[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 94 (Wednesday, June 5, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3255-S3261]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mr. Tester, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. King, Mr. 
        Rounds, and Ms. Smith):
  S. 1722. A bill to amend the National Housing Act to authorize State-
licensed appraisers to conduct appraisals in connection with mortgages 
insured by the FHA and to ensure compliance with the existing appraiser 
education and competency requirements, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1722

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``FHA Appraiser Eligibility 
     Expansion Act''.

     SEC. 2. APPRAISER STANDARDS.

       (a) Certification or Licensing.--
       (1) In general.--Section 202(g)(5) of the National Housing 
     Act (12 U.S.C. 1708(g)(5)) is amended by striking 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) and inserting the following:
       ``(A) be certified or licensed by the State in which the 
     property to be appraised is located;
       ``(B) be knowledgeable of the Uniform Standards of 
     Professional Appraisal Practice and the appraisal 
     requirements established by the Federal Housing 
     Administration;
       ``(C) meet the competency requirements described in the 
     Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice before 
     accepting an assignment; and
       ``(D) have demonstrated verifiable education in the 
     appraisal requirements established by the Federal Housing 
     Administration under this subsection, which shall include the 
     completion of a course or seminar that educates appraisers on 
     those appraisal requirements and is provided by the Federal 
     Housing Administration or is approved by the Course Approval 
     Program of the Appraiser Qualification Board of the Appraisal 
     Foundation or a State appraiser certifying and licensing 
     agency.''.
       (2) Application.--Subparagraph (D) of section 202(g)(5) of 
     the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1708(g)(5)), as added by 
     paragraph (1), shall not apply with respect to any appraiser 
     approved by the Federal Housing Administration to conduct 
     appraisals on mortgages insured under title II of the 
     National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1707 et seq.) on or before 
     the date on which the mortgagee letter or other guidance or 
     regulations take effect under subsection (c)(3).
       (b) Compliance With Verifiable Education and Competency 
     Requirements.--Effective beginning on the date on which the 
     mortgagee letter or other guidance or regulations take effect 
     under subsection (c)(3), no appraiser may conduct an 
     appraisal for any mortgage insured under title II of the 
     National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1707 et seq.) unless--
       (1) the appraiser is in compliance with the requirements 
     under subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) section 202(g)(5) of 
     such Act (12 U.S.C. 1708(g)(5)), as amended by subsection 
     (a); and
       (2) if the appraiser was not approved to conduct such 
     appraisals before the date on which the mortgagee letter or 
     other guidance or regulations take effect under subsection 
     (c)(3), the appraiser is in compliance with subparagraph (D) 
     of such section 202(g)(5).
       (c) Implementation.--Not later than the 240 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Housing and 
     Urban Development shall issue a mortgagee letter or other 
     guidance or regulations that shall--
       (1) implement the amendments made by subsection (a);
       (2) clearly set forth all of the specific requirements 
     under section 202(g)(5) of the National Housing Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1708(g)(5)), as amended by this Act, for approval to 
     conduct appraisals under title II of such Act (12 U.S.C. 1707 
     et seq.), which shall include--
       (A) providing that, before the effective date of the 
     mortgagee letter or other guidance or regulations, a 
     demonstration of competency and completion of training that 
     meet the requirements under subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) 
     of such section 202(g)(5), as amended by subsection (a), 
     shall be considered to fulfill the requirements under such 
     subparagraphs; and

[[Page S3256]]

       (B) providing a method for appraisers to demonstrate such 
     prior competency and completion; and
       (3) take effect not later than the date that is 180 days 
     after the date on which the Secretary issues the mortgagee 
     letter or other guidance or regulations.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Ms. Harris, Ms. Hirono, and Ms. 
        Klobuchar):
  S. 1733. A bill to limit the separation of children from their 
parents or legal guardians, to limit the detention of families and 
children, to provide unaccompanied alien children with access to 
counsel, to increase the number of immigration judges and support 
staff, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that will address one of the most pressing immigration problems facing 
our nation.
  For the past decade, thousands of families have fled violence and 
poverty to seek asylum in the United States. These families include 
vulnerable children who must be kept safe once they arrive in the 
United States. However, since the beginning of the Trump 
Administration, several new policies have been implemented.
  Most disconcerting is the Trump policy to separate young children, 
even babies, from their mothers and fathers. Dozens of these children 
spent days and weeks in cages with nothing but thin mats and aluminum 
blankets.
  We have also learned that the Trump Administration then deported many 
of these parents, leaving the children to be orphaned in this country. 
In fact, hundreds of children who were separated under this policy have 
now been apart from their parents for many months, without any 
immediate prospects for reunification. These children continue to 
experience extreme stress that leaves them vulnerable to serious, 
lifelong mental and physical health problems.
  Even when families are reunified after months apart, some children no 
longer recognize the mothers and fathers. This is unconscionable. Today 
I am introducing the Protecting Immigrant Families and Improving 
Immigration Procedures Act, a bill that will not only end the practice 
of separating families at the border, but also put in place other 
safeguards to protect these at-risk groups.
  The first component of the bill I am introducing today is the full 
text of the Keep Families Together Act, a bill I introduced earlier 
this year to halt the separation of families and which currently has 
more than 40 cosponsors. The President claimed to end his policy of 
separation in June 2018. However, we have since learned that the 
practice of separating families continues today.
  In fact, the Inspector General for Health and Human Services found 
that thousands more children were separated than the administration 
initially revealed in June. Parents who try to protect their children 
from violence and poverty abroad should not be punished by having those 
children ripped from their arms. Children should not be subjected to 
severe trauma in the interest of deterring migration.
  Instead, families should be kept together and given an opportunity to 
present their cases for asylum as has been done for the past seven 
decades.
  The second part of the bill I'm introducing today ensures that 
families with children are not forced into prolonged, indefinite family 
detention in order to remain together. Child welfare experts, including 
the American Academy of Pediatrics and the United Nations, have found 
that detention of this sort has tremendous negative effects on 
children's health and welfare. This bill guarantees that the Trump 
Administration cannot reverse the crucial protections that are 
currently in place under the Flores settlement agreement.
  The third piece of this bill would help address the backlog in our 
immigration courts while protecting the basic rights of children. This 
part of the bill contains provisions to provide adequate resources to 
our immigration court system. By adding additional judges and staff, 
courts will be able to reduce the crushing backlog of over a million 
pending deportation cases.
  The fourth component of this legislation is Senator Hirono's bill, 
the Fair Day in Court for Kids Act, that provides counsel for 
unaccompanied children. This is meant to ensure that these children 
receive a meaningful opportunity to present their cases in immigration 
court. This is important because young children, including toddlers, 
have been forced to represent themselves in immigration court in recent 
years. It is simply impossible for children to understand their legal 
immigration status or rights, let alone explain it to a judge.
  This bill protects the most vulnerable children in by providing 
counsel when there is no parent or legal guardian available. The final 
part of the bill will ensure that immigration judges can manage their 
caseloads and prioritize the cases as needed. Currently, individuals in 
deportation proceedings who have been victims of human trafficking or 
have assisted with criminal prosecutions are often eligible for visas 
that would protect them from deportation. This bill would allow 
immigration judges to close these deportation cases quickly to protect 
these vulnerable individuals and conserve scarce courtroom time. This 
will be a crucial step in clearing the backlog of pending immigration 
cases.
  By taking these steps, we will help put our immigration system on a 
pathway to respect the basic rights of children, particularly those who 
are fleeing violence and poverty abroad. These children are some of the 
most vulnerable people in the world, and it is absolutely essential 
that our legal system should treat them with fairness and respect.
  These are goals that should be appealing to Democrats and Republicans 
alike. I hope my colleagues will join me in passing the Protecting 
Immigrant Families and Improving Immigration Procedures Act.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text 
of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1733

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Families and 
     Improving Immigration Procedures Act''.

     SEC. 2. ENSURING THAT FAMILIES REMAIN TOGETHER.

       (a) Limitation on the Separation of Families.--
       (1) In general.--An agent or officer of a designated agency 
     shall not remove a child from his or her parent or legal 
     guardian at or near the port of entry or within 100 miles of 
     the border of the United States unless 1 of the following 
     situations has occurred:
       (A) A State court, authorized under State law--
       (i) terminates the rights of a parent or legal guardian;
       (ii) determines that it is in the best interests of the 
     child to be removed from his or her parent or legal guardian, 
     in accordance with the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 
     (Public Law 105-89); or
       (iii) makes any similar determination that is legally 
     authorized under State law.
       (B) An official from the State or county child welfare 
     agency with expertise in child trauma and development 
     determines that it is in the best interests of the child to 
     be removed from his or her parent or legal guardian because 
     the child--
       (i) is in danger of abuse or neglect at the hands of the 
     parent or legal guardian; or
       (ii) is a danger to himself or herself or to others.
       (C) The Chief Patrol Agent or the Area Port Director, in 
     his or her official and undelegated capacity, authorizes 
     separation, upon the recommendation by an agent or officer, 
     based on a finding that--
       (i) the child is a victim of trafficking or is at 
     significant risk of becoming a victim of trafficking;
       (ii) there is a strong likelihood that the adult is not the 
     parent or legal guardian of the child; or
       (iii) the child is in danger of abuse or neglect at the 
     hands of the parent or legal guardian, or is a danger to 
     himself or herself or to others.
       (2) Prohibition on separation.--An agency may not remove a 
     child from a parent or legal guardian solely for the policy 
     goal of deterring individuals from migrating to the United 
     States or for the policy goal of promoting compliance with 
     civil immigration laws.
       (3) Documentation required.--The Secretary shall ensure 
     that a separation based upon a situation described in 
     paragraph (1)(C)--
       (A) is documented in writing; and
       (B) includes the reason for such separation and the stated 
     evidence for such separation.
       (b) Recommendations for Separation by Agents or Officers.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act,

[[Page S3257]]

     the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services, shall develop training and guidance, with 
     an emphasis on the best interests of the child, childhood 
     trauma, attachment, and child development, for use by the 
     agents and officers, in order to standardize separations 
     authorized under subsection (a)(1)(C).
       (2) Annual review.--Not less frequently than annually, the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services shall--
       (A) review the guidance developed under paragraph (1); and
       (B) make recommendations to the Secretary to ensure that 
     such guidance conforms to current evidence and best practices 
     in child welfare, child development, and childhood trauma.
       (3) Requirement.--The guidance developed under paragraph 
     (1) shall incorporate the presumptions described in 
     subsection (c).
       (4) Additional requirements.--
       (A) Evidence-based.--The guidance and training developed 
     under this subsection shall incorporate evidence-based 
     practices.
       (B) Training required.--
       (i) Initial training.--All agents and officers of 
     designated agencies, upon hire, and annually thereafter, 
     shall complete training on adherence to the guidance under 
     this subsection.
       (ii) Annual training.--All Chief Patrol Agents and Area 
     Port Directors, upon hire, and annually thereafter, shall 
     complete--

       (I) training on adherence to the guidance under this 
     subsection; and
       (II) 90 minutes of child welfare practice training that is 
     evidence-based and trauma-informed.

       (c) Presumptions.--The presumptions described in this 
     subsection are the following:
       (1) Family unity.--There shall be a strong presumption in 
     favor of family unity.
       (2) Siblings.--To the maximum extent practicable, the 
     Secretary shall ensure that sibling groups remain intact.
       (3) Detention.--There is a presumption that detention is 
     not in the best interests of families and children.
       (d) Required Policy for Locating Separated Children.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     publish final public guidance that describes, with 
     specificity, the manner in which a parent or legal guardian 
     may locate a child who was separated from the parent or legal 
     guardian under subsection (a)(1). In developing the public 
     guidance, the Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services, immigrant advocacy organizations, 
     child welfare organizations, and State child welfare 
     agencies.
       (2) Written notification.--The Secretary shall provide each 
     parent or legal guardian who was separated, with written 
     notice of the public guidance to locate a separated child.
       (3) Language access.--All guidance shall be available in 
     English and Spanish, and at the request of the parent or 
     legal guardian, in the language or manner that is 
     understandable by the parent or legal guardian.
       (e) Required Information for Separated Families.--Not less 
     frequently than monthly, the Secretary shall provide the 
     parent or legal guardian of a child who was separated--
       (1) a status report on the monthly activities of the child;
       (2) information about the education and health of the 
     child, including any medical treatment provided to the child 
     or medical treatment recommended for the child;
       (3) information about changes to the child's immigration 
     status; and
       (4) other information about the child, designed to promote 
     and maintain family reunification, as the Secretary 
     determines in his or her discretion.
       (f) Annual Report on Family Separation.--Not later than 1 
     year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and 
     annually thereafter, the Secretary shall submit a report to 
     the committees of jurisdiction that describes each instance 
     in which a child was separated from a parent or legal 
     guardian and includes, for each such instance--
       (1) the relationship of the adult and the child;
       (2) the age and gender of the adult and child;
       (3) the length of separation;
       (4) whether the adult was charged with a crime, and if the 
     adult was charged with a crime, the type of crime;
       (5) whether the adult made a claim for asylum, expressed a 
     fear to return, or applied for other immigration relief;
       (6) whether the adult was prosecuted if charged with a 
     crime and the associated outcome of such charges;
       (7) the stated reason for, and evidence in support of, the 
     separation;
       (8) if the child was part of a sibling group at the time of 
     separation, whether the sibling group has had physical 
     contact and visitation;
       (9) whether the child was rendered an unaccompanied alien 
     child; and
       (10) other information in the Secretary's discretion.
       (g) Clarification of Parental Rights.--If a child is 
     separated from a parent or legal guardian, and a State court 
     has not made a determination that the parental rights have 
     been terminated, there is a presumption that--
       (1) the parental rights remain intact; and
       (2) the separation does not constitute an affirmative 
     determination of abuse or neglect under Federal or State law.
       (h) Clarification of Existing Law.--
       (1) Federal law.--Nothing in this section may be 
     interpreted to supersede or modify Federal child welfare law, 
     where applicable, including the Adoption and Safe Families 
     Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-89).
       (2) State law.--Nothing in this section may be interpreted 
     to supersede or modify State child welfare laws, as 
     applicable.
       (i) GAO Report on Prosecution of Asylum Seekers.--
       (1) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a study of the prosecution of asylum seekers 
     during the period beginning on January 1, 2008 and ending on 
     December 31, 2018, including--
       (A) the total number of persons who claimed a fear of 
     persecution, received a favorable credible fear 
     determination, and were referred for prosecution;
       (B) an overview and analysis of the metrics used by the 
     Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice 
     to track the number of asylum seekers referred for 
     prosecution;
       (C) the total number of asylum seekers referred for 
     prosecution, a breakdown and description of the criminal 
     charges filed against asylum seekers during such period, and 
     a breakdown and description of the convictions secured;
       (D) the total number of asylum seekers who were separated 
     from their children as a result of being referred for 
     prosecution;
       (E) a breakdown of the resources spent on prosecuting 
     asylum seekers during such period, as well as any diversion 
     of resources required to prosecute asylum seekers, and any 
     costs imposed on States and localities;
       (F) the total number of asylum seekers who were referred 
     for prosecution and also went through immigration 
     proceedings; and
       (G) the total number of asylum seekers referred for 
     prosecution who were deported before going through 
     immigration proceedings.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit a 
     report to Congress that describes the results of the study 
     conducted under paragraph (1).

     SEC. 3. FLORES SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

       (a) In General.--A family unit may be detained only in 
     accordance with the holding made in Flores v. Sessions et al. 
     (9th Cir. July 5, 2017; C.D. CA; July 24, 2015)) and the 
     stipulated settlement agreement as filed in the United States 
     District Court for the Central District of California on 
     January 17, 1997 (CV 85 4544 RJK) (commonly known as the 
     ``Flores settlement agreement'').
       (b) Rulemaking.--Any regulation proposed or promulgated to 
     supersede the Flores settlement agreement is null and void.
       (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act may be 
     construed--
       (1) to affect the application of the Flores settlement 
     agreement to unaccompanied alien children; or
       (2) to abrogate the Flores settlement agreement.
       (d) Review of Detention Determinations.--The review of any 
     determination by the Secretary to detain an individual or 
     family unit under this section shall be in accordance with 
     all other provisions of law, holdings (including any holding 
     made in Flores v. Sessions et al. (9th Cir. July 5, 2017; 
     C.D. CA. July 24, 2015)), consent decrees, and settlement 
     agreements (including the Flores settlement agreement).

     SEC. 4. ACCESS TO COUNSEL FOR UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILDREN.

       (a) Appointment of Counsel.--In any removal proceeding and 
     in any appeal proceeding before the Attorney General from any 
     such removal proceeding, an unaccompanied alien child (as 
     defined in section 462(g) of the Homeland Security Act on 
     2002 (6 U.S.C. 279(g))) shall be represented by Government-
     appointed counsel, at Government expense.
       (b) Length of Representation.--Once a child is designated 
     as an unaccompanied alien child under subsection (a)--
       (1) the child shall be represented by counsel at every 
     stage of the proceedings from the child's initial appearance 
     through the termination of immigration proceedings; and
       (2) any ancillary matters appropriate to such proceedings 
     even if the child reaches 18 years of age or is reunified 
     with a parent or legal guardian while the proceedings are 
     pending.
       (c) Notice.--Not later than 72 hours after an unaccompanied 
     alien child is taken into Federal custody, the child shall be 
     notified that he or she will be provided with legal counsel 
     in accordance with this section.
       (d) Within Detention Facilities.--The Secretary shall 
     ensure that unaccompanied alien children have access to 
     counsel inside all detention, holding, and border facilities.
       (e) Pro Bono Representation.--
       (1) In general.--To the maximum extent practicable, the 
     Attorney General should make every effort to utilize the 
     services of competent counsel who agree to provide 
     representation to such children under this section without 
     charge.
       (2) Development of necessary infrastructures and systems.--
     The Attorney General shall develop the necessary mechanisms--
       (A) to identify counsel available to provide pro bono legal 
     assistance and representation to children under this section; 
     and
       (B) to recruit such counsel.
       (f) Contracts; Grants.--
       (1) In general.--The Attorney General may enter into 
     contracts with, or award

[[Page S3258]]

     grants to, nonprofit agencies with relevant expertise in the 
     delivery of immigration-related legal services to children to 
     carry out the responsibilities under this section, including 
     providing legal orientation, screening cases for referral, 
     recruiting, training, and overseeing pro bono attorneys.
       (2) Subcontracts.--Nonprofit agencies may enter into 
     subcontracts with, or award grants to, private voluntary 
     agencies with relevant expertise in the delivery of 
     immigration related legal services to children in order to 
     carry out this section.
       (g) Model Guidelines on Legal Representation of Children.--
       (1) Development of guidelines.--The Executive Office for 
     Immigration Review, in consultation with voluntary agencies 
     and national experts, shall develop model guidelines for the 
     legal representation of alien children in immigration 
     proceedings, which shall be based on the children's asylum 
     guidelines, the American Bar Association Model Rules of 
     Professional Conduct, and other relevant domestic or 
     international sources.
       (2) Purpose of guidelines.--The guidelines developed under 
     paragraph (1) shall be designed to help protect each child 
     from any individual suspected of involvement in any criminal, 
     harmful, or exploitative activity associated with the 
     smuggling or trafficking of children, while ensuring the 
     fairness of the removal proceeding in which the child is 
     involved.
       (h) Duties of Counsel.--Counsel provided under this section 
     shall--
       (1) represent the unaccompanied alien child in all 
     proceedings and matters relating to the immigration status of 
     the child or other actions involving the Department of 
     Homeland Security;
       (2) appear in person for all individual merits hearings 
     before the Executive Office for Immigration Review and 
     interviews involving the Department of Homeland Security;
       (3) owe the same duties of undivided loyalty, 
     confidentiality, and competent representation to the child as 
     is due to an adult client; and
       (4) carry out other such duties as may be proscribed by the 
     Attorney General or the Executive Office for Immigration 
     Review.

     SEC. 5. INCREASES IN IMMIGRATION JUDGES AND SUPPORT STAFF.

