March is Women's History Month, and
thousands and thousands--maybe millions--of Missouri women would easily
qualify in that category of people who have made a difference in
history.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

[[Page S2028]]

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, as we celebrate Women's History Month, I
am proud to spotlight Wyoming's great history and achievements for
women's equality.
Wyoming is the ``Equality State''--the first State to give women the
right to vote and hold public office. We actually did it before
statehood. Long before statehood, in 1869, the Wyoming Territory was
the first to grant women the right to vote.
Louisa Ann Swain of Laramie became the first woman in the United
States to vote in a general election in 1870, and Wyoming insisted on
protecting women's right to vote as a precondition for even joining the
Union in 1890.
Now, that is not all. The first elected woman Governor in the United
States, Nellie Taylor Ross, was Wyoming's 14th Governor.
Wyoming women continue to hold key elected offices today, with strong
leaders like U.S. Representative Liz Cheney.
The State owes a debt of gratitude to all of these extraordinary
women leaders.

The Green New Deal

Now I would like to turn to this week's debate over the Democrats'
so-called Green New Deal.
The Green New Deal isn't about protecting our environment. It is
about increasing the size and scope of the Federal Government.
Every Democrat Senator running for President supports the Green New
Deal. They have cosponsored it--each and every one of them, every
single one.
By cosponsoring the Green New Deal, these Senators have shown
Americans what they actually do support as candidates and as an agenda
for America, and that is massively increasing the size of government.
This year the Federal Government is projected to spend over $4
trillion. That amount includes everything--Social Security, national
defense, Medicare, all of it. If we were to pass the Green New Deal, it
would cost up to $93 trillion over the next 10 years. That is $9.3
trillion a year--more than double what our government currently spends.
So, you see, the Green New Deal would massively expand the Federal
Government, and that is exactly what Democrat Senators running for
President want and plan to do, if elected. Don't be confused by Senate
Democrats' ducking this vote on the Green New Deal. This is where
Democrats would take our country if they were to retake the White
House.
The Green New Deal would bankrupt our Nation, would wreak havoc, and
would wreck the economy.
Republicans' pro-growth, pro-jobs policies have strengthened the
economy and improved the lives of American families in their everyday
lives at home. Because of tax relief, millions of families have more
money now in their pockets to decide what to spend, what to save, and
what to invest.
The Green New Deal plan would eliminate fossil fuels by requiring 100
percent renewable, carbon-free energy in just 10 years. Talk about
having extra money in your pocket to fill your gas tank, but just
putting gas in the car would be extremely difficult if the Green New
Deal were to come to pass.
On the issue of climate change, climate change is real, but the Green
New Deal is unrealistic. While it is important, in 2017 wind and solar
energy generated just 8 percent of our electricity. Should we have
more? Yes, but 8 percent of what we need is certainly inadequate.
Affordable and reliable fossil fuels, like coal and natural gas,
power three out of five U.S. homes and businesses. Excluding fossil
fuels would snuff out the bright lights of Americans' prosperity. It
would threaten national security. It would threaten jobs. It would
threaten our independence from foreign energy, and all Americans'
higher standard of living.
What Democrats are proposing is essentially a pipe dream. It is no
surprise that Democrats have yet to provide a cost estimate. They don't
want Americans to know that the Green New Deal could cost up to $93
trillion over the next 10 years. That is roughly $65,000 each and every
year for each and every family in America.
The Nation is already over $22 trillion in debt. So how are they
planning to pay for this? By doing what they often plan to do--raising
taxes.
Paying for a $93 trillion bill would empty just about every
Americans' savings account in the country, and let's not forget that
the Green New Deal would not actually solve the problems they are
trying to solve. Really, the proposal amounts to unrealistic economic
disarmament.
Plus, U.S. economic decline would harm the environment. That is what
we are hearing from the Green New Deal. It would be unilateral harm to
our economy and no improvement to the overall global climate. They want
it done immediately. They want it done drastically. It is a level of
alarm that is not in any way called for.
When you think about the American economy and what we are able to do
in this country, it is a strong economy that allows for a clean
environment. The stronger the economy, often the cleaner the
environment is. That is certainly the case here, when you compare us
around the world to other countries and their economies and their
environments.
The label ``Made in America'' means more than just the country of
origin. It means the better the environment. We are being asked to
destroy--that is what the Democrats are asking us to do with this Green
New Deal--our strong, growing, and improving economy and allow the
largest polluters in the world to grow at our expense.
Right now, 13 percent of emissions comes from the United States, but
33 percent comes from China and from India, and emissions in the United
States have been declining over the last dozen years, while they
continue to go up in China and India and in other locations around the
world.
Why do Democrats want to do this? Well, they would like to engineer a
big government takeover--or, I should say, as they say,
transformation--of the U.S. economy.
There is a real solution that will not wreck our economy, will not
hurt our Nation, will not hurt people's jobs, and will not hurt
American families. The solution is not taxation. It is not regulation.
It is innovation. Republicans continue to work, and we do it in a
bipartisan way to advance innovative strategies for reducing carbon
emissions.
First, we are working to promote carbon capture, and then using that
carbon and sequestering it, taking it away. That means taking carbon
out of the atmosphere and using it productively. We can use it for
medical projects, construction projects, and for extracting oil. You
can push the carbon dioxide into the ground in the area of oil wells
and get out more oil, as a result, leaving the carbon dioxide
underground.
Last year, the Senate passed the bipartisan FUTURE Act. It was signed
into law, and it expands tax credits for carbon capture facilities.
Now we are advancing the bipartisan USE IT Act, which will help to
turn carbon that has been captured into valuable products.
A second way Republicans are working in a bipartisan way to reduce
emissions is by supporting nuclear power. Nuclear power generates about
60 percent--60 percent--of American-produced carbon-free energy. By
far, that is the largest source of American carbon-free energy. It is
much more than double solar and wind power combined.
In late December, we passed the bipartisan Nuclear Energy Innovation
and Modernization Act. This legislation had Republican and Democratic
support and was signed into law by President Trump. This law will help
innovators develop advanced nuclear reactors that are safer, cleaner,
and more versatile. That is what we need to do. It is simplifying the
process on the front end for the innovators to build state-of-the-art
nuclear reactors. These advanced reactors are going to power the next
generation of nuclear plants. We need them to expand the use of carbon-
free energy. We also need to maintain our existing nuclear powerplants,
and Congress needs to address how we manage nuclear waste. Nuclear
power is an area with broad bipartisan support. We must continue to
work together on nuclear power.
A third approach that Republicans are taking to reduce emissions is
increasing the use of renewable energy. Republicans have repeatedly
passed tax incentives to promote clean energy. These include tax
credits for wind and solar panels, as well as incentives for biodiesel
and compressed natural gas.

