[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 164 (Thursday, October 17, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5874-S5880]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              S.J. RES. 54

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, in February of this year, Senator Udall 
and I joined in introducing a resolution to terminate the national 
emergency declaration. On March 14, 59 Members of this body joined 
together in a strong bipartisan majority to pass the companion House 
Resolution and send it to the President. Unfortunately, the President 
chose to veto that resolution, and the House vote to override the veto 
fell short.
  Last month, a bipartisan majority again came together in the Senate 
to pass a resolution introduced by Senator Udall, Senator Shaheen, and 
myself to reverse the President's national emergency declaration. 
Unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, the President has chosen to veto 
this resolution again, and we will be voting shortly on whether to 
override that veto.
  Before we do so, I would like to take a few minutes to speak to the 
fundamental issue raised by the emergency declaration: It directly 
conflicts with the ``power of the purse'' vested in Congress by the 
Framers of our Constitution.
  The question presented by this veto of the resolution is not whether 
you are for a border wall or against a border wall, nor is the question 
whether you believe security at our southern border should be 
strengthened or whether it is sufficient.
  In fact, the question is, simply; Do we want the executive branch, 
now or in the future, to hold the power of the purse, a power the 
Founders deliberately entrusted to Congress?
  Throughout our history, the courts have consistently held that ``only 
Congress is empowered by the Constitution to adopt laws directing 
monies to be spent from the U.S. treasury.'' This view is central to 
several ongoing cases challenging the President's national emergency 
declaration.
  I have consistently supported funding for the construction of 
physical barriers and strengthening security on our southern border. I 
will continue to support those efforts and believe that they are 
important, but I cannot support the President unilaterally deciding to 
take money that has been appropriated for one purpose and diverting 
that money for another purpose.
  The system of checks and balances established by the Founders gives 
Congress the power to protect our authority on our own. That is what 
this resolution does, and I urge my colleagues

[[Page S5875]]

to support it by voting to override the President's veto.


                          Vote on S.J. Res. 54

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the joint resolution 
(S.J. Res. 54) pass, the objections of the President of the United 
States to the contrary notwithstanding?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
   Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. 
Cassidy), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Texas 
(Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from 
Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue).
   Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``yea,'' the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. 
Cassidy) would have voted ``nay,'' the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) 
would have voted ``nay,'' and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) would 
have voted ``nay''.
   Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from 
Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
are necessarily absent.
   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
   The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 325 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rubio
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--36

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     McConnell
     McSally
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Alexander
     Booker
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cruz
     Harris
     Isakson
     Klobuchar
     Moran
     Perdue
     Sanders
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are 
36.
  Two-thirds of the Senators voting, a quorum being present not having 
voted in the affirmative, the joint resolution, on reconsideration, 
fails to pass over the veto of the President of the United States.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I asked unanimous consent before the 
rollcall to be recognized to make a unanimous consent request. I would 
like to take that opportunity now, unless there is some other item of 
business before the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is none.
  The Senator from Illinois.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2603

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let's start with math, basic math, Andrew 
Yang math. Here is what it boils down to. Each year, we have 140,000 
employment-based visas issued in the United States--140,000. A decision 
was made several years ago that politicians were playing favorites, 
picking countries that would get more of one and more of another, and 
so they put in country quotas, country caps--7 percent. I will do the 
math, being a liberal arts lawyer. It is about 10,000 per year, per 
country--no more than 10,000 per country, per year, if 7 percent of the 
total is our cap.
  The problem is obvious. There are some 520,000 people of Indian 
descent in the United States who came here legally on H-1B visas, for 
example, who have worked here for a period of time, and who now want to 
stay in the United States. From this Senator's point of view, you are 
welcome. We need you. You brought extraordinary skills that we need to 
our country. I want you to stay. But many have found that they get into 
a queue that is so long, and because of the limitations of the cap, 
they can't even imagine living long enough to ever get the green card 
they are waiting for, the green card that can ultimately lead to 
citizenship.
  Senator Lee comes to the floor with a bill, and his bill says as 
follows: We are going to take care of those waiting in line, which is 
primarily over half a million of Indian descent, and we will close down 
immigration from other countries during this period of time, EB-2 
visas. So it would be to the benefit of those of Indian descent, who 
are the vast majority of those waiting in line, but at the cost of 
every other country in the world that has anyone who can come in and 
qualify for an EB-2 visa. Even his approach that I just described--if 
you follow it through, at the end of 10 years, there would still be 
165,000 people of Indian descent still waiting in line in 10 years. 
That is not fair. It is not right.
  Last Sunday, I had a meeting in Schaumburg, IL. As I came to the 
meeting--it was a Democratic Party breakfast--there were about 200 
people standing with signs with my name on them. That will wake you up 
on a Sunday morning. They were there to say: Durbin, don't stop Lee's 
bill.
  I met with many of them afterward. I would have met with all of them. 
I am prepared to. One of them told me a story. He is a physician from 
my hometown of Springfield, IL. He brought his 12-year-old daughter 
along with him, a beautiful young girl.
  He said: Senator, I am waiting in line. I don't know if I will ever 
get a green card. What is going to happen with my daughter when she 
reaches age 21? She can no longer be my dependent and stay in the 
United States. What is going to happen to her? Is she supposed to go 
back to India? In the meantime, how is she going to go to college? What 
is her status in this country?
  These are perfectly legitimate questions. I have an answer for all of 
these questions, and I will tell you what it is.
  First, we lift the 140,000 cap. That is what is holding us back here. 
Why is 140,000 of these EB visas a year a magic number? It is not. We 
are a nation of 350 million people. We have at least a million legal 
immigrants coming in each year. To expand the cap for those who are 
seeking the EB visas beyond 140,000 to people with skills who are 
already living in the United States and who want to stay here and 
continue to work is perfectly reasonable to me.
  That is what my bill proposes, and it does two other things. This 
bill also says that we are not going to count your dependents when it 
comes to the annual quotas. So if it is 140,000, we are talking about 
the actual breadwinners--140,000. If you are married, have a spouse and 
two children, you are not seeking four of these visas--only one--and 
your spouse and dependents automatically come along with you, in my 
bill. They are not counted against the 140,000.
  The third point: When you make application, it freezes in place, for 
legal reasons, the status of your dependents. So if it takes 2 or 3 
years, and that daughter of yours becomes 21 years of age, it is no 
different--she is still going to come in with you based on your 
application.
  To me, that is a reasonable way of approaching it. I have said to my 
friends in the Indian-American community, in the Indian community in 
Illinois: I am not against your being here. I want you to be here. I 
have an approach that will allow you to be a part of our future. You 
have been an important part of America to this point. I want you to 
continue to be, and my approach will allow it.
  Senator Lee of Utah comes to the floor and says: Durbin, if you lift 
that 140,000 cap, you will doom this bill.
  I have just spoken to him, and I have several times. I will not doom 
this bill if he will support it. If he, as a Republican, will gather 
support for this bill, we can lift the number of people who will be 
eligible under these skilled immigrant visas to be part of America's 
future. We can do that together.
  I am finding, even as I talk to Republican colleagues here, that they 
feel we should be opening up the skilled visa opportunities for legal 
immigration.

[[Page S5876]]