       (a) Immigration Judges.--The Attorney General shall 
     increase the total number of immigration judges to adjudicate 
     pending cases and efficiently process future cases by not 
     fewer than 75 judges during fiscal year 2019.
       (b) Support Staff.--The Attorney General shall--
       (1) increase the total number of judicial law clerks by 75 
     during fiscal year 2019; and
       (2) increase the total number of support staff for 
     immigration judges, including legal assistants and 
     interpreters, by 300 during fiscal year 2019.

     SEC. 6. DOCKET MANAGEMENT FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION.

       Notwithstanding any opposition from the Secretary, 
     immigration judges may administratively close cases, and the 
     Board of Immigration Appeals may remand cases for 
     administrative closure, if an individual in removal 
     proceedings--
       (1) appears to be prima facie eligible for a visa or other 
     immigration benefit; and
       (2) has a pending application for such benefit before U.S. 
     Citizenship and Immigration Services or another appropriate 
     agency.

     SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Agent; officer.--The terms ``agent'' and ``officer'' 
     include contractors of the Federal Government.
       (2) Child.--The term ``child'' means an individual who--
       (A) has not attained 18 years of age; and
       (B) has no permanent immigration status.
       (3) Committees of jurisdiction.--The term ``committees of 
     jurisdiction'' means--
       (A) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
       (B) the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
     of the Senate;
       (C) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (4) Danger of abuse or neglect at the hands of the parent 
     or legal guardian.--The term ``danger of abuse or neglect at 
     the hands of the parent or legal guardian'' shall not mean 
     migrating to or crossing the United States border.
       (5) Designated agency.--The term ``designated agency'' 
     means--
       (A) the Department of Homeland Security;
       (B) the Department of Justice; and
       (C) the Department of Health and Human Services.
       (6) Finding.--The term ``finding'' means an individualized 
     written assessment or screening by the trained agent or 
     officer that includes a consultation with a child welfare 
     specialist, formalized as required under subsection (b)(3) 
     and consistent with subsections (c), (d), and (h).
       (7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARPER:
  S. 1734. A bill to amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to 
allow the District of Columbia to receive Federal funding under such 
Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, today I am once again introducing 
legislation to allow the District of Columbia to receive funding and 
other benefits under the Coastal Zone Management Act. I am pleased to 
offer this companion legislation to a bill, H.R. 2185, introduced by 
the Congresswoman from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton.
  Few of us realize that 70 percent of the District is located within 
the coastal plain. Similar to my State of Delaware, sea level rise, 
upstream sources of water, degraded infrastructure, and coastal 
subsidence mean that the District could experience serious future 
cleanup and repair costs due to flooding--including damage to federal 
property, which makes up almost 30 percent of the District. The 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports that 
since 1950, nuisance flooding has increased by more than 300% in the 
District. And, since 2006, DC has experienced two 100-year flooding 
events, and District officials estimate that a future 100-year flood 
event could cause over $1.2 billion in damages. Needless to say, these 
events will become more and more common due to climate change--
including rising sea levels--and coastal subsidence.
  The District of Columbia would use funding from the Coastal Zone 
Management Program for flood risk planning and environmental 
restoration to prevent and mitigate future flood damage. At the same 
time, this work would help to restore and conserve the District's 
coastal resources such as habitat, fisheries, and endangered species.
  If included in the Coastal Zone Management Program, the District of 
Columbia would be eligible for $1 million or more of federal funding 
annually to assist in coastal flood-control projects, to combat non-
point source water pollution, and to develop special area management 
plans in areas experiencing environmental justice and/or flooding 
issues.
  The National Coastal Zone Management Program, housed in NOAA, was 
established through the passage of the Federal Coastal Zone Management 
Act of 1972. At the time, Congress recognized the need to manage the 
effects of increased growth in the nation's coastal zone, which 
includes jurisdictions bordering the oceans and the Great Lakes.
  There are currently 34 jurisdictional coastal zone management 
programs, including both States and territories. In order for the 
District of Columbia to participate in the program, Congress must pass 
this amendment to the Coastal Zone Management Act that would include 
the District under the definition of a ``coastal state.''
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1734

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Flood Prevention Act of 
     2019''.

     SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR FEDERAL 
                   FUNDING UNDER THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT 
                   OF 1972.

       Section 304(4) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 
     (16 U.S.C. 1453(4)) is amended by inserting ``the District of 
     Columbia,'' after ``the term also includes''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Reed, and Mr. 
        Coons):
  S. 1741. A bill to direct the Secretary of Energy to establish a 
program to advance energy storage deployment by reducing the cost of 
energy storage through research, development, and demonstration, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a set of three bills 
that will lower the cost of energy storage, increase flexibility in the 
power grid, and create a comprehensive set of grant programs to advance 
development of renewable energy technologies throughout the country.
  Currently, many energy technologies--like energy storage--compete in 
unfair markets, making it hard for new innovations to measure up to 
more established technologies like those of the fossil fuel industry. 
Congress and the Department of Energy

[[Page S3259]]

can work hand-in-hand with industry to level the playing field, using a 
fair, tech-neutral approach when updating the electricity system, to 
benefit the American consumer.
  My Reducing the Cost of Energy Storage Act will provide funding to 
the Department of Energy to research and develop ways to lower the cost 
of energy storage technologies. Ultimately, this bill will make it 
possible for renewable energy to be used on a more reliable and 
affordable basis.
  To protect the power supply from disruptions caused by natural 
disasters, which can wipe out power to millions of homes, my Flexible 
Grid Infrastructure Act will require the Department of Energy to find 
and develop ways to make the power grid more flexible and responsive to 
these challenges. The bill will also connect displaced workers to 
training programs that will allow them to transition to high-skill 
clean energy jobs. Finally, this bill will provide States and utilities 
with resources to upgrade the flexibility and reliability of the power 
grid.
  In order to ensure private sector growth in distributed energy 
technologies, my Distributed Energy Demonstration Act will create 
competitive, cost-share grant programs for new small-scale, grid-
connected projects, such as rooftop solar panels, hot water heaters, 
electric vehicles, and modernized utility pricing technologies.
  Together or apart, these bills will promote a more flexible 
electricity grid that can respond to power disruptions from natural 
disasters and ensure reliable, low-cost electricity for consumers now 
and in the future. They will also lower costs for energy storage 
technologies that make renewable energy more reliable and cost-
effective, boost funding for cutting-edge research, and reward State 
and private sector innovations, which will make renewable energy more 
reliable and affordab1e for U.S. energy consumers.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself. Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. Harris, and Ms. 
        Klobuchar):
  S. 1744. A bill to provide lawful permanent resident status for 
certain advanced STEM degree holders, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the text 
of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1744

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Keep STEM Talent Act of 
     2019''.

     SEC. 2. LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR CERTAIN ADVANCED 
                   STEM DEGREE HOLDERS.

       (a) Aliens Not Subject to Direct Numerical Limitations.--
     Section 201(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1151(b)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(F)(i) Aliens who--
       ``(I) have earned a degree in a STEM field at the master's 
     level or higher while physically present in the United States 
     from a United States institution of higher education (as 
     defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1001(a))) accredited by an accrediting entity 
     recognized by the Department of Education;
       ``(II) have an offer of employment from, or are employed 
     by, a United States employer in a field related to such 
     degree at a rate of pay that is higher than the median wage 
     level for the occupational classification in the area of 
     employment, as determined by the Secretary of Labor; and
       ``(III) are admissible pursuant to an approved labor 
     certification under section 212(a)(5)(A)(i).
       ``(ii) In this subparagraph, the term `STEM field' means a 
     field of science, technology, engineering, or mathematics 
     described in the most recent version of the Classification of 
     Instructional Programs of the Department of Education 
     taxonomy under the summary group of--
       ``(I) computer and information sciences and support 
     services;
       ``(II) engineering;
       ``(III) mathematics and statistics;
       ``(IV) biological and biomedical sciences;
       ``(V) physical sciences;
       ``(VI) agriculture sciences; or
       ``(VII) natural resources and conservation sciences.''.
       (b) Procedure for Granting Immigration Status.--Section 
     204(a)(1)(F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1154(a)(1)(F)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``203(b)(2)'' and all that follows through 
     ``Attorney General''; and
       (2) by inserting ``203(b)(2), 203(b)(3), or 201(b)(1)(F) 
     may file a petition with the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security''.
       (c) Dual Intent for F Nonimmigrants Seeking Advanced STEM 
     Degrees at United States Institutions of Higher Education.--
     Notwithstanding sections 101(a)(15)(F)(i) and 214(b) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)(i), 
     1184(b)), an alien who is a bona fide student admitted to a 
     program in a STEM field (as defined in section 
     201(b)(1)(F)(ii)) for a degree at the master's level or 
     higher at a United States institution of higher education (as 
     defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1001(a))) accredited by an accrediting entity 
     recognized by the Department of Education may obtain a 
     student visa or extend or change nonimmigrant status to 
     pursue such degree even if such alien intends to seek lawful 
     permanent resident status in the United States.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SINEMA (for herself and Mr. Tillis):
  S. 1749. A bill to clarify seasoning requirements for certain 
refinanced mortgage loans, and for other purposes; considered and 
passed.

                                S. 1749

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Affordable 
     Mortgages for Veterans Act of 2019''.

     SEC. 2. SEASONING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN REFINANCED 
                   MORTGAGE LOANS.

       (a) Ginnie Mae.--Section 306(g)(1) of the National Housing 
     Act (12 U.S.C. 1721(g)(1)) is amended by striking the second 
     sentence.
       (b) Veterans Loans.--Section 3709(c) of title 38, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the matter before paragraph (1), by striking ``is 
     refinanced'' and inserting ``is a refinance''; and
       (2) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the 
     following new paragraphs:
       ``(1) the date on which the borrower has made at least six 
     consecutive monthly payments on the loan being refinanced; 
     and
       ``(2) the date that is 210 days after the first payment due 
     date of the loan being refinanced.''.
       (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act may be 
     construed to restrict or otherwise modify the authorities of 
     the Government National Mortgage Association.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEE (for himself and Mr. Hawley):
  S. 1753. A bill to promote accountability and effective 
administration in the execution of laws by restoring the original 
understanding of the President's constitutional power to remove 
subordinates from office; to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, President Trump was famous for many things 
even before he was elected. One of those things was the catch-phrase 
``You're fired,'' which he popularized on his reality TV show ``The 
Apprentice.''
  This is a relatively commonplace phrase. It is something that most 
persons are familiar with, but it is not surprising that the phrase 
would have so much appeal for a television audience. I think the reason 
has something to do with the fact that it carries a certain power and 
resonance with it because the person who has the authority to use it 
within any organization is, generally speaking, a person who gets to 
call the shots. It is emblematic of executive control and, therefore, 
the ability to get things done within an organization.
  That is not to say that good leaders get their way solely or even 
primarily by threatening to fire people who work for them. Effective 
leadership, more often than not, requires what are sometimes called 
soft leadership skills.
  But the fact, nonetheless, remains that the head of an organization 
must always have hanging in reserve, sort of like an employer Damoclean 
sword--the absolute right to terminate a subordinate.
  It is the ultimate and essential backstop that enforces and reifies 
an executive's power to make decisions. This is true for pretty much 
any leader, whether that leader happens to be the CEO of a corporation, 
the coach of a sports team, or a general out on the field of battle.
  Yet, remarkably, under our laws, the President of the United States 
lacks authority over many high-ranking officers within the executive 
branch. Despite its elemental association with Executive power, 
Congress and the courts have time and again deprived the President of 
the ability to remove his subordinates at will.
  These restrictions often take the form of statutory for-cause removal

[[Page S3260]]

protections, such as the provision of the Federal Trade Commission Act 
that provides that Commissioners may be removed only ``for 
inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.''
  In enacting laws like this, Congress has cast aside the original 
meaning of the Constitution and thereby eroded a critical safeguard of 
American freedom. As anyone who has studied the Constitution or 
constitutional law, for that matter, can guess, my reference to the 
FTC's for-cause protection is not accidental.
  That statute formed the basis of the lawsuit that culminated in the 
1935 decision by the Supreme Court in a case called Humphrey's 
Executor, in which the Supreme Court held for the first time that 
Congress may impose restrictions on the President's removal power.
  In so holding, the Supreme Court overruled its earlier precedent in 
Myers v. United States, which had held that Congress may not limit the 
President's ability to remove principal officers within the Federal 
Government, but Humphrey's Executor didn't simply overrule Myers. 
Rather, as Justice Scalia later wrote, ``it gutt[ed], in six quick 
pages devoid of textual or historical precedent. . . . a carefully 
researched and reasoned 70-page opinion.'' That juxtaposition alone 
tells you what you need to know about these decisions. One had 
constitutional text and original understanding and historical precedent 
behind it. The other was constitutional law by judicial fiat.
  Article II of the Constitution unquestionably establishes a unitary 
executive. The vesting clause provides that ``the executive power shall 
be vested in a President of the United States of America.''
  As Alexander Hamilton explained it in Federalist No. 70, placing the 
totality of the Executive power in a single individual was no 
happenstance. It was no mistake. It wasn't just sort of some fluke. The 
delegates to the Constitutional Convention recognized that a unified 
executive was essential to ensure energy and accountability in the 
execution of the laws, and the Constitution was drafted accordingly, 
consistent with this understanding.
  Without the authority to supervise and direct, and, yes, ultimately 
fire his subordinates, it is impossible for the President to fulfill 
his duty imposed by article II to ``take care that the laws be 
faithfully executed.''
  The Founders also understood that the President's removal power was 
the bedrock of his authority to oversee the executive branch. In a 
famous debate during the First Congress, James Madison argued that ``if 
any power whatsoever is in its nature Executive, it is the power of 
appointing, overseeing, and controlling those who execute the laws.''
  He went on to note that ``if the President should possess alone the 
power of removal from office, those who are employed in the execution 
of the law will be in their proper situation, and the chain of 
dependence be preserved; [they] will depend, as they ought, on the 
President, and the President on the community.''
  Madison's argument prevailed, and the First Congress declined, on 
constitutional grounds, for the reasons articulated by James Madison 
himself, to create for-cause removal protections for the heads of the 
newly established executive branch departments. They considered it; 
Madison raised, very persuasively, this constitutional argument against 
it; and then they voted it down. That was the original understanding of 
the removal power, and it predominated for nearly 150 years after the 
Founding.
  Since Humphrey's Executor and its radical departure from the original 
understanding in 1935, for-cause removal protections, both statutory 
and otherwise, have, sadly, proliferated, giving rise to a vast, 
headless, out-of-control branch of government, a fourth branch of 
government, if you will, that exists beyond the control of the 
President and is therefore unaccountable to the people.
  In fact, by some estimations, there are over 80 so-called independent 
agencies within the executive branch. These executive branch agencies 
that we refer to somehow as independent are entrusted with regulating 
immense swaths of American life--from competition policy and workplace 
safety regulations to labor relations and even securities laws. They 
make rules; they adjudicate rights; and they enforce laws. The 
potential for abuse is tremendous; the inconsistency with the 
republican principles this country was founded on, obvious.
  Now, there are a lot of people here who like the sound of the term 
``independent agency,'' and they might suppose, incorrectly, that an 
agency that is independent, that is beyond the control of the President 
of the United States to oversee, that that is somehow a good thing.
  On closer inspection, we discover that quite the opposite is true. 
When we insulate someone from Presidential oversight, what we are doing 
is taking the American people out of the picture. There is a reason why 
we have elections every 4 years, and those elections focus on the 
election of a President. It is so there is some chain of accountability 
between the people and the executive branch of government.
  That has become more important, not less, over the last few decades 
as we have created more and more executive branch agencies and we have 
entrusted those agencies with more and more power. It has never been 
more important than it is today to make sure the people are connected. 
If you disconnect the American people by insulating them from the 
political process, then you have a whole group of people who these days 
are charged not just with administrating the laws but, in some cases, 
with effectively making it and interpreting it, and you are taking them 
beyond the supervision that would otherwise be appropriate by the 
President of the United States within the executive branch of 
government.
  In their fight against British tyranny, the Patriots of the American 
Revolution rallied behind the principle of ``no taxation without 
representation.'' Today we are faced with a somewhat different threat 
to freedom, as Chief Justice Roberts wrote in a case just a few years 
ago. ``The growth of the Executive Branch, which now wields vast power 
and touches almost every aspect of daily life, heightens the concern 
that it may slip from the Executive's control, and thus from that of 
the people.''
  In other words, as Chief Justice Roberts explained, when you take 
this power away from the President, you are taking it away from the 
people. The people lose their input on and their control over these 
very important functions of what is appropriately described as the 
people's government.
  The concern is further compounded by the existence of independent 
agencies that are, by law, divorced from any Presidential control. As a 
result, in this new fight against tyranny, our watchword perhaps must 
be ``no regulation without representation.'' That is why I have 
spearheaded the Article I Project and why I supported legislation such 
as the REINS Act and the Separation of Powers Restoration Act that 
would bring the Federal regulatory apparatus, as we know it, to heel.
  Of course, more is needed. We need to not only reform Congress's 
relationship with the administrative state but the President's as well. 
To that end, I am introducing new legislation called the Take Care Act. 
The bill would restore the unitary executive envisioned by the Founders 
and, in fact, required by the Constitution by stripping away all 
existing for-cause removal protections from the so-called independent 
agencies. It would also limit Congress's ability to create for-cause 
protections by implication in the future and take other critical steps 
to fortify the President's directive authority.
  Simply put, the Take Care Act would eliminate the headless fourth 
branch of government, empower the President to ensure faithful 
execution of the law, and make the bureaucracy accountable to the 
people again. Importantly, the Take Care Act would not cause the work 
of administrative agencies to become subject to the unmitigated whims 
and caprices of a President. There is still very real, very meaningful 
political constraints, including the Senate's advise and consent role, 
that would ensure, as they do now, in areas outside of these so-called 
independent agencies, that the executive officers can fulfill their 
congressionally assigned duties without undue interference.
  In other words, although there are some so-called independent 
agencies as to which the President has no removal