[[Page S2029]]

We know all these innovative strategies work. We see it in America's
unparalleled success in reducing emissions. This progress is not the
result of taxation; it is not the result of regulation; it is the
result of American innovation. Our cutting-edge technologies can be
adopted globally.
Republicans want to make America's energy as clean as we can, as fast
as we can, while investing in promising innovations for the future.
Democrats want more government control. That is what they asked for
with the Green New Deal--control of our economy and control of our
lives, despite the cost to American families and American taxpayers.
Let's continue to pass real climate solutions, not these far-left
fantasies. Let's focus on what works for our environment and our
economy, not what works for Democrats who are running for President.
Republicans are going to continue to oppose unrealistic, unworkable,
and unaffordable proposals like the Green New Deal. It is a big green
bomb. The Democrats are ducking it, they are dodging it, and they are
now distancing themselves from it by showing up on the floor of the
Senate--those who have cosponsored it, those who have gone on TV and on
the hustings around the country saying they would support it and be for
it--and voting not for it but present. The Democrats are ducking this
for a good reason: They know what a disaster it would be for our
Nation.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

Career and Technical Education

Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I am on the floor today to talk about
career and technical education and specifically legislation we have
introduced that would provide a lot more training opportunities for
people who need the in-demand jobs that are out there.
When people hear about career and technical education, sometimes they
wonder what we are referring to. High school programs used to be called
vocational education. Many in my generation might remember it as that.
But it is not your father's Oldsmobile. It is not the old voc-ed
programs you might remember. In fact, it is very impressive. If you go
to these CTE schools today--and Ohio, luckily, has a lot of great
career and technical academies and schools--you will see something
amazing. You will see young people being trained for some of the most
sophisticated jobs out there in bioscience and technology, welding, of
course, and manufacturing--in Ohio, it is a big deal--and also CDLs for
truckdrivers, commercial driver's licenses. You might see somebody
there who is interested in going into firefighting or EMS. This
morning, I had a chance to visit with a young man who is in a CTE
program where he is going to be immediately hired by a fire department.
These are great opportunities for our young people. Right now, these
CTE schools are incredibly important because the skills are needed, and
the training is needed.
One of the challenges we have had, frankly, is that sometimes parents
who are advising their kids are saying ``You need to go to a 4-year
college or university like I did'' or maybe like their uncle or aunt
did. Maybe that is the goal they have for their kids, and that is fine.
For many young people, that is appropriate, but for others, what a
great opportunity, to be able to get out of high school, get a job
immediately--a good-paying job with good benefits--and then at some
point, because often in these schools, including in Ohio, you get
college credit while you are in high school, to go on to college later,
and perhaps your employer will pay for that.
This morning, I was with a young woman named Jordan. She is at the
Great Oaks career and technical center in Southwest Ohio. Jordan is
becoming a welder, and, as I explained to Jordan, she is going to have
amazing opportunities. She will have plenty of job opportunities
because she is going to have a skill that is so badly needed in Ohio
right now. Our manufacturing sector is desperate for welders, and they
are willing to pay good money for welders. She can make 45,000, 50,000
bucks a year with good benefits at 18 years old as a welder instead of
taking on student debt, which in Ohio is about $27,000 on average.
Somebody graduating from community college or a 4-year college or
university is taking on significant debt.
This is an opportunity for us to get more young people into career
and technical education. We think we ought to do it. We have a good
economy right now thanks to tax reform and regulatory relief. There is
a lot of hiring going on, and wages are actually higher right now. In
Ohio, we have a number of people who are looking for employees. The
``help wanted'' signs are out there.
We have about 148,000 jobs available in the State, if you look at
OhioMeansJobs.com, which is the website that offers these positions.
Now, there are about 250,000 Ohioans out of work. How does that make
sense? Well, it makes sense because if you look at the jobs that are
being offered, for many of the jobs, you have to have a skill. You have
to be a coder or a machine operator or a welder, or you have to have
some bioscience background to be a tech. So if we had the skills
training, we would be able to fill these jobs, which is great for the
companies and for the economy but also, again, a great opportunity for
these young people.
In 2018, our economy added 223,000 jobs per month on average. That is
about twice what the pre-tax reform baseline estimate was from the
Congressional Budget Office of only 107,000 jobs per month. So we more
than doubled it. We have also had strong wage growth over the last 12
months. In fact, wage growth in the last year was higher than at any
time in the last decade.
In Ohio, frankly, for a decade and a half we have had flat wages.
Finally, we are now seeing wages going up. Last month, the average was
about 3.4 percent growth for private sector workers and, by the way, it
is more for blue-collar workers than for white-collar workers,
supervisory workers, which is all good news.
We have a lot of good things going on in terms of increasing jobs,
increasing wages, increasing benefits. Much of that is due to tax
reform. I have gone all around our State and talked to folks at
roundtable discussions. I have been to over 25 businesses to talk
specifically: What did you do with the tax savings? Every one of them
has a great story, but with all these pro-growth policies kicking in,
the thing I am hearing now is: Yes, the tax reform helped us. The
regulatory relief is a good idea, but we need workers, we need people,
and we need them to have the skills that go with the jobs we have. This
mismatch between the skills that are out there and these jobs, that
skills gap is the thing we need to close.
There are lots of ways to do that. The National Skills Coalition
estimates that nearly half of all job openings between now and 2022
will be middle-skill jobs that require education beyond high school but
not a 4-year degree. If you have a career in technical, with
opportunities in high school, and then when you get out of high school,
you have a certificate or you can get into a course where you can learn
how to do one of these skills--although you are not getting an
associate's degree or a bachelor's degree, you are getting a
certificate, often a stackable certificate that can lead to a degree
later--that is what is going to be needed.
In its most recent skills gap study, Deloitte and The Manufacturing
Institute highlighted the fact that there are so many jobs out there
that need these skills. They estimate there are about 2.4 million
positions likely to be unfilled between 2018 and 2028. The economic
impact of not having these jobs filled is about a $2.5 trillion hit to
our economy. This is why all of this is so important.
About 6 years ago, we started the Career and Technical Education
Caucus in the Senate. At first, there were two of us, Senator Kaine
from Virginia and myself. Now we have 27 Senators on the CTE Caucus.
Why? Because Members are hearing back home about this,