The sentiment is growing, and it should. I want people who have real 
skills that they either learned in the United States or earned in the 
United States to be part of the growth of our economy and the future 
and part of America. When it comes to diversity, count me in.
  My mother was an immigrant to this country, brought here at the age 
of 2. Her son stands right here with a full-time government job. That 
is the American dream, right? I basically believe in immigration, and I 
believe in the diversity of America. But what will not work and what 
will not succeed is the notion that we can somehow favor just one group 
from one country at the expense of every other country.
  We found that what has happened since Senator Lee started moving 
forward with this is we have people from a variety of different 
countries around the world saying: You mean you are going to cut us off 
entirely? We can't have any EB-2 visas for 10 years? You are saying 
that is going to apply to Canada, Mexico, the European nations, and all 
of Asia as well? That is unfair. Why would you cut us off to give 
opportunity to those from India? That isn't fair.
  We have to have a more balanced approach. I think my approach 
resolves that and will solve that. I ask Senator Lee to consider it.
  I would also say to him--in the course of bringing this measure to 
the floor, Senator Lee has been negotiating with Members of his own 
political party. That is all right. I understand that. I have been in 
this business for a while. But he should be talking to people on both 
sides of the aisle. What he has given are so-called carve-outs to the 
140,000. I probably wouldn't argue with any single carve-out in 
substance if he wants to give them to nurses or medical professions, 
but each time he makes a carve-out to the 140,000, he lengthens the 
long waiting period for those of Indian descent.
  As far as I am concerned, the real answer is to increase legal 
immigration to the United States. My bill would do that. It will take 
the country caps off, take the 140,000 cap off. It would open the door 
for those who have been waiting in line--and many have for years, if 
not decades. Stop discriminating against their children. Through no 
fault of their own, they have been stuck in the line with them. Their 
legal status shouldn't change. And don't count the dependents--the 
spouses and children--against the quota, whatever the number might be 
in the future.
  I think that is a reasonable way to do this, but to do that, you have 
to accept one premise: that immigration is good for America. I believe 
it is. I believe it always has been. I think the diversity of this 
country is its strength. People come from every corner of the Earth, 
ready to make great personal and family sacrifices so that they and 
certainly their children will have a chance they never would have had 
where they were born. That is the key to what is different about this 
country and why we should honor it.
  Let's not apologize for increasing legal immigration, particularly of 
people with proven skills. Let's celebrate that they want to be part of 
America's future.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee 
be discharged from S. 2603 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time 
and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the request 
the Senator is describing is not one that can pass the body and 
certainly is not one that can pass this body unanimously.
  He is absolutely right. My friend and distinguished colleague from 
Illinois is correct in noting that I have had conversations and 
negotiations with Republicans, and I have also had conversations and 
negotiations with Democrats. I have been working on this for nearly 9 
years. At every moment, we have made concessions to people on both 
sides of the aisle.
  I wish the solution he is offering today were something that could 
allow us to pass the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act. Alas, it 
is not.
  I would note that it is not as though this is something new or 
objectionable or even something that the passage of which would amount 
to a concession on his part. For one thing, the Fairness for High-
Skilled Immigrants Act is a bill that he was an original cosponsor of 
in a previous Congress. This is his bill. You might ask what is 
different about the bill he championed a few years ago and the 
substitute amendment I put forward earlier today. The answer is that, 
aside from a short subsection that temporarily alleviates nursing 
shortages in parts of this country, the only thing we have changed is 
that we have added a variety of new provisions to combat some abuse in 
the H-1B program.
  As I have said, these provisions are drawn almost verbatim from the 
Durbin-Grassley H-1B reform bill, of which my colleague from Illinois 
has long been the lead Democratic cosponsor.
  The only other thing that has changed from the time when the Senator 
from Illinois would have stood by my side instead of in opposition and 
helped to pass this bill is the problem that he sought to solve when he 
supported this bill. That very same problem still exists and has gotten 
worse.
  As I indicated earlier, there are 40,000 green card applicants in 
Illinois alone, plus there are thousands of children stuck in this 
awful backlog. These are individuals whose children are aging out of 
their temporary visas, and they are forced to return to a country they 
left behind long ago--a country that, in many cases, their children 
don't know and have never known.
  To repeat, the amendment that I offer today and that has been the 
subject of some of my colleague's remarks this afternoon in his 
unanimous consent request consists of nothing more than the Fairness 
for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, of which my colleague from Illinois 
was once a leading sponsor, and a series of H-1B reforms that he 
himself has long sought to enact. If passed, it would provide relief to 
many hard-working families from both his State and for mine. Yet he 
objects. As he objects, he offers up something else that he knows 
cannot possibly get close to passing this body by unanimous consent. 
Yet we can do that today. We can do that right now if he would lift his 
objection. He knows that I cannot, and I will not, and on that basis, I 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to make two points regarding 
the comments from my friend from Utah. I know he has to leave for 
another appointment.
  The first point I want to make is that what I support today is what I 
introduced and voted for when 68 Senators, Democrats and Republicans, 
passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill, which he opposed.
  I hope that shows my good faith and intent when it comes to this 
issue. I am not just thinking of something today that has never been 
considered on the Senate floor. It has passed on the Senate floor in a 
previous Senate, and I think it can pass again with your active 
support.
  The second point I want to make is this. For us to have dueling 
unanimous consent requests and both to object in this debate is really 
unfair to the people who have gathered in this Gallery today, as well 
as those who are following this debate on television with literally the 
fate of their family and future again in our hands.
  I would like to ask you a favor to consider the following. When 
Senator Kennedy objected on your behalf yesterday, or the day before, 
in a similar manner, he suggested that we push this issue forward for a 
hearing in the Subcommittee on Border Security and Immigration of the 
Committee on the Judiciary where we both serve. That committee is not 
overworked. It considered one bill this year and no amendments. So let 
us try to prevail on the chairman of that subcommittee to have a 
hearing on this subject and to bring out all the facts before the 
subcommittee and the full committee in the hopes that we can find some 
sort of reasonable, bipartisan compromise. If you will join me in that 
request, I hope we can prevail on Senator Graham and Senator Cornyn.

[[Page S5877]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his constructive 
observations there. With respect to the Gang of 8 legislation, yes, it 
passed through this body, and, yes, I voted against that, as did a 
number of my colleagues. My view is, that was a piece of legislation 
that while it entailed a lot of work by a lot of people who were trying 
to make things better, it was doomed at the outset for failure because 
the message of that bill and of those who were pushing it was 
essentially you either pass all of this bill and all of its reforms--a 
large number of which and the majority of which I agreed with--or you 
pass nothing. We were literally told that. It is either this entire 
package or it is nothing. We spent weeks in the Committee on the 
Judiciary debating it and discussing it. I personally proposed dozens 
of amendments to that.
  What emerged at the end of that from the committee was a--this has 
been 6 years, so my colleague will forgive me if I don't remember the 
exact numbers. It was about a 700-page bill. When we got to the floor, 
what we debated and discussed was substituted out at the last minute. 
What we ended up getting was another bill that was, as I recall, 1,200 
pages long. It was a different bill.
  The message was the same with both of them. This is a package deal. 
You either reform all of what this bill reforms and do it at once or 
you get none of it. Many of the sponsors of that legislation made clear 
that they would oppose any smaller effort.
  I believe this is exactly the opposite of the type of solution that 
will work. What is going to work here is if we start with incremental, 
step-by-step legislation. If we start with something the Senator from 
Illinois has himself in the past sponsored, both as to the Fairness for 
High-Skilled Immigrants Act itself and as to the substance, the nuts 
and bolts of the Grassley amendment--he has been on the cutting edge of 
supporting both of those things. If not here, where? If not us, who? If 
not now, when? This is what we need to do. I am going to continue to 
come to the floor. I am going to continue to seek unanimous consent and 
to pass this every way I can.
  As to my colleague's suggestion with regard to a committee hearing. 
This hasn't, of course, been the topic of committee hearings in the 
past, and it has been fully discussed. I would, of course, welcome any 
further committee action that the chairman might choose to hold, and I 
would be happy to have any committee action that, of course, isn't mine 
to offer or give, but I would always prefer more consideration of the 
Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act than less. So if that is what 
we have to do, great, but I don't believe any further factual 
development is necessary here.
  Just for the record, I want to state this bill is ready to pass right 
now. This bill has 365 votes on the House floor right now. This bill 
would become law right now, would pass out of the Senate and would pass 
out of the Senate in a form that would be passed out of the House of 
Representatives, ultimately, right now but for this objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from Utah is my friend, and we have worked 
closely together on important legislation. I trust him and respect him, 
though we disagree on some of the merits on this issue.
  What I think I heard was an offer, which I am going to accept, of a 
good-faith, bipartisan request of the Committee on the Judiciary to 
have a hearing on this measure. It will be the first hearing on it, and 
I think it is long overdue.
  In terms of the comprehensive immigration reform, I don't want to 
dwell on history, but we went through hundreds of amendments in 
Judiciary and scores of amendments on the floor. Everyone had their day 
in court and their opportunity to come up with a good idea, and, yes, 
it did come down to one bill at the end. You had to vote yes or no. I 
voted yes, and he voted the other way.
  This bill is not even close to it in terms of deliberation and in 
terms of amendments and that process. So let's start the right way. 
Let's have a hearing. You have the majority party on the committee, so 
I am not going to pull anything over on you, but let's do it.
  For the people who are following this and saying: Well, how did that 
end? Let us say to them it ended by both of us agreeing to pursue a 
committee hearing on this important subject as soon as possible and 
appealing to the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary to ask for 
that hearing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I thank my friend, the Senator from Illinois, 
and I appreciate his dedication to detail and to the hard work he has 
put into the area of immigration and reform.
  Yes, you are right. That was a difficult process. It went through 6 
years ago, and I commend you, even though you and I reached different 
conclusions as to the ultimate outcome of that legislation.
  My point there is simply to say: It is, and properly should and 
always is, going to be the case that it can be easier to get something 
done that is more narrowly focused. In this case, we have a bill the 
Senator from Illinois has himself cosponsored in the past. It has been 
modified by another provision that he has also sponsored in the past. 
We should be able to do this one.
  It is not my place to commit on behalf of the Committee on the 
Judiciary or its chairman whether we are going to have hearings. I 
reiterate my view that no further factual development of this is 
necessary. I don't believe a hearing is necessary.
  I am never going to object to simply holding more hearings on it, and 
if that is what the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is 
inclined to do, I am certainly not going to interfere with that. In the 
meantime, I am going to continue to do everything I can to get this 
thing passed. It is ready to pass. It is ready to pass right now. I am 
going to continue to find every way possible to get this the 
consideration it deserves.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am coming to the floor to speak on a 
different subject, but I do want to acknowledge that this is an issue I 
follow as well. I actually cosponsored Senator Lee's bill. I do hope 
what my friend from Illinois proposed, in terms of a process--that that 
process will take place and that we can get this legislation, or a 
variation thereof, passed through the Senate; that we deal with this 
issue is something I hear a lot from my constituents in Virginia--
specifically, Northern Virginia.
  Again, although no piece of legislation is perfect, I think the 
direction Senator Lee has put forward is one I carefully considered 
before I cosponsored the legislation. Again, the only way we are going 
to get this resolved is if we go through this process. Nobody on the 
Senate works harder on immigration issues and with more passion and 
willingness to get to yes on an issue than the Senator from Illinois, 
so I thank him for his work as well.


                       Tribute to Victoria Brahm

  Mr. President, I came down here today to address the question I came 
for, to actually continue the tradition of my friend Senator Ted 
Kaufman. I had the distinction of serving here as a staff member for a 
long time and filled in for a few years when Senator Biden became the 
Vice President of the United States.
  What Senator Ted Kaufman did was he came, during his tenure in the 
Senate, on a regular basis, came to this floor and highlighted the 
contributions of exceptional Federal employees. He highlighted the work 
they do every day to make our Nation and communities safer, healthier, 
and stronger.
  I came to the floor earlier this year to congratulate three 
Virginians who were recognized by the Partnership for Public Service as 
finalists for the Service to America Medals. Within the world of 
Federal employees, this award may not be as well known as the Oscars, 
but the award, the Service to America Medals, are known as the 
``Sammies.''
  During my time on the floor earlier, when I spoke about the 
Virginians who were nominated, I spoke about Ambassador Michael Kozak 
from Arlington, Kara De Castro from Haymarket, and John Wagner from 
Ashburn. Each of these public servants have made significant 
contributions to our national

[[Page S5878]]

security, as well as to global peace and human rights. We are indebted 
to them for their contributions, and I congratulate them again for 
their much deserved recognition as finalists.
  Unfortunately, none of this year's winners hail from Virginia. Still, 
I want to congratulate the 2019 Federal Employee of the Year, Victoria 
Brahm from Wisconsin. Ms. Brahm is a career public servant who has 
spent more than 37 years working in the VA system.
  Since 2015, she has served as the director of the Tomah VA Medical 
Center. When she arrived, the center was struggling with unsafe medical 
practices, high staff turnover, and other issues impacting the quality 
of care that veterans were receiving. In the years since her arrival, 
there has been a rise in patient satisfaction and a dramatic drop in 
the use of opioids and other prescription pain relievers.
  Under Director Brahm's leadership, preventable inhospital 
complications have also dropped significantly, and the center has risen 
from one of the worst ranked hospitals in the VA system to the top 10 
percent. This remarkable turnaround that is making life better for our 
veterans is due in many ways to the work of Ms. Brahm. Congratulations, 
Ms. Brahm, and thank you for your service.
  Congratulations, as well, to all of this year's award winners who 
hail from around the country, not just Washington, DC. While the 
Federal workers we recognize today are exceptional, the truth is they 
are not the exception. Federal employees across the country dedicate 
their lives to serving the country, to protecting its people, and to 
making sure our tax dollars are properly spent.
  Unfortunately, this commitment has not been honored by the Trump 
administration. In addition to the longest government shutdown in 
history, Federal workers have endured pay freezes, hiring freezes, bad-
faith collective bargaining, and other efforts to dismantle our 
nonpolitical civil service. This is wrong. It is also unsustainable, 
and ultimately it will be everyday Americans who suffer the 
consequences of this administration's actions. If you drive out and 
drive down the morale of our workforce, the American people end up with 
a less good product.
  I commit that I will continue fighting in the Senate to ensure this 
country is keeping its commitment to Federal workers because they 
deserve so much better than the treatment they have received recently.


                               FUTURE Act

  Mr. President, let me now, for a couple of moments, turn to another 
important issue where I fear we are not keeping our commitments, and 
that is our commitment to our Nation's historically Black colleges and 
universities, also known as HBCUs.
  I will talk briefly in support of legislation introduced by my 
colleague from Alabama, Senator Jones, and my colleague from South 
Carolina, Senator Scott. The legislation they introduced is called the 
FUTURE Act.
  The FUTURE Act would provide a 1-year reauthorization of the 
mandatory funding for HBCUs and other minority-serving institutions 
that already expired on September 30. This is a commonsense bipartisan 
fix that is fully paid for, and it would allow us to keep our 
commitment to institutions across the country that are educating 
historically underrepresented and underserved students.
  Virginia is home to five outstanding HBCUs whose funding would be 
preserved by this legislation: Virginia State University, Norfolk State 
University, Hampton University, Virginia Union University, which I was 
proud, prior to my tenure in government, to serve on the board of, and 
Virginia University of Lynchburg. All told, these institutions received 
nearly $4 million in funding last year that is now at risk unless we 
pass the FUTURE Act.

  I have letters of support here from the Presidents of Hampton, 
Norfolk State, and Virginia Union. These letters highlight the FUTURE 
Act and the importance of this funding to the representative 
universities.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                           Hampton University,

                                       Hampton, VA, July 16, 2019.
     Hon. Mark Warner,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner: I am writing to request that you 
     cosponsor S. 1279, the Fostering Undergraduate Talent by 
     Unlocking Resources for Education (FUTURE) Act sponsored by 
     Senator Doug Jones (D-AL) and Senator Tim Scott (R-SC). This 
     bipartisan, bicameral bill was written to extend important 
     mandatory funding for education in the sciences, technology, 
     engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in Title III, Part F of 
     the Higher Education Act of 1965 until September 30, 2021.
       Title III, Part F, benefits Historically Black Colleges and 
     Universities (HBCUs) and other Minority-Serving Institutions 
     (MSIs) by providing mandatory funds that allow these 
     institutions to better serve their students in the STEM 
     fields. As I am sure you are aware, a STEM education is 
     crucial to the growth and continued development of our 
     economy. Hampton University and other institutions have 
     benefited greatly from the availability and usage of these 
     funds.
       A report released by the White House National Science and 
     Technology Council stated that the ``national benefits of a 
     strong STEM foundation cannot be fully realized until all 
     members of society have equitable access to STEM education 
     and [until] there is much broader participation by those 
     historically underserved and underrepresented in STEM fields 
     . . .'' The report goes on to highlight the importance of 
     diversity in the workplace leading to more engaged, 
     innovative, and higher-performing organizations. Hampton 
     serves all students, some of whom are low-income, first 
     generation post-secondary students of color; an underserved 
     population. One benefit of funding through Title III, Part F 
     is that it dlrectly helps achieve the goal of diversifying 
     our workforce and ensuring more underrepresented students are 
     entering STEM fields.
       The mandatory funds included in Title III, Part F, were 
     originally established by the College Cost Reduction and 
     Access Act for the years of 2008-2009, retained in the Higher 
     Education Opportunity Act of 2008, and then extended until 
     2019 in the Health Care Education and Reconciliation Act of 
     2010. All three pieces of legislation were passed in the 
     House and Senate on a bipartisan basis showing support for 
     this crucial stream of funding.
       However, this stream of funding is scheduled to expire 
     September 30, 2019. Therefore, it is imperative that this 
     bill passes both Chambers and becomes law before the 
     expiration date. Again, I ask that you cosponsor S. 1279 and 
     help institutions of higher education, HBCUs in particular, 
     continue to provide the much needed services to the students 
     on our campuses.
           With all good wishes,
                                                William R. Harvey,
     President.
                                  ____



                                     Norfolk State University,

                                                September 5, 2019.
     Hon. Mark Warner,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner: On behalf of Norfolk State University, 
     I ask your support in cosponsoring S. 1279, the Fostering 
     Undergraduate Talent by Unlocking Resources for Education 
     (FUTURE) Act sponsored by Senator Doug Jones (D-AL) and 
     Senator Tim Scott (R-SC). This bipartisan, bicameral bill 
     would extend important mandatory funding for education in the 
     sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in 
     Title III, Part F of the Higher Education Act of 1965 until 
     September 30, 2021.
       The mandatory funding included in Title III, Part F, was 
     established in 2008 by the College Cost Reduction and Access 
     Act. The funding was later extended through authorizations in 
     the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, and the Health 
     Care Education and Reconciliation Act of 2010. All three 
     pieces of legislation passed in the House and Senate on a 
     bipartisan basis with strong congressional support. Current 
     funding will expire on September 30, 2019.
       Title III, Part F, benefits Historically Black Colleges and 
     Universities (HBCUs) and other Minority-Serving Institutions 
     (MSIs) by providing mandatory funds that allow these 
     institutions to support their students in the STEM fields. 
     Whether it be innovations in cybersecurity, or emerging 
     research in deep space exploration, Norfolk State University 
     has a longstanding history of preparing students to excel in 
     the STEM fields. Title III, Part F is a critical resource 
     that has played an important role in NSU's success.
       Continued funding for Title III, Part F is crucial to the 
     growth and continued development of our economy and this 
     University. Your cosponsorship and vote of support for S. 
     1279 is very much needed, and will represent a sound 
     investment in America's future.
           Sincerely,
                                      Javaune Adams-Gaston, Ph.D.,
     President.
                                  ____



                                    Virginia Union University,

                                                   August 6, 2019.
     Hon. Mark Warner,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner: I write to you today to ask you to 
     cosponsor S. 1279, the Fostering Undergraduate Talent by 
     Unlocking Resources for Education (FUTURE) Act sponsored by 
     Senator Doug Jones

[[Page S5879]]

     (D-AL) and Senator Tim Scott (R-SC). This bipartisan, 
     bicameral bill was written to extend important mandatory 
     funding for education in the sciences, technology, 
     engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in Title III, Part F of 
     the Higher Education Act of 1965 until September 30, 2021.
       Title III, Part F, benefits Historically Black Colleges and 
     Universities (HBCU's) and other Minority-Serving Institutions 
     (MSIs) by providing mandatory funds that allow these 
     institutions to better serve their students in the STEM 
     fields. STEM education is crucial to the growth and continued 
     development of our economy, and my institution has benefited 
     greatly from the availability and usage of these funds.
       A report released by the White House's National Science and 
     Technology Council said that the ``national benefits of a 
     strong STEM foundation cannot be fully realized until all 
     members of society have equitable access to STEM education 
     and [until] there is much broader participation by those 
     historically underserved and underrepresented in STEM fields 
     . . .'' The report goes on to highlight the importance of 
     diversity in the workplace leading to more engaged, 
     innovative, and higher-performing organizations. Like my 
     institution, HBCUs and MSIs serve all students, but primarily 
     serve students who are low-income, first generation, and 
     students of color, which would directly help achieve the goal 
     of diversifying our workforce and ensuring more 
     underrepresented students are entering the STEM fields.
       The mandatory funds included in Title III, Part F were 
     originally established by the College Cost Reduction and 
     Access Act for the years of 2008-2009, retained in the Higher 
     Education Opportunity Act of 2008, and then extended until 
     2019 in the Health Care Education and Reconciliation Act of 
     2010. All three pieces of legislation were passed in the 
     House and Senate on a bipartisan basis showing support for 
     this crucial stream of funding.
       This stream of funding is scheduled to expire September 30, 
     2019, so it is imperative that this bill passes both Chambers 
     and become law before the expiration date. Again, I ask that 
     you co-sponsor S. 1279 and help me continue to provide the 
     much-needed services to the students on my campus.
           Sincerely,
                                            Hakim J. Lucas, Ph.D.,
                                                  President & CEO.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, recently our colleagues in the House 
passed this important legislation on a bipartisan basis. Now it is time 
for the Senate to do the same. Let's pass the FUTURE Act without 
further delay and then work together on a comprehensive reauthorization 
of the Higher Education Act.
  As Dr. Harry Williams, president of the Thurgood Marshall College 
Fund, said, America's HBCUs ``simply do not have the time to wait for 
Congress to work out a deal.'' So let's put our broader policy 
differences aside for now and honor the commitments we made to HBCUs 
and other minority-serving institutions before Congress's inaction 
harms students in Virginia and around the country.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                       Budget ScoreKeeping Report

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to announce a new use of an old 
requirement. I rise to speak about the latest Senate scorekeeping 
report which I filed this week in the Congressional Record. The 
Congressional Record is available to anyone online. This report could 
show overspending by committees and a number of other things. This is 
the first such report since I filed a current law budget for the fiscal 
year 2020 as authorized by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019.
  This week's filing tracks the Senate's adherence to that current law 
budget and provides up-to-date budgetary information about the Federal 
Government for Congress and for the public. For the first time, a copy 
of the scorekeeping report can be found on the Senate Budget 
Committee's website to allow the American people to better track 
Congress's fiscal decision making. That is new.
  Let me repeat that. For the first time, a copy of the scorekeeping 
report can be found on the Senate Budget Committee's website to allow 
the American people to better track Congress's decision making.
  Since this is the first time the committee is posting the 
scorekeeping report on its website, I want to take this opportunity to 
explain the report for those taxpayers who are concerned, as I am, 
about our country's fiscal health and want to learn more.
  I hope the people will look at the future months and each monthly 
report. A current-law budget allows the Senate to enforce the budget 
spending levels projected under current law. While it will not put us 
on a path to stabilizing our debt and deficits, like the levels 
approved by the Senate Budget Committee earlier this year would do, it 
tells the Congress to stop making our fiscal situation worse--to stop 
making our debt and deficits worse.
  The scorekeeping report covers six primary areas. First, it shows 
whether authorizing committees are sticking to their allocation, which 
is just a fancy term for each committee's spending allowance. We track 
that for the 1-year, 5-year, and 10-year periods for this report. For 
the October 2019 report, all committees are in compliance and no 
breaches have been recorded since I filed the current-law budget on 
September 9. That is good news, though with our debt approaching $23 
trillion, going a month on the budget is not something to pat ourselves 
on the back over, but it is a good start.
  Second, the report tracks whether the Appropriations Committee is 
adhering to the discretionary spending limits imposed by the most 
recent Bipartisan Budget Act. For fiscal year 2020, the limit on 
regular discretionary spending for accounts in the defense category is 
$666.5 billion, and for the accounts in nondefense category, it is 
$621.5 billion. Since full-year appropriations measures for this fiscal 
year have not yet been enacted, the only budgetary effects recorded are 
for advanced or permanent appropriations made through our prior law.
  Third, the scorekeeping report tracks changes in mandatory programs. 
We call that CHIMPS, which is used by the Appropriations Committee. 
That is so we are not using the very important wording of ``changes in 
mandatory programs,'' actually making changes in mandatory programs 
without people knowing. The Appropriations Committee uses those changes 
in mandatory programs to offset new discretionary spending each year. 
In recent years, the Budget Committee has ratcheted down the total 
amount of changes in mandatory programs that can be used in a given 
year in an effort to hold the line on spending.
  This year's total limit is $15 billion--that is extra spending--and 
the report tracks the Appropriations Committee's adherence to that 
limit thus far. I know that many of my colleagues share my desire to 
finally end the practice of using changes in mandatory programs to 
inflate spending.
  Fourth, the report tracks the amount of emergency and overseas 
contingency operations spending in appropriations bills. Emergency 
spending is not constrained by discretionary spending limits that I 
talked about, but it has the potential to cost hundreds of billions of 
dollars each year. To date, for fiscal year 2020, there has been $8 
million worth of emergency budget authority adjustments. These 
adjustments are the result of agriculture provisions and the additional 
supplemental appropriations for the Disaster Relief Act of 2019. 
Emergencies don't count against the budget, but they do go to increased 
debt. There is no requirement to adjust the budget to pay for 
emergencies.
  Fifth, included in the report is information provided to me by the 
Congressional Budget Office that compares topline spending and revenue 
amounts, known as aggregates, to the current-law budget levels. The 
report shows there is currently enough room on the spending aggregate 
to accommodate all outstanding regular appropriations and no additional 
room for revenue loss.
  Finally, the report includes the current balances of the Senate's 
pay-go scorecard. Pay-go stands for ``pay as you go,'' a unique concept 
around here. In other words, was it paid for? If not, the report shows 
it on the scorecard. The Senate's pay-go scorecard, which is enforced 
with a 60-vote point of order, tracks the budgetary effects of 
legislation moving through Congress affecting mandatory spending and 
revenues. This report shows a zero balance on the Senate's pay-go 
scorecard due to the filing of new budgetary levels just last month.
  As chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, I try to come to the 
floor regularly to sound the alarm about our country's unsustainable 
fiscal course. We are on a perilous path with the Congressional Budget 
Office projecting our debt and deficits to skyrocket in the coming 
years. Debt is the cumulative amount. Deficits are the annual amount.

[[Page S5880]]

  The deficit for the fiscal year that ended September 30 reached $984 
billion. While revenues were up $133 billion over the previous year, or 
4 percent, compared to fiscal year 2018, spending was up $338 billion, 
or 7 percent, over the prior year. I can say that again. We overspent 
$984 billion. Revenues were up $133 billion, but spending was up $338 
billion. The Congressional Budget Office projects the budget deficit 
for the current fiscal year to top $1 trillion. That is another 
trillion dollars added to our already high debt. That is overspending 
in spite of increased revenues.
  We are long overdue for an honest conversation about the country's 
finances. I hope the Senate scorekeeping report can contribute in a 
small way to that conversation. I believe the more we allow the public 
to follow the dollars, the more pressure there will be on all of us to 
finally address our overspending problem. I truly hope all Members view 
this report and come to see it as a valuable tool for getting our books 
in order.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                             Appropriations

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, our Democratic colleagues insist that 
despite their political differences with President Trump, they are 
still prepared to tackle important legislation and do our work for the 
American people.
  Well, next week they will have an opportunity to prove it. Congress 
has fallen badly behind schedule on appropriations. It has been a month 
since my Democratic colleagues filibustered government funding on the 
floor, blocking defense funding and a pay raise for our servicemembers. 
We need to get moving. The country is watching. It is time to make 
progress.
  So in just a moment, I will file cloture on motions to proceed to two 
government funding bills, setting up votes for next week.
  In order to meet Democrats halfway, the first House shell we will 
vote on will be a package of domestic funding bills. If we can get 
bipartisan support to take up that domestic funding bill, we will stay 
on it until we complete it. I hope Chairman Shelby and Senator Leahy 
can work together to craft a bipartisan substitute amendment.
  Afterward, we will turn to a second package, including the defense 
funding that our Armed Forces and commanders need, especially in this 
dangerous time and considering current events, plus resources for other 
priorities such as the opioid epidemic. So we will be voting next week, 
and I urge all of our colleagues to move in that direction. Let's make 
good on all the talk about bipartisanship and finally make progress 
toward funding the government.

                          ____________________