[[Page S3261]]

power, there are a whole lot that are not. The President's Cabinet and 
many other positions within the Federal Government involve people who 
are appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and who serve 
at the pleasure of the President who can be fired at any moment for any 
reason the President might deem appropriate.
  Nevertheless, that does not mean that Presidents go around just 
firing people arbitrarily because Presidents understand that there is a 
political cost to doing that. We have seen in recent years, and we have 
seen earlier in American history, how Presidents, even when they have 
disagreements with members of their Cabinet or other people who serve 
at the pleasure of the President--Presidents are still reluctant to 
fire people because there are political costs attached to that, and 
especially where Congress perceives there might be a partisan political 
motive in mind, Congress may well take action.
  In the case of the Senate, it almost inevitably will at least 
threaten, if not carry out the threat, to hold up future confirmations 
of Presidential appointees if Presidents abuse this power.
  So it simply isn't true to say that this would open the floodgates 
and cause all Presidents to just fire people arbitrarily without 
hesitation in the future. What it would mean is that our elected 
President would have the power to represent the people and to oversee 
the executive branch of the Federal Government just as article II 
already requires.
  So all this bill would do would be to rescind and limit 
unconstitutional restrictions on the President's removal power, and 
while it may be more convenient to limit this power by statute, 
convenience and efficiency are not the primary objectives or the 
hallmarks of a democratic government, as the Supreme Court has 
repeatedly reminded us.
  Another famous catchphrase popularized by an American President is 
``the buck stops here,'' which President Truman, of course, displayed 
on a placard on his desk in the Oval Office at the White House during 
his Presidency. What it means is, the President is the final decision 
maker within the executive branch, and, therefore, bears the sole and 
ultimate responsibility for executing the laws.
  In order to fulfill that very special, sacred, important 
responsibility, the President must have plenary power to direct the 
President's subordinates in how they carry out their assigned tasks 
and, if necessary, fire them. That is what the Constitution and, 
indeed, common sense require. By restoring the original understanding 
and restoring the removal power to the Presidency, the Take Care Act 
would give the President this authority.
  By taking this step, we would reempower the American people with that 
which is rightfully theirs to begin with.

                          ____________________