[[Page S2030]]

which has been good to raise awareness for career and technical
education. It has been helpful for us to put together some bipartisan
legislation that helps to promote career and technical education.
Last year, in the Perkins bill, for instance, Senator Kaine and I got
legislation in that helps to improve the quality of CT programs all
around the country, ensuring again that college credit can be offered,
helping to hold up programs to make sure young people and their parents
know about this opportunity.
Just a couple weeks ago, Senator Kaine and I reintroduced legislation
called Jumpstart Our Businesses by Supporting Students Act. The acronym
is the JOBS Act. The JOBS Act is something we introduced in the last
couple of Congresses, but I really feel its time has come. I feel it is
an opportunity right now for us to move forward with the JOBS Act. One,
we are hearing from all around the country the need for this, but,
second, we have the likelihood of a higher education bill moving this
year, which would be the perfect place to put the JOBS Act.
It is a commonsense solution to help solve the skills gap problem we
are talking about. It says, with regard to Pell grants--which is for
low-income students--instead of just making them available for
community colleges or 4-year colleges or universities or for longer
term courses, why not allow Pell grants to be used for shorter term
training programs? That is what is needed right now.
I think this is a fairness issue. When I talk to students, as I did
this morning here in Washington, as I do back in the State of Ohio,
what they tell me is: Rob, I don't have the money to get a driver's
license and go through that process, much less to get a certificate to
become a welder or to become a coder or to become a tech in a hospital
setting. The government will give me a Pell grant to go to a junior
college or a community college or a university, but I can't get a Pell
grant to help me get the training I need to actually get out there and
get a job that I know is right there, ready, good pay, good benefits.
To me, that shows how our system is not working with regard to the
modern economy and the needs we have right now, and it is not fair to
those students. I think we ought to allow students to use Pell grants
for shorter term training programs of less than 15 weeks. I also think
it is a matter of efficiency of the Pell grant and the taxpayer.
Unfortunately, most people who take a Pell who go to a college don't
graduate. There are lots of reasons for that. I think the main reason
is because many of them have to drop out because they have to work,
but, in the meantime, they don't have the degree. So they have the
Pell, but they don't get the degree, not even a certificate; whereas,
in these short-term training programs, a 15-week training program--
trust me, if somebody starts off in one of these training programs, it
is much more likely they will end up getting the certificate. They can
see just around the corner where the job is. In a sense, the
certificate is the ticket to that job, and it is a shorter term
prospect. I think it is a very efficient use of the Pell grant, and we
should expand the Pell grant, not take it away from colleges and
universities--not at all. Pell is an incredibly important program, but
let's allow it to be used for short training programs.
I was at the CT Program in Akron, OH, recently. I also went to Stark
State Community College. They have a new campus. We had a roundtable on
workforce development. We had a lot of local businesses there talking
about how great these programs have been for them. We had students
there. The chamber of commerce was there. Mayor Dan Horrigan of Akron
and Summit County executive Ilene Shapiro were there. I heard from
students in high school and in community college who were already
working for some of the local employers, businesses like the K Company,
an HVAC company based in Akron. They work with Stark State; they work
with local high schools; and they get young people on the right
educational track to be able to work in the HVAC field where there are
plenty of jobs right now. If you are an HVAC tech, you can get a job.
It has been a great example of where they are helping the economy, they
are helping a particular business, and they are really helping students
to get a great job.
Stark State president Dr. Para Jones is very innovative, working with
our high schools and working with the business community, trying to
ensure we are all working together on this. Dr. Jones, the employers
who were around the table, the educators who were around the table, and
the students who were around that table--all of them--were really
excited about the JOBS Act. They know it is going to work. They know
this will help them deal with exactly the problems they are seeing in
the local community.

Last week, I also toured a company in Hubbard, OH, Warren Fabricating
and Machining. As always happens, I heard about the need for skilled
workers. It is a great example of a company taking full advantage of
the tax reform and tax cuts. They bought a beautiful, new machine that
is incredibly important for their effectiveness as a company to be able
to compete with China and others. They have also been able to raise
people's salaries and increase the benefits with their tax savings, but
their issue now is getting the workforce. They want to operate at full
capacity, but they can't find the people. They have openings right now.
I also visited an advanced manufacturer called Rhinestahl Corporation
in Mason, right outside of Cincinnati. They manufacture high-precision
parts for the aerospace and defense industry. Other employers were
there, as well as Butler Tech, which is a local CTE program which has
done really incredible, innovative work.
There, I had the opportunity to meet with a lot of students. One of
them was a high school student named Jake. He is a chemical operator at
a nearby manufacturer called Pilot. He is a veteran who has completed
his certificate training, and his employer is now paying for him to
continue his education and get a degree while working for them. Connor
was there, a high school student who is running machines and learning
advanced manufacturing while working at a place called RB Tool. Torez
is a 19-year-old who went to the program and is now in charge of
calibration and making sure precision tools are up to speed at this
company, Rhinestahl.
The teacher of all these students, a guy named Dave Fox, was there.
He said his last class of 28 graduates had a combined total of more
than 100 job offers. Think about this. These young people going through
these certificate programs, 28 young people, had more than 100 job
offers. These are good job offers. We are talking about $40,000,
$50,000 a year, jobs that pay $18 to $20 an hour and good benefits, and
a lot of employers will pay for them to continue their education,
should they choose to do so.
Last week, President Trump came to the Joint Systems Manufacturing
Center in Lima, OH. This is an incredible manufacturing facility that
does something unique in America, which is they build tanks. The kind
of welding they have to be trained on is incredibly sophisticated and
difficult to do. The kind of machine work they have to do is really
difficult. Cutting the tanks' steel is an incredibly difficult task,
plus some other alloys they use to protect our troops in the field.
They need to hire about 400 additional workers in the next year or so,
partly because, with the defense buildup, we are putting more money
into the plant. I am very pleased to say President Trump in his budget
put more funding into the Lima plant this year, but they need workers,
and they need help training people. They need skilled welders,
machinists, assembly workers, and various types of engineers.
These are good-paying jobs and great opportunities for young people.
Whether they are coming up through the ranks in high school or whether
they are midcareer changing jobs, it would be great for us to help them
get the people they need, and the JOBS Act, they all say, would be
exactly what they need to help to do that.
At a roundtable discussion at Staub Manufacturing in Dayton recently,
the CEO of the company told me he believes welders coming out of high
school will be better off financially than many attorneys or doctors.
I asked him what he meant by that. He pointed out that while an
attorney

[[Page S2031]]

or another professional might make more coming right out of school, by
the time they get out of school--law school, as an example--and get out
of debt and start investing, the welder is well on his or her way to
building a significant nest egg.
It is true. When you think about it, a welder makes, let's say,
$50,000 a year starting at age 18. Let's say there is no student debt
because, again, through the certificate program and through a Pell--if
we get the JOBS Act passed, in particular--this person is able to do so
without any student debt. Using an online calculator and assuming about
8 percent growth, if that individual sets aside 10 percent of his or
her income toward retirement, from the age of 18 up to 67--and this
assumes a person gets no raise at all, which of course is not going to
happen. A person is going to have a higher salary over time as the
person gets more seniority, but assuming no raise, $50,000 a year: $2.8
million in retirement savings at age 67. That is a nice nest egg to be
able to live comfortably in retirement with peace of mind.
Compare that to an attorney, let's say, making $100,000 a year in a
big law firm, starts investing at least at 30 years old, after they get
through school and paying off their debt. It may be later, but let's
say 30 to be conservative. If that person sets aside 10 percent of his
or her income: $2.2 million by age 67. So even though the attorney had
a higher salary and was investing twice as much each month, the welder
making $50,000 a year is going to be better off.

Part of this is getting people into these jobs and getting them into
jobs when they are young, where they can begin to make investments in
their retirement but also make investments in a car, buy the house,
start putting money aside for their kids' education, just to have the
peace of mind that comes with knowing you are going to have this
profession and this opportunity to get ahead early in life.
I am hoping we can get the JOBS Act passed. It would help provide so
many people--particularly young people--these opportunities. If we can
shift the paradigm, stop this notion of thinking that everybody who is
going through high school needs to go to a 4-year college or university
right away and instead think about, how do you ensure that this young
person can have an opportunity to get ahead in life, learn a skill
where there is an immediate need, and actually help our economy?
Because our biggest challenge right now, as I see it--not just in the
manufacturing sector, where it is particularly obvious, but across the
board, in bioscience, certainly in moving, transportation,
truckdriving, and other professions, the biggest challenge we have
right now is workforce. This would do both.
The JOBS Act has been endorsed by the National Skills Coalition, the
Association for Career and Technical Education, the Association of
Community Colleges and Trustees--I know community colleges have put
this highest on their list--and other groups.
I am also pleased to say, again, it is in the budget. President Trump
puts together a budget every year. This year's budget actually has our
JOBS Act included in it. It is one that is totally bipartisan.
Senator Kaine from Virginia and I have been the coauthors of this
legislation over the years. We continue to work closely together on
this. We have 10 cosponsors already, having just introduced this a
couple weeks ago. It is a bipartisan group, mixed, Republicans and
Democrats. We also have a lot of outside stakeholders supporting it,
and, again, it is now in the President's budget.
The reason we are getting all this support is it works. It works. It
will cover programs that, at a minimum, require 150 hours and 8 weeks
to complete. There are some alternative programs that limit them by
requiring them to be 320 hours. I will tell you our community colleges
tell me none of their short-term training programs would qualify for
that higher number of hours--programs like welding, precision
machining, electrical trades. All those programs would fit into the
JOBS Act but not into some of the alternatives that are being
discussed.
We need the JOBS Act now, and we think there is a great vehicle for
it--which is the Higher Education Act--this year. A big fan of career
and technical education is the chairman of that committee, Senator
Lamar Alexander. He understands the need for us to provide the kind of
skills training needed to fill the jobs that are out there that
companies are desperate to fill. He sees this in his own State of
Tennessee, where he has a lot of manufacturing jobs, including auto
manufacturers that are looking for more skilled workers every day.
As we work to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, my hope is
colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join us in ensuring that the
JOBS Act is included in that. Let's be sure that we deal with the
fairness issue here and that we have a sense of understanding about our
economy and what the needs are right now.

A lot of that need is in skills and the kind of skills that the JOBS
Act would provide. It just makes too much sense.
If we make career and technical education a priority and if we enact
the JOBS Act I discussed today, we are going to help tens of thousands
of our young people be able to achieve their dreams, whatever they are,
and to have better opportunities. Just as important, we are going to be
able to help our economy--help to ensure that here in the United States
we have a growing economy where we have better tax policy, better
regulation policy, and also, for the workers, ensure that the companies
don't pick up and move because they don't have the workforce. Companies
tell me in Ohio: You know, Rob, we could do what we are doing here in
other places, and not just Indiana, which is next to Ohio, but maybe
India.
We don't want that. We want to have the workforce that is needed to
be able to keep these good jobs and keep these companies here in this
country, to ensure that we can keep moving in a positive direction,
and, again, to ensure that Ohioans can develop the skills they need to
grow in the career of their choice and to fulfill their potential in
life.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cramer). The Senator from Pennsylvania.

Childcare

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to talk about an issue that I know
is on the minds of many, many Americans, especially folks who are in
the middle class or who are struggling to get to the middle class, and
that is the issue of childcare.
I think most of us in this Chamber agree that all children born in
this country have a light inside of them. For some children, that light
will shine very brightly without a lot of help as they have innate
abilities or they have circumstances they are born into for which they
don't need a lot of help from public policy or from programs or from
legislation. Yet there are a lot of children who have a light inside of
them that can burn to the full measure of its potential if we do our
job. When I say ``our job,'' I mean the job of elected officials. I
think it is the job of every elected official at every level of
government and of those who work with them to do everything they can to
make sure that the light inside of every child burns as brightly as at
least the full measure of his or her potential.
We know, just by way of one example in the context of childcare, that
affordable, high-quality childcare enables parents to work so they can
support their families. Also, quality, affordable healthcare helps give
children the early learning experiences they need to develop and
succeed in school. When children learn more and it is early in life,
they will earn more much later in their lives. That connection between
learning and earning isn't just a rhyme; all the research shows that
there is a direct connection. When that child learns at a younger age
because of early education and quality childcare and so many other
strategies, we are all better off. Not only is that child better off in
his or her family, but we are all better off. We will have a higher
skilled workforce; we will have a more productive workforce; and we
will grow and be able to out-compete any country in the world if we
invest in early learning.
Unfortunately, we know the challenges. The cost of childcare has
increased by 25 percent in just the last decade, which has created
significant

[[Page S2032]]

financial strains for those same middle-class families. According to
data from Child Care Aware, which is in my home Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, the average cost of full-time, center-based childcare is
about $11,560 for an infant and about $8,712 for a 4-year-old. This is
about 12 percent of a married couple's annual income in Pennsylvania,
and it is nearly 46 percent of a single parent's annual income--46
percent. That is not sustainable. That is not a number that anyone
should be satisfied with. Frankly, I am not sure that 12 percent of the
annual income for a two-parent family is sustainable. We should get
that number into the single digits. The bill I will talk about in a
moment seeks to do that.
Just this past week, when we were all back in our States and were
able to travel for the better part of a week, I had the chance to get
to six childcare centers in cities across Pennsylvania, and I spoke to
more than 25 families who shared their stories about their struggles.
The struggle, of course, in this case, was the struggle to afford high-
quality childcare.
I was in Philadelphia, Pottstown, Gettysburg, Verona, Erie, and
Reading. If you had charted those cities on a map, you would have
literally gone from the furthest corner of the southeastern part of our
State, which is Philadelphia, to the most remote, northwestern corner
of the State, in Erie. I went to communities below Erie and to the
northeast as well--so literally every corner of the State. Across those
communities, we heard a lot of the same challenges, a lot of similar
stories.
For example, one single mom in Philadelphia told us recently what, I
think, is emblematic of what is happening in a lot of communities:

I struggle every day to make ends meet. I am not eligible
for any public assistance, so I juggle my bills just to make
ends meet. I have to become very creative in making sure that
I pay my mortgage, utilities, and childcare.

Then she goes on from there to write:

Then I decide if I can pay for anything in addition to
that, such as healthcare, food, necessities for my child or
my home. I knew I would not be able to afford childcare.
Luckily, I have the support of loved ones in my life who
support me when I fall short. Most do not have this.

Then this single mother goes on to write the following:

All of my family and friends struggle to pay for childcare
because we are middle class individuals who make too much
money to qualify for childcare assistance or any other
programs, but we also don't make enough money to actually
afford childcare out of pocket. Oftentimes, we have to choose
a childcare based off of a price and not based off of the
quality of education they will provide our children at the
childcare facility.

Notice what she wrote at the end there. She is making a decision
about the childcare she will provide for her children based off only
one consideration--the price. It is not based on the quality.

Therein lies the problem that we have to try to solve. If we have
millions and millions of families--middle class or who are struggling
to get to the middle class--making childcare determinations based
solely on the cost, we will all be in trouble over time. That is not
what we should be doing. It doesn't mean the price will not be a
challenge for so many, and it doesn't mean the price will be
irrelevant, but if they are not able to find quality childcare that is
affordable, that child will be worse off over time; that community will
be; and the rest of us will be. We will not have the high-skilled
workforce that we need. We will not be able to compete and win the
battle across the world that we need to win, and that is the battle to
create the highest skilled workforce in the world and to maintain that
advantage.
When I was in Gettysburg this past week, I heard from two parents who
had adopted two children, one of whom has significant medical issues
and has been in and out of the hospital. They have struggled to find a
childcare center that is able to handle the behavioral and
developmental needs of their children. The father, who is a small
business owner, has had to make adjustments to his work schedule and
sell off some of his business assets to make ends meet. He has had to
choose between paying for his own health insurance or that of his
children. He has had to give up his own insurance to ensure there will
never be a lapse in coverage for his children. He makes too much money
to qualify for childcare subsidies but lives with constant anxiety over
his financial situation.
Part of his testimony and that of his wife was very emotional because
of the stress and the pressure on that family--the stress and pressure
of the healthcare itself and also of the stress and pressure because of
the cost of childcare.
I was grateful he was willing to share his story. In a public
setting, it is not easy to talk about the burdens that you live with
every day in order to push a policy forward so as to make life better
for another family. Like a lot of these parents, I was grateful they
were willing to help us better understand those struggles so that we
could better propose good policy.
We also heard from a single mom who works long hours as she tries to
advance and work her way up the corporate ladder. Prior to her current
circumstance, she was waitressing and barely making $11,000 a year.
When she was hardly making any income, she was able to make ends meet
with the assistance of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
and CCIS, which is our State's childcare program that helps families.
Now she is in a different circumstance. She works full time--an
achievement that she is quite proud of. She is no longer eligible,
though, for these programs because her income has gone up.
The good news is her income went up, and she has a full-time job. The
bad news is that it knocks her out of eligibility. She must pay the
full cost of childcare and be away from her children. She doesn't know
what she will do during the summer as she will need to increase the
time her children are in care, which will result in higher costs when
her children are on summer break. So that is the dilemma she faces--
working harder and getting a full-time job but then not being able to
afford help. She needs help from us as well.
I spoke with a mother in Verona, PA, in Allegheny County, who has an
11-month-old child who is in childcare now. Though both she and her
husband work full time, they struggle to afford care. They would like
to grow their family, but, again, the cost of childcare is their main
reason for not doing so. We know that childcare helps children grow and
learn, that it helps parents work and provide for their families, and
that it helps employers retain a productive workforce. Yet families
across the country are unable to afford care. That is why it is so
important that we increase Federal investments in early learning and
childcare.
For example, in fiscal year 2018, the Childcare and Development Block
Grant program was funded at $5.27 billion here in Washington. That was
an 83-percent increase--the largest single increase in the history of
the program. In that same year--the last budget year, the last
appropriations year--Head Start received a little more than $9.8
billion, and that was $610 million more than the program got in 2017.
Both of those were good results. It doesn't happen every day in
Washington, we know. These historic, bipartisan investments were
continued in the last fiscal year. So there was an increase in this
last fiscal year. It was nowhere near the increase of the prior year,
but there were extra dollars to sustain funding. These investments are
already making an impact in States like Pennsylvania and across our
country, but there is so much more unmet need and so much more work to
be done. So it is good news on the block grants, but, of course, that
is not the whole story on childcare.
I am pushing for both increased funding for the next fiscal year--the
one we are working on now, 2020--as well as two bills that will make
high-quality childcare accessible and affordable for low- and middle-
income families. The first is the Childcare for Working Families Act,
and the second is the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit Enhancement
Act. I will discuss them in that order.
The Childcare for Working Families Act would first provide direct
financial assistance to working parents to help pay for childcare and
early learning to ensure that no parents would pay more than 7 percent
of their household incomes for childcare if they earn less than 150
percent of the State's median income.
These numbers change between median household income and median

[[Page S2033]]

family income, but if you are just looking at the median household
income in Pennsylvania, it is about $57,000. If you do 150 percent of
that, you will be into the eighties, roughly. We don't know where the
line would be drawn for certain State by State, but if we can come up
with a way to keep costs below 7 percent for folks who are in that
income range--say, roughly, in the low eighties down--we can help these
families do two things: go to work while providing childcare for their
children that is quality childcare and also be able to afford it.
The second part of the bill--and it is, basically, three parts--will
be universal access to high-quality preschool programs for 3- and 4-
year-olds.
The third part would be to improve workforce compensation by ensuring
that all childcare workers are paid a living wage and that early
childhood educators are provided parity with elementary schoolteachers
who have similar credentials and experience. So there are three parts
to that bill--childcare help, early learning help with preschool, and
paying the workforce more.
People in both parties say it all the time: We care about our
children, and we care about our seniors. But sometimes the folks who
provide care to both groups of Americans--those who provide care and
early learning to children and those who provide skilled care in
nursing homes and other settings to seniors--are among the lowest paid
workers in our society. So we say we prioritize those Americans, and we
don't lift them up with the kind of workforce that they sometimes need.
The second bill I will talk about--and then I will wrap up--I will
soon reintroduce with Congressman Davis. It is a proposal to improve
and expand an existing tax credit which we know as the child and
dependent care tax credit, not to be confused with the child tax
credit, the tax credit you may have eligibility for if you have a
child. This one focuses on child care and dependent care.
This bill would help families pay for childcare expenses by doing the
following: first, increasing the maximum amount of the credit from just
over 1,000 bucks--about $1,050--to $3,000 per child, and it could go up
as high as 6,000 if you have more than one child, making the full tax
credit available to most working families with incomes up to $120,000 a
year.
Now, under the current law, that credit starts to lose its value once
you hit only $15,000 of income--not that high of an income level. By
raising that number, you are going to get a lot more middle-class
families that will benefit, as well as some trying to get to the middle
class.
The third part of the bill would ensure that lower income families
are better able to benefit from the credit by making it fully
refundable.
You have this strange dynamic where folks are working and they have
an income, but the income is rather limited and the credit is not
refundable. So they don't get anything back from that credit. So it
isn't worth much to them in many cases.
The last part of the bill will retain the value over time by indexing
the benefits of this child and dependent care tax credit and raise
those thresholds based upon inflation.
In conclusion, I think it is pretty simple. All children deserve the
chance to learn and succeed, regardless of where they are born or
regardless of their family's income. That is why it is so important to
make sure that all families have access to high-quality, affordable
childcare and early learning. Together, these proposals will help to
bring us closer to that reality and, I would argue, closer to meeting
our obligation as elected officials at every level of government--this
being the Federal level in the Congress, the Senate and the House,
meeting our obligation to make sure that the light inside of every
child burns to the full measure and shines to the full measure of its
potential.
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. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Federalist Society

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, this week the Senate conveyor belt of
President Trump's judicial nominees grinds on. So far, the President
and the Senate leader have an unprecedented pace in confirming Federal
judges, especially powerful Federal appellate judges. They seem to have
no higher priority.
What is a little weird about this is that nearly 90 percent of
Trump's appellate judges and both of his Supreme Court Justices are
members of the so-called Federalist Society. On the Supreme Court,
Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas all are members. Now, that is a
little weird.
What is really weird is that through this Federalist Society vehicle,
big, special interests are picking Federal judges.
In effect, there are three Federalist Societies. The first one most
lawyers know from law school. It is, for the most part, a debating
society made up of like-minded aspiring lawyers drawn to conservative
ideas and judicial doctrine. They organize seminars and invite
academics, judges, and attorneys to speak. That is terrific--no problem
there.
The second Federalist Society is the parent organization of the
campus debating society--a sort of highbrow think tank seeking to
further conservative and libertarian judicial principles. It convenes
fancy forums with conservative legal luminaries, from Supreme Court
Justices to big-name politicians, to renowned legal scholars. It issues
newsletters and produces podcasts and policy recommendations. Through
this, they hope to ``reorder priorities within the legal system'' and
create a network of members ``that extends to all levels of the legal
community.''
I disagree pretty strongly with the system of law they are trying
impose, and their funding is suspiciously obscure, but this debate is a
fine thing to have--so no objection there either.
Then there is the third Federalist Society. This one doesn't have
much in common with the law school debating society, and it certainly
doesn't operate like your run-of-the-mill Washington think tank. This
Federalist Society is the nerve center for a complicated apparatus that
does not care much about conservative principles like judicial
restraint or originalism or textualism.
This Federalist Society is the vehicle for powerful, commercial, and
industrial interests that seek not simply to ``reorder'' the judiciary
but to acquire control of the judiciary to benefit their interests.
This third Federalist Society understands the fundamental power of the
Federal judiciary to rig the system in favor of its donor interests
and, as the Kavanaugh confirmation so clearly illustrated, is willing
to go to drastic lengths to secure that power.
I am here today to talk about that third Federalist Society.
The story of the third Federalist Society is partly the story of a
man named Leonard Leo, the society's executive vice president.
Mr. Leo is now the most influential person shaping America's Federal
judiciary. Don't be surprised if you are listening and you have never
heard of him. He has never been elected. He is not accountable to any
voter. Instead, he is the front man for interests that want to use the
Federalist Society and its surrounding network of front groups and PR
shops and think tanks to acquire control over our courts.
Renowned court watcher Jeffrey Toobin describes Mr. Leo as ``Trump's
subcontractor on the selection of Supreme Court Justices.'' More
accurately, Mr. Leo is the subcontractor for a network of big corporate
interests and front groups.
In the summer of 2016, it was Leo who delivered the list of potential
nominees to fill the vacancy left by the death of Antonin Scalia and
the blocking of Merrick Garland. It was Mr. Leo who was involved in the
Trump transition, helping to conduct outreach to potential Supreme
Court picks, including Neil Gorsuch.
Mr. Leo even orchestrated a $1 million donation to Trump's
inauguration.
The role of the Federalist Society has been confirmed by President
Trump's own legal counsel, Don McGahn.
McGahn told a Federalist Society gathering in 2017:

[[Page S2034]]

Our opponents of judicial nominees frequently claim the
President has outsourced his selection of judges. That is
completely false. I have been a member of the Federalist
Society since law school, still am, so, frankly, it seems
like it's been in-sourced.

Ha-ha, so funny.
The Federalist Society does more than pick the judges. They prepare
them. They study the prospective nominees and the Senators who will ask
them questions. They gather murder boards for nominees to practice for
confirmation hearings.
Mr. Leo is proud of this operation. During the confirmation hearing
for Justice Neil Gorsuch, Leo told Toobin, with considerable
satisfaction:

You know, the hearings matter so much less than they once
did. We have the tools now to do all the research. We know
everything they have written. We know what they've said.
There are no surprises.

In the Judiciary Committee, we see the result over and over--
meaningless committee hearings where nominees parrot empty words about
applying law to fact and respecting precedent. Then, once confirmed and
on the bench, those nominees deliver dependably for the partisan and
corporate donors behind this Federalist Society operation.
It is bad enough that judicial selection has been outsourced--or
insourced--to a partisan private entity. Worse is how nontransparent
this all is. It is hard to find out who is behind it. It is a very
nontransparent problem, but here is what we have been able to piece
together. The evidence is that the Federalist Society is funded by
massive, secret contributions from corporate rightwing groups that have
big agendas before the courts.
In 2017 the Federalist Society took $5.5 million via an entity called
DonorsTrust. DonorsTrust has as its sole purpose to launder the
identities of donors to other groups so that Americans don't know who
the real backers are of the groups. It is an identity removal machine
for big donors. Through the hard work of investigators, journalists,
and researchers, we have learned that the Koch brothers are among the
largest--if not the largest--contributors to DonorsTrust. The
Federalist Society's total annual budget is about $20 million. So this
$5.5 million in funding, laundered through DonorsTrust, provides more
than a quarter of its entire budget.
Other shadowy corporate and rightwing organizations also donate
millions to the Federalist Society. In 1 year, the Lynde and Harry
Bradley Foundation, a rightwing trust, gave over $3 million to the
Federalist Society. Koch Industries, several other Koch-network
foundations and trusts, and nearly a dozen wholly anonymous donors have
given over $100,000 each to the Federalist Society. Tax documents from
2014, uncovered by the New York Times, show a donation of more than $2
million from the Mercer family, the secretive donors who helped start
Breitbart News and bankrolled the Trump campaign.
How do we know that these groups have a big agenda before the courts?
We know that because they also fund a fleet of front groups that file
so-called amicus briefs before courts signaling what results the big
donors want. The Kochs, the Bradleys, the Mercers, and their ilk spend
millions to pursue an anti-regulation, anti-union, and anti-environment
agenda, and they use the Federalist Society to stock the judiciary with
judges who will rule their way.
The Federalist Society, as a 501(c)(3) organization, is supposed to
stay out of politics. The Judicial Crisis Network is a 501(c)(4)
organization which can, and does, get involved in politics. The
Judicial Crisis Network is led by a disciple of Leonard Leo's, a former
clerk for ultraconservative Justice Clarence Thomas. The Judicial
Crisis Network has been described in conservative circles as ``Leonard
Leo's PR organization--nothing more and nothing less.'' When it comes
time to muscle a judicial nominee through Senate confirmation, the
Judicial Crisis Network swings into action. Media campaigns, attack
ads, and big spending--that is the Judicial Crisis Network's world.
Like its Federalist Society partner, the Judicial Crisis Network gets
massive sums of dark money, and it spends massively too. It spent $7
million on campaigns to block Merrick Garland from getting a hearing on
his nomination to the Supreme Court, and it spent $10 million to
support the nomination--blockade enabled--of Neil Gorsuch--and $7
million and $10 million--and it received one anonymous donation of
$17.9 million. One donor gave $17.9 million to this operation to
influence our judiciary. I will say that we need to know who that donor
was. Because we are in the minority, we are going to be spurned and
rejected if we try to get that information. On the House side, where
they have the power of subpoena, we need to pursue that. It ought to be
public information when one donor can spend nearly $18 million to
influence the selection of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.
Judicial Crisis Network then got $23 million from something called
the Wellspring Committee. You will have to forgive some of this because
it is very obscure. These are peculiar groups that aren't involved in
any ordinary business or regular activity. The Wellspring Committee is
a Virginia-based entity with ties to--you guessed it--Leonard Leo, and
the Judicial Crisis Network then promised to spend as much on the
Kavanaugh nomination as they had for Gorsuch.
Add to this mix of peculiarly funded and obscure organizations the BH
Group, a shell corporation that gave $1 million to Donald Trump's
inaugural. The BH Group received over $1 million in something called
consulting fees in 2017 from something else called the Judicial
Education Project. Who is Judicial Education Project? The Judicial
Education Project is--guess what--the 501(c)(3) side of the Judicial
Crisis Network. Why does a shell corporation give money to the Trump
inaugural and also serve as a consultant to a legal organization
fighting for the confirmation of specific Justices? What consulting did
they do? Was there any consulting done at all? Great questions. Leonard
Leo probably knows the answer. In 2018, he told the Federal
Elections Commission that the BH Group was his employer.

While this apparatus may be complex and difficult to track, its goal
is simple. Don McGahn explained it succinctly: ``Regulatory reform and
judicial selection are . . . deeply connected.'' Translated, that means
that the Federalist Society's goal is to pack the judiciary through
judicial selection with judges who will deliver what is called
regulatory reform, an extreme anti-regulation, anti-union, anti-
environment agenda for those corporatist Federalist Society funders.
Let me give you two examples.
The Senate just confirmed Neomi Rao to the DC Circuit Court of
Appeals. Rao comes right out of the deep bog of special interest dark
money. Her bio appears on the Federalist Society website, along with
the list of 26 times she has been featured at Federalist Society
events--26 auditions, as one might describe them.
This is a person confirmed for the DC Court of Appeals who has never
been a judge. She has never even tried a case. What has she done? She
served as the Trump administration's point person for tearing down
Federal regulations as head of the White House's Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs. Among her greatest hits was taking one of Scott
Pruitt's proposed regulatory rollbacks for the climate-change driving-
gas methane from the oil and gas industry and tipping that regulation
even further in favor of fossil fuel polluters. Out-Pruitting Scott
Pruitt for the fossil fuel industry is hard to do. That may have been
another audition for the court.
Rao also funded the so-called Center for the Study of the
Administrative State at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law
School, which is devoted to conjuring ways to roll back as many
regulations affecting these corporations as possible and is funded by
these same secretive groups.
I asked Ms. Rao about the funders of her center at the Scalia Law
School. She claimed in her answers--and, by the way, I will add that
these were questions for the record--written questions that she had
time to consider, review, and respond to. This was not a surprise
attack of an unprepared witness at a hearing. She had weeks to answer.
She claimed in her answers that, to the best of her knowledge, her
organization had not received any money from the Federalist Society,
from Koch Family Foundations, or from anonymous funders.
Well, that was simply not true. A Virginia open records request
revealed

[[Page S2035]]

that an anonymous donor and the Charles Koch Foundation donated $30
million earmarked specially for her organization. Guess whose interests
she has been conveyed onto the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to protect.
Now consider the case of Kisor v. Wilkie, a case currently before the
Supreme Court. It hasn't gotten much attention. On its face, it is
about an obscure administrative law doctrine, but Kisor has been
described as a ``stalking horse for much larger game''--whether
administrative agencies can continue to have the independence they need
to regulate in the public interests. At stake could be the power of the
EPA to protect our air and water, of the Department of Labor to
continue to protect workers in the workplace, and of the Securities and
Exchange Commission to protect investors against financial fraud.
Many corporations hate regulation. The problem is regulations are
pretty popular. Politicians may talk about cutting redtape, but their
constituents really like clean air and clean water. They want safe
workplaces and the peace of mind that their investments are sound.
That is where judges like Neomi Rao and cases like Kisor come in. For
decades we have operated in a system where Congress passes laws and
administrative Agencies fill in the details and implement those laws
using their regulatory power and their time, patience, and expertise to
deal with complex problems. It has worked extremely well. Cases like
Kisor, however, slowly chip away at that system, shifting more and more
power from expert regulatory agencies to courts and to courts filled
with more and more judges like Neomi Rao.

The Daily Beast influence reporter Jay Michaelson wrote:

Sometimes thought of as a legal association, the Federalist
Society is actually a large right-wing network that grooms
conservative law students still in law school (sponsoring
everything from free burrito lunches to conferences,
speakers, and journals), links them together, mentors them,
finds them jobs, and eventually places them in courts and in
government.

Within this Federalist Society is this operation I have described,
funded by dark money and designed to remake our judiciary on behalf of
a distinct group of very wealthy and powerful, anonymous funders. Add
to that the dark money funding the so-called Judicial Crisis Network.
Add to that the dark money funding the amicus briefs telling these
judges what to do. Then look at the outcomes when the Federalist
Society-selected appointees get a majority on the court. It is not a
pretty sight.
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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________