[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 167 (Tuesday, October 22, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5947-S5951]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND 
  DRUG ADMINISTRATION, INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, 
  VETERANS AFFAIRS, TRANSPORTATION, AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 
              APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2020--Motion to Proceed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Cloture having been invoked, the Senate will 
resume legislative session to consider the motion to proceed to H.R. 
3055, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 141, H.R. 3055, a bill 
     making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and 
     Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                    Honoring Corporal Jerry Garrison

  Mr. COTTON. Madam President, Army CPL Jerry Garrison was reported 
missing in action on December 2, 1950. After all these years, Corporal 
Garrison is on his way home to be laid to rest with full honor due to a 
member of the U.S. Armed Forces.
  Corporal Garrison was one of ``The Chosin Few'' who fought on that 
frozen ground to protect his fellow soldiers and the independence of 
the Korean people against the Communist hordes. God, in His mysterious 
providence, chose to call Corporal Garrison home during that epic 
battle, but only recently were his remains discovered in Vietnam.
  Corporal Garrison's funeral today is a long-overdue moment of honor 
for a brave soldier and a long-anticipated moment of mourning and 
remembrance for his loved ones.
  Let's also remember in our prayers the many families whose loved ones 
haven't yet come home. Corporal Garrison's recovery is a moment of hope 
for these families, a reminder that our Nation will not rest until 
every one of our missing heroes is brought home, and it is a reminder 
to our troops who are in harm's way today that we will always bring 
them home should they fall in the line of duty or go missing in action. 
We have now fulfilled that solemn pledge to Corporal Garrison. Nearly 
70 years after he went missing, we have once again affirmed that the 
United States leaves no man behind.
  Rest in peace, Corporal Garrison.


           Anniversary of the Beirut Marine Barracks Bombing

  Madam President, 36 years ago this week, an Iranian suicide bomber 
detonated thousands of pounds of explosives inside a Marine compound in 
Beirut, Lebanon. So terrible was the blast that 15 miles out at sea, 
the marines aboard the USS Iwo Jima could see black smoke building over 
Beirut like an ominous storm cloud. The devastating attack claimed the 
lives of 241 Americans who were bravely keeping the peace in a country 
that was wracked by violence. A separate blast claimed the lives of 58 
of our French allies.
  This anniversary is a sobering reminder that freedom comes at a 
price--a price too often paid by brave Americans in uniform. In Beirut, 
it was paid by 220 marines, 18 sailors, and 3 soldiers.
  As a memorial to their valor, I ask unanimous consent to have their 
names printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Names of the Fallen in the Beirut Marine Barracks Bombing

       Cpl Terry W Abbott, USMC; Cpl Clemon S Alexander, USMC; 
     LCpl John R Allman, USMC; Cpl Moses J Arnold Jr, USMC; LCpl 
     Charles K Bailey, USMC; LCpl Nicholas Baker, USMC; LCpl 
     Johansen Banks, USMC; Cpl Richard E Barrett, USMC; HM1 Ronny 
     K Bates, USN; 1stSgt David L Battle, USMC; Cpl James R 
     Baynard, USMC; HN Jesse W Beamon, USN; GySgt Alvin Belmer, 
     USMC; LCpl Stephen Bland, USMC; Sgt Richard L Blankenship, 
     USMC; LCpl John W Blocker, USMC; Capt Joseph J Boccia Jr, 
     USMC; Sgt Leon Bohannon Jr, USMC; SSgt John R Bohnet Jr, 
     USMC; Sgt John J Bonk Jr, USMC.
       Cpl Jeffrey L Boulos, USMC; LCpl David R Bousum, USMC; 
     1stLt John N Boyett, USMC; Sgt Anthony Brown, USMC; Cpl David 
     W Brown, USMC; Cpl Bobby S Buchanan Jr, USMC; Cpl John B 
     Buckmaster, USMC; LCpl William F Burley, USMC; HN Jimmy R 
     Cain, USN; Cpl Paul L Callahan, USMC; Sgt Mecot E Camara, 
     USMC; PFC Bradley J Campus, USMC; Cpl Johnnie D Ceasar, USMC; 
     PFC Marc L Cole, USMC; SP4 Marcus A Coleman, USA; PFC Juan M 
     Comas, USMC; Sgt Robert A Conley, USMC; Sgt Charles D Cook, 
     USMC; Cpl Curtis J Cooper, USMC.
       LCpl Johnny L Copeland, USMC; Cpl Bert D Corcoran, USMC; 
     Cpl David L Cosner, USMC; SSgt Kevin P Coulman, USMC; Cpl 
     Brett A Croft, USMC; Cpl Rick R Crudale, USMC; Cpl Kevin P 
     Custard, USMC; Cpl Russell E Cyzick, USMC; Maj Andrew L 
     Davis, USMC; PFC Sidney James Decker, USMC; LCpl Michael J 
     Devlin, USMC; Cpl Thomas A Dibenedetto, USMC; Pvt Nathaniel G 
     Dorsey, USMC; Sgt Maj Frederick B Douglass, USMC; LCpl 
     Timothy J Dunnigan, USMC; HN Bryan L Earle, USN; MSgt Roy L 
     Edwards, USMC; HM3 William D Elliot Jr, USN; LCpl Jesse 
     Ellison, USMC; LCpl Danny R Estes, USMC; LCpl Sean F Estler, 
     USMC.
       HM3 James E Faulk, USN; LCpl Richard A Fluegel, USMC; Cpl 
     Steven M Forrester, USMC; HM3 William B Foster Jr, USN; Cpl 
     Michael D Fulcher, USMC; LCpl Benjamin E Fuller, USMC; Cpl 
     Michael S Fulton, USMC; Cpl William Gaines Jr, USMC; Cpl Sean 
     R Gallagher, USMC; Cpl David B Gander, USMC; Cpl George M 
     Gangur, USMC; SSgt Leland E Gann, USMC; LCpl Randall J 
     Garcia, USMC; SSgt Ronald J Garcia, USMC; Cpl David D Gay, 
     USMC; SSgt Harold D Ghumm, USMC; Cpl Warner Gibbs Jr, USMC; 
     Sgt Timothy R Giblin, USMC; ETC Michael W Gorchinski, USN; 
     Cpl Richard J Gordon, USMC.
       LCpl Harold F Gratton, USMC; Sgt Robert B Greaser, USMC; 
     Cpl Davin M Green, USMC; Cpl Thomas A Hairston, USMC; Sgt 
     Freddie Haltiwanger Jr, USMC; Cpl Virgil D Hamilton, USMC; 
     Sgt Gilbert Hanton, USMC; LCpl William Hart, USMC; Capt 
     Michael S Haskell, USMC; LCpl Michael A Hastings, USMC; Maj 
     Paul A Hein, USMC; LCpl Douglas E Held, USMC; Cpl Mark A 
     Helms, USMC; Cpl Ferrandy D Henderson, USMC; MSgt Matilde 
     Hernandez Jr, USMC; Sgt Stanley G Hester, USMC; GySgt Donald 
     W Hildreth, USMC; SSgt Richard H Holberton, USMC; HM3 Robert 
     S Holland, USN; LCpl Bruce A Hollingshead, USMC.
       LCpl Melvin D Holmes, USMC; Cpl Bruce L Howard, USMC; LT 
     John R Hudson, USN; Cpl Terry L Hudson, USMC; Cpl Lyndon J 
     Hue, USMC; 2ndLt Maurice E Hukill, USMC; Cpl Edward F 
     Iacovino Jr, USMC; LCpl John J Ingalls, USMC; CWO2 Paul G 
     Innocenzi III, USMC; Cpl James J Jackowski, USMC; Cpl Jeffrey 
     W James, USMC; LCpl Nathaniel W Jenkins, USMC; HM2 Michael H 
     Johnson, USN; Cpl Edward A Johnston, USMC; Cpl Steven Jones, 
     USMC; PFC Thomas A Julian, USMC; HM2 Marion E Kees, USN; Sgt 
     Thomas C Keown, USMC; GySgt Edward E Kimm, USMC; PFC Walter V 
     Kingsley, USMC.
       SP5 Daniel S Kluck, USA; Cpl James C Knipple, USMC; Cpl 
     Freas H Kreischer III, USMC; LCpl Keith J Laise, USMC; Cpl 
     Thomas G Lamb, USMC; Cpl James J Langon IV, USMC; Sgt Michael 
     S Lariviere, USMC; Sgt Steven B Lariviere, USMC; MSgt Richard 
     L Lemnah, USMC; Cpl David A Lewis, USMC; Sgt Val S Lewis, 
     USMC; Cpl Joseph R Livingston, USMC; Cpl Paul D Lyon Jr, 
     USMC; Maj John W Macroglou, USMC; Cpl Samuel Maitland, USMC.
       SSgt Charlie R Martin, USMC; PFC Jack L Martin, USMC; Cpl 
     David S Massa, USMC; Sgt Michael R Massman, USMC; Pvt Joseph

[[Page S5948]]

     J Mattacchione, USMC; Cpl John Mccall, USMC; Sgt James E 
     McDonough, USMC; LCpl Timothy R McMahon, USMC; LCpl Timothy D 
     McNeely, USMC; HM2 George N McVicker II, USN; LCpl Louis 
     Melendez, USMC; Sgt Menkins, Richard H II, USMC; Sgt Michael 
     D Mercer, USMC; Cpl Ronald W Meurer, USMC; HM3 Joseph P 
     Milano, USN; Sgt Joseph P Moore, USMC; LCpl Richard A Morrow, 
     USMC; Cpl John F Muffler, USMC.
       LCpl Alex Munoz, USMC; Sgt Harry D Myers, USMC; 1stLt David 
     J Nairn, USMC; LCpl Luis A Nava, USMC; Sgt John A Olson, 
     USMC; LCpl Robert P Olson, USMC; CWO3 Richard C Ortiz, USMC; 
     LCpl Jeffrey B Owen, USMC; Sgt Joseph A Owens, USMC; Cpl 
     Connie Ray Page, USMC; LCpl Ulysses Parker, USMC; LCpl Mark W 
     Payne, USMC; MSgt John L Pearson, USMC; LCpl Thomas S Perron, 
     USMC; Sgt John A Phillips Jr, USMC; HMC George W Piercy, USN; 
     1stLt Clyde W Plymel, USMC; Sgt William H Pollard, USMC; Sgt 
     Rafael I Pomalestorres, USMC; Cpl Victor M Prevatt, USMC.
       PFC James C Price, USMC; SSgt Patrick K Prindeville, USMC; 
     LCpl Eric A Pulliam, USMC; HM3 Diomedes J Quirante, USN; Cpl 
     David M Randolph, USMC; GySgt Charles R Ray, USMC; Pvt Rui A 
     Relvas, USMC; LCpl Terrence L Rich, USMC; Cpl Warren 
     Richardson, USMC; Sgt Juan C Rodriguez, USMC; LCpl Louis J 
     Rotondo, USMC; Cpl Guillermo Sanpedro Jr, USMC; Cpl Michael C 
     Sauls, USMC; 2ndLt Charles J Schnorf, USMC; LCpl Scott L 
     Schultz, USMC; Capt Peter J Scialabba, USMC; Sgt Gary R 
     Scott, USMC; Sgt Ronald L Shallo, USMC; Cpl Thomas A Shipp, 
     USMC; LCpl Jerryl D Shropshire, USMC; Cpl James F Silvia, 
     USMC.
       LCpl Stanley J Sliwinski, USMC; Cpl Kirk H Smith, USMC; 
     SSgt Thomas G Smith, USMC; Capt Vincent L Smith, USMC; Cpl 
     Edward Soares, USMC; 1stLt William S Sommerhof, USMC; Cpl 
     Michael C Spaulding, USMC; LCpl John W Spearing, USMC; Cpl 
     Stephen E Spencer, USMC; LCpl Bill J Stelpflug, USMC; PFC 
     Horace R Stephens, USMC; LCpl Craig S Stockton, USMC; Cpl 
     Jeffrey G Stokes, USMC; Cpl Thomas D Stowe, USMC; Cpl Eric D 
     Sturghill, USMC; Cpl Devon L Sundar, USMC; LT James F Surch 
     Jr, USN; LCpl Dennis A Thompson, USMC; SSgt Thomas P 
     Thorstad, USMC.
       PFC Stephen D Tingley, USMC; LCpl John J Tishmack, USMC; 
     LCpl H. Townsend, USMC; PFC Lex D Trahan, USMC; LCpl Donald H 
     Vallone Jr, USMC; LCpl Eric R Walker, USMC; LCpl Leonard W 
     Walker, USMC; Sgt Eric G Washington, USMC; Cpl Obrian Weekes, 
     USMC; 1stSgt Tandy W Wells, USMC; LCpl Steven B Wentworth, 
     USMC; Sgt Allen D Wesley, USMC; GySgt Lloyd D West, USMC; 
     SSgt John R Weyl, USMC; Sgt Burton D Wherland Jr, USMC.
       LCpl Dwayne W Wigglesworth, USMC; Cpl Rodney J Williams, 
     USMC; MSgt Scipio Williams Jr, USMC; Cpl Johnny A Williamson, 
     USMC; Capt Walter E Wint Jr, USMC; Maj William E Winter, 
     USMC; Cpl John E Wolfe, USMC; 1stLt Donald E Woollett, USMC; 
     HM3 David E Worley, USN; LCpl Craig L Wyche, USMC; SFC James 
     G Yarber, USA; Sgt Jeffrey D Young, USMC; 1stLt William A 
     Zimmerman, USMC.

  Mr. COTTON. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                               Healthcare

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor to discuss last 
Tuesday's 2020 Democratic Presidential debate and specifically to 
discuss the topic of healthcare.
  Despite all of the political posturing, here are the key takeaways: 
No. 1, the Democrats still want to take work-earned health insurance 
away from 180 million Americans. No. 2, the Democrats want to raise 
taxes on the middle class and on all Americans to pay for it.
  Under the Democrats' plan, people will lose forever the health 
coverage they have earned at work. That means union workers' hard-
fought health benefits will disappear. It means that Nevada's food 
service workers and Michigan's autoworkers will all lose their earned 
healthcare.
  Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders want to replace work-based 
insurance with a one-size-fits-all, government-run scheme. At the same 
time, the 2020 Democrats want to give free, taxpayer-funded health 
insurance to illegal immigrants. It is hard to believe, but that is a 
matter of fact. That is the Democrats' so-called Medicare for All plan. 
Really, it is one-size-fits-all, government-controlled healthcare, and 
it is extremely expensive, even more expensive than I mentioned before 
on the floor, which is according to a new study that has come out by 
something called the Urban Institute. This liberal group has just 
reported that the cost of Medicare for All would be $34 trillion--that 
is 34 with a ``t.'' Let's put that into perspective. How much money is 
that? Over the next 10 years, that will be more money than we will 
spend on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security combined. It will be 
an astronomically large number.
  The Washington Post recently published a story with the headline 
``Will Medicare for-all hurt the middle class?'' The subheadline reads 
``Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders struggle with questions about its 
impact.'' We have seen them struggle with the impact of this very 
expensive, one-size-fits-all plan. The story notes that Senators Warren 
and Sanders are scrambling to ease concerns over middle-class costs, 
because that is what people are concerned about in this country--the 
cost of healthcare.
  Working families back home in Wyoming--and I talked with many this 
past weekend at our University of Wyoming's homecoming football game--
and people from all around the State are not fooled by what is being 
offered by the Democrats in their debates. They know they will have to 
pay dearly if the Democrats' scheme is adopted and ever signed into 
law.
  The Washington Post's story quotes and cites Ken Thorpe, who is Emory 
University's health policy chair. He says: ``The plan is, by design, 
incredibly disruptive.'' He goes on to say: ``You create enormous 
winners and losers,'' and he adds: ``There is no question it hits the 
middle class.''
  For the middle class, it is a double punch in the gut, and here is 
why. Not only will those in the middle class lose their insurance, but 
their taxes will also go up.
  Senator Warren will not answer the middle-class tax increase 
question. She will not talk about it. She dodged the question again and 
again. As the Post reports, the Senator writes she will release a plan 
to pay for her proposal in the next few weeks, but at the same time, 
she continues to duck the tax question. Last Tuesday, she repeatedly 
tap-danced around the issue on the debate stage. In fact, Senator 
Warren's debate performance reminded me of the Artful Dodger in the 
Dickens novel ``Oliver Twist.'' She said out-of-pocket healthcare costs 
will go down, but she failed to mention that much, much more will be 
taken out of middle-class pockets in huge tax hikes.
  It is interesting when you see how this is covered around the world. 
The British publication The Economist knows a lot about socialized 
medicine, as they have been living with the British healthcare system 
for many, many years. It points out that Elizabeth Warren repeatedly 
refused to say how she would pay for the plan. They write that she 
ducked the question six times.
  During the debate, it was Senator Sanders who jumped in to set the 
record straight. Bernie Sanders said: ``I do think it is appropriate to 
acknowledge that taxes will go up.'' He has even promised to raise 
taxes for lower income Americans. He said: ``If you're making more than 
$29,000 a year''--and he is not talking about an individual; he is 
talking about a family here--``you will be paying more in taxes'' under 
the plan that is promoted by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
  Then there is this warning from University of Chicago's economist 
Katherine Baicker, who says:

       These are going to be big tax increases. The tax brackets 
     may have to shift.

  In last week's Wall Street Journal editorial, headlined ``Warren's 
Middle-Class Tax Dodge,'' it explains: ``The only way to pay for this 
[plan] is to raise taxes on the middle class, which is where the real 
money is.''
  To sum up, while Senator Warren continues to dodge the tax issue, 
Senator Sanders admits that Medicare for All will raise taxes on just 
about everyone.
  Under the Warren-Sanders plan, middle-class taxes will rise. Taxes 
even rise for lower income families. We are talking about those with a 
family income of $29,000.
  Here is the bottom line. Americans will not tolerate having insurance 
go away and will not tolerate having taxes go up. They want to keep 
their healthcare plans, and they want them at lower costs. So we have a 
choice to make. We can work together to lower costs without lowering 
standards, or we can follow the 2020 Democrats who are pushing for 
their $34 trillion, one-size-fits-all plan.
  Don't let this Artful Dodger act fool you. Senator Warren and Senator 
Sanders support the same plan. They will not lower healthcare costs, 
but they will raise everybody's taxes. They will not improve care, but 
they will take coverage away from 180 million

[[Page S5949]]

Americans who now get it through work.
  As a doctor, I want to improve patient care. I want to make 
healthcare more affordable. The Republicans are 100 percent committed 
to protecting patients who have preexisting conditions. We continue to 
work on bipartisan solutions and real reforms to lower the costs of 
everyone's care.
  Meanwhile, the solution we heard last week on the debate stage, the 
2020 Democrats' solution, will force all of us to pay more and wait 
longer for worse care. That is what they have seen in Canada, what they 
have seen in England, and what we will see in the United States if this 
one-size-fits-all plan ever goes into effect.
  Let's give patients what they want, which is the care they need from 
the doctors they choose and at lower costs.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                      Multiemployer Pension Plans

  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I come to the floor to discuss legislation 
approved by the House of Representatives that would leave taxpayers 
holding the fiscal bag for a specific category of underfunded private 
pension plans.
  Throughout most of my professional life, from my days as an 
accountant, to my service as the mayor of Gillette, WY, and in the 
Wyoming Legislature, to my membership on the Senate's Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and then on the Committee on 
Finance, I have worked on pension policy. This experience has taught me 
many things about retirement security and the need for sound planning.
  My concern with the House-passed bill is not just with its immediate 
cost to the taxpayers but also with what it would mean down the road. 
The bill would send the signal to private pension plans that regardless 
of how underfunded they are or how risky their investments, the 
taxpayers will be there to bail them out.
  Pensions are an important source of retirement income for millions of 
Americans, but many of the private sector's multiemployer pension plans 
are seriously underfunded. These are plans that are sponsored by a 
group of private employers as part of collective bargaining agreements 
with their employees and are separate from the single employers' plans, 
which are generally better funded.
  According to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 
multiemployers' pension plans are underfunded by more than $637 
billion. That is $637 billion that is underfunded. Out of the 1,247 
multiemployer pension plans that we have information on, 1,235 are 
underfunded. That would mean that 12 are not underfunded.
  In July of this year, the House of Representatives passed the 
Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019, which would bail 
out some of the worst-funded multiemployer plans at the taxpayers' 
expense. The bill would provide a combination of low-interest loans and 
direct cash payments to the private sector's multiemployer plans that 
are currently insolvent or are designated as ``critical and 
declining.''
  The official Congressional Budget Office's cost estimate of the bill 
states it would increase deficits by $49 billion over the next 10 
years, but, as a separate analysis points out, which I requested from 
the budget office, the true cost and risk to taxpayers is actually much 
higher.
  First, the bill includes a handful of revenue provisions to help 
offset its cost, but the House included these same provisions in a 
separate bill it passed earlier this year. Without this $16 billion in 
double-counted revenues, the bailout bill's price tag jumps to $65 
billion over the next decade.
  Second, the analysis projects that most pension plans would not fully 
repay their loans without the grant assistance provided in this bill. 
What that means is that these plan providers are going to use taxpayer 
dollars to help repay loans made to them by taxpayers. That is quite a 
deal.
  Further, the budget office's analysis shows that even with these 
taxpayer-provided grants, one-quarter of the plans receiving loans 
under the House bill would become insolvent within the 30-year loan 
period. CBO projects that most of the other plans would become 
insolvent in the decade after they repay their loans. All of this begs 
the question, then what?
  Now, third, as I alluded to a moment ago, much of the bill's cost 
doesn't show up in the first 10 years. When you consider the total 
amount of new spending the bill authorizes over the next several 
decades, along with the added interest costs we will have to pay, the 
total cost would be more than $100 billion.
  To add insult to injury, the House bill would not resolve the larger 
multiemployer pension crisis. The bill would apply only to those that 
are currently insolvent or critical and declining. It would not address 
the many other plans that are treading water now but will face 
insolvency in the future. You can bet that if this bill goes through, 
those plans would be expecting their bailout when the time comes. What 
a precedent.
  All of this is setting up for additional bailouts in the future, 
potentially putting taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of billions of 
dollars.
  Now, only about 12 percent of private sector workers participate in a 
pension plan, and an even smaller number participate in these 
multiemployer plans. This bill would put the vast majority of workers 
who don't have their own pension plans on the hook for bailing out the 
small percentage who do. That hardly seems fair.
  Hard-working Americans overwhelmingly agree that we can't afford a 
pension bailout. A recent poll shows that a majority of voters oppose a 
taxpayer-funded bailout of unfunded union pension plans. This is 
because voters know a bad deal when they see it.
  Before I close, I am going to remind my colleagues that the Federal 
Government already has its own unfunded promises that need addressing, 
and these are programs that will affect the vast majority of Americans. 
Trustees for Social Security estimate that Social Security's long-term 
benefit promises exceed its dedicated tax revenues by almost $17 
trillion, and Medicare's long-term spending is projected to exceed its 
dedicated taxes and premiums by more than $40 trillion.
  We need to work to find solutions to address the Federal Government's 
own funding shortfalls for the vast majority of Americans and not bail 
out underfunded private sector pension plans for the few.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Appropriations

  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am pleased that the Senate is 
beginning debate on the fiscal year 2020 appropriations bill for the 
Departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and 
related agencies. This bill has been included in the appropriations 
package that has just now been brought before this Chamber.
  Let me begin my remarks by thanking Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman 
Leahy for their bipartisan leadership in advancing these appropriations 
bills to the Senate floor. Given that we have reached a 2-year, 
bicameral, bipartisan budget agreement in August and the new fiscal 
year began on October 1, it is imperative for the Senate to move these 
bills quickly and to go to conference with the House in order to avoid 
further continuing resolutions or, even worse, a government shutdown.
  I also want to acknowledge the hard work and strong commitment of my 
friend and colleague, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the ranking 
member of the T-HUD Subcommittee. We have worked so closely together in 
drafting this bill, which includes more than 950 requests from 75 
Senators.
  Let me repeat that. We received 950 requests from three-quarters of 
our colleagues for ideas for this bill, for funding levels, and in 
support of certain programs. We evaluated all of them very carefully 
and accommodated as many as we could.
  The T-HUD bill passed the full Appropriations Committee by a 
unanimous vote of 31 to 0. It reflects a truly bipartisan product.
  The allocation for the fiscal year 2020 transportation-housing 
appropriations

[[Page S5950]]

bill is $74.3 billion. That is $3.2 billion above the current funding 
levels. This additional funding is necessary because of rising rental 
costs across the country and a reduction in the receipts from the 
Federal Housing Administration that are used to offset some of the 
spending in this bill.
  In spite of these considerable funding challenges, our bill not only 
fully funds the renewal of housing assistance for low-income seniors 
and other vulnerable populations, but it also continues to provide 
robust investments in our infrastructure. For example, the bill 
provides $1 billion for the highly effective and popular BUILD grant 
program. The BUILD program helps fund critical infrastructure projects 
that promote economic development and the creation of jobs.
  I am proud to say that Maine has won a BUILD grant every year of this 
program, including a critical $25 million grant to replace the Sarah 
Mildred Long Bridge that is critical to the operations of the 
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, ME.
  Particularly important to States like Maine, the bill also provides 
much needed highway resources. While only 19 percent of the U.S. 
population lives in rural areas, 46 percent of traffic fatalities occur 
in rural America. That is because the roads and the bridges in the 
rural parts of our country are frequently in much poorer condition than 
those in urban areas. Building on the success of the rural bridge 
rehabilitation program over the last 2 years, our bill provides $1.25 
billion in dedicated funding for bridges that are deteriorating and 
nearing the end or have reached the end of their useful life.
  The bill fully funds the INFRA grant program, which provides 
resources for large-scale freight projects through a competitive grant 
process.
  In fiscal year 2019, I was pleased to advocate for the Maine 
Department of Transportation's successful application to replace the 
Madawaska international bridge in Northern Maine. This project will 
help to replace a critical corridor and connector between Madawaska and 
New Brunswick on the Canadian side of the border. This is so important 
to the economy of Northern Maine and supports more than 5,800 direct 
and indirect jobs. Right now, that bridge has been posted. That means 
that heavy trucks are unable to cross in the most effective and 
shortest route between Edmonton, New Brunswick, and Madawaska, ME.
  These critical programs support not only much needed infrastructure 
projects but also jobs and economic growth in each and every one of our 
home States.
  The American Society of Civil Engineers conducts a comprehensive 
assessment of our Nation's infrastructure every 4 years. Its most 
recent report card from 2017 shows that America's infrastructure 
remains in poor condition, with a grade of D-plus. That should be a 
call to action to all of us. It is simply unacceptable. It not only 
creates safety problems, it also impedes economic development.
  One in eleven of our Nation's bridges is rated as structurally 
deficient, and the average age of our country's more than 600,000 
bridges is 43 years old. Our National Highway System contains 
infrastructure that is now well past its useful life. Some bridges are 
more than 100 years old, and many have had to be posted and are unable 
to accommodate today's traffic volumes. Without the critical funding in 
the T-HUD bill dedicated to bridges, as well as the BUILD grant 
program, we simply will not be able to make progress to improve our 
Nation's infrastructure.
  Let me now turn to aviation. The bill provides $17.7 billion in 
resources for the Federal Aviation Administration--the FAA--which 
allows us to fully fund air traffic control personnel, including more 
than 14,000 air traffic controllers, and more than 25,000 engineers, 
maintenance technicians, safety inspectors, and operational support 
staff. Given the significant challenges the FAA faces in aviation 
safety, particularly as has become evident with the certification of 
the Boeing 737-MAX aircraft, the bill increases funding for aviation 
safety and aircraft certification activities and requires the FAA to 
respond to each and every one of the recommendations made by the 
inspector general and the National Transportation Safety Board once 
their audits and reviews are completed. In addition, it requires the 
FAA to move forward with a rulemaking on safety management systems for 
aircraft manufacturers and to assess its own internal workforce.
  The bill also provides $1.2 billion for FAA's Next Generation Air 
Transportation System's programs--also known as NextGen--to improve the 
efficiency and safety of the national airspace. This funding is 
critical for reducing delays and addressing congestion at some of our 
Nation's busiest airports.
  Of particular importance to rural communities, the bill fully funds 
the Contract Tower Program and the Essential Air Service Program.
  In addition, the bill provides $450 million for the Airport 
Improvement Program in keeping with the authorized level. This 
supplemental AIP funding has been extremely helpful for small airports 
in Maine that otherwise would not be able to complete runway extension 
projects that are vital for air ambulances.
  Turning to maritime programs, our legislation provides full funding 
for our Nation's State maritime academies, as well as the U.S. Merchant 
Marine Academy, all of which play critical roles in training the next 
generation of U.S. mariners.
  The bill provides $300 million for the third special purpose vessel 
to be used as a training school ship for the State maritime academies. 
In accordance with the guidance provided 3 years ago by MARAD, new 
training ships will replace existing aging training ships in the order 
in which those ships are expected to reach the end of their useful 
lives. Over the past 2 years, we have funded replacement ships for the 
New York State Maritime Academy and the Massachusetts Maritime Academy. 
Funding in this bill will replace the aging vessel at the Maine 
Maritime Academy, which was next on the list. These new ships provide 
training capacity for all six State maritime academies and ensure that 
cadets receive the training hours they need to graduate and join the 
workforce in the Merchant Marine, the Navy, and the Coast Guard.
  In the area of housing, our priority is to ensure that our Nation's 
most vulnerable do not lose their housing assistance and become 
homeless; therefore, the bill provides necessary funding increases to 
cover the higher costs of rental assistance for the most vulnerable 
among us, including disabled citizens and our low-income seniors.
  Senator Reed and I share a strong commitment to reducing and ending 
homelessness and have included $2.8 billion for homeless assistance 
grants. To help our homeless youth and underserved population, we 
provide $80 million for grants.
  Many Members share my concern that young people are aging out of the 
foster care system and have nowhere safe to go. Far too frequently, 
they end up couch-surfing or living on the streets, vulnerable to those 
who would abuse them. To better support our youth who are exiting the 
foster care system who are at risk of becoming exploited or homeless, 
the bill also includes $20 million for family unification vouchers.
  For our Nation's homeless veterans, the bill provides $40 million for 
the successful HUD-VASH Program. In the land of the brave, there should 
always be a home for our veterans. Despite the administration once 
again proposing to eliminate this highly successful program, the 
committee continues to provide funding. This program has been so 
successful that it has helped to reduce veteran homelessness by nearly 
50 percent since it was first started in 2010.
  Another important issue, particularly to Senator Reed and to me, is 
lead paint in homes. That is a particular concern to families with 
children under age 6. The bill provides $290 million to combat lead 
hazards--a historic level of funding. Lead paint hazards are a 
significant concern for Maine families, as 57 percent of our housing 
stock was constructed prior to 1978, the year lead-based paint was 
banned. These grants will help communities protect children from the 
harmful effects--what can be lifelong effects--of lead poisoning.
  The bill also supports local development efforts by providing $3.3 
billion for the Community Development Block Grant Program--another 
program that the administration proposed to eliminate but for which we 
had overwhelming support expressed in letters

[[Page S5951]]

from our colleagues. The reason the Community Development Block Grant 
Program is so popular is its flexibility. It can be tailored to meet 
local needs. We have also included $1.4 billion for the HOME Program. 
These two programs support the development of affordable housing and 
other infrastructure projects and revitalize downtowns, which in turn 
promote economic development and lead to the creation of more jobs.
  I appreciate the opportunity to present this important legislation to 
the Chamber as we begin debate on the Transportation-HUD funding bill. 
I urge my colleagues to support the investments in this bill that 
benefit our communities all across this Nation and the families, 
veterans, children, and our seniors who rely on these vital programs.
  Let me end my remarks by again thanking my colleague, friend, and 
ranking member, Senator Reed, for his close collaboration and hard 
work. I am very proud of the fact that once again this year we have 
produced a bipartisan bill that was unanimously approved by our 
committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The Senator majority leader is 
recognized.


                 Unanimous Consent Agreement--H.R. 2740

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
cloture motion with respect to the motion to proceed to H.R. 2740 ripen 
at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in concurrence with 
the Democratic leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Motion to Proceed

  Mr. McCONNELL. I know of no further debate on the motion to proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.

                          ____________________