[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 168 (Wednesday, October 23, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6053-S6080]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5, 
   UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE INTERNAL REVENUE 
  SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, RELATING TO ``CONTRIBUTIONS IN 
               EXCHANGE FOR STATE OR LOCAL TAX CREDITS''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S.J. Res. 50, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 50) providing for 
     congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 
     States Code, of the rule submitted by the Internal Revenue 
     Service, Department of the Treasury, relating to 
     ``Contributions in Exchange for State or Local Tax Credits.''

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the joint 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cramer). The majority whip.


                               Tax Reform

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today, Democrats are forcing a vote to 
repeal the administration's sensible rule to disallow bogus charitable 
deductions that are designed to circumvent the SALT, or the State and 
local tax, deduction cap that was part of the 2017 tax reform bill.
  Frankly, I welcome this vote and today's debate. It gives us an 
opportunity to review all the benefits of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
  While drafting the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Congress made a conscious 
choice to cap the State and local tax deduction, or SALT, at $10,000. 
Doing so allowed us to provide additional tax relief to the middle 
class, support families by doubling the child tax credit, and simplify 
the Tax Code for filers by nearly doubling the standard deduction.
  These changes resulted in the average family of four in my home State 
of South Dakota receiving a tax cut of more than $2,000.
  In response to this cap, certain high-tax States adopted--what some 
would call ``creative'' but what I would call ``bogus''--schemes to try 
to circumvent the cap. These so-called charities that these States have 
set up are designed solely as an alternative method of paying State and 
local taxes so millionaires can shirk their Federal tax obligations. So 
the IRS did what the tax law directed. It enacted sensible regulations 
to shut down these bogus tax avoidance schemes. But it did so in a 
thoughtful manner, carefully considering more than 7,700 comments and 
creating a safe harbor for certain donations to avoid unintentionally 
discouraging actual charitable giving.
  It is ironic that Democrats, who uniformly opposed the middle-class 
tax cuts in the new tax law, are now calling for a tax cut for the most 
well off Americans. Based on nonpartisan data from the Joint Committee 
on Taxation, 94 percent of the benefit from passing this CRA would flow 
to taxpayers with incomes of over $200,000. Fifty-two percent of the 
benefit would go to those with incomes of over $1 million.
  In fact, repealing the SALT cap would result in millionaires 
receiving an average tax cut of nearly $60,000, while the average tax 
cut for taxpayers with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 would be 
less than $10.
  If you put that into perspective, the choice here is very clear. 
Today, we have an opportunity to vote no--to vote no--on the Democrats' 
proposed tax cut for millionaires.


                           Religious Freedom

  The Democratic Party has undergone quite an evolution over these past 
3 years. Like all political parties, the Democratic Party has always 
had an extremist fringe, with the far-left wing of the Democratic Party 
rapidly becoming its mainstream. Democrats have been falling all over 
each other to see how far they can run to the left. Socialism, a 
concept that, in America at least, seemed to have been firmly consigned 
to the ash heap of history is now being openly embraced by the 
Democratic Party. Leading Democrats have embraced putting the 
government in control of everything from American's energy usage to 
healthcare.

  It is not socialism or government-run healthcare that I want to focus 
on today. I want to talk about another trend that has been gradually 
emerging in the Democratic Party but doesn't always get the coverage 
that proposals like Medicare for All receive. It is the growing 
Democratic hostility to religion, which culminated a couple of weeks 
ago in a Democratic Presidential candidate's proposal to selectively 
tax churches based on whether he agrees with their religious beliefs.
  Let me repeat that. Think about that for a minute. A Democratic 
Presidential candidate proposed that the government should selectively 
tax churches and synagogues and mosques based on whether their 
religious beliefs pass muster with the President. That is, or should 
be, a shocking statement.
  The idea of taxing churches based on whether their religious beliefs 
meet with a political party's approval is antithetical to the 
fundamental right to freely exercise one's religion. It is not just 
antithetical, but it is unconstitutional. Targeting churches for 
discriminatory treatment based on their theology is a violation of the 
First Amendment.
  It is an understatement to say that it is deeply disturbing to see 
this proposal emerge from a mainstream candidate. But what might be 
even more disturbing is that members of the Democratic Party aren't 
lining up to reject this outlandish and unconstitutional proposal.
  Maybe we shouldn't be surprised. This is not the first time a 
Democrat has shown signs of regarding religious people as second-class 
citizens. During some of the judicial confirmations of this 
administration, it became clear that Democrats believed religious 
people should be subjected to extra scrutiny.
  There was the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett during the first year 
of this administration. She was an outstanding judicial candidate who 
received the American Bar Association's highest rating of ``well 
qualified.'' The ABA's evaluation, as the Democratic leader once said, 
is ``the gold standard by which judicial candidates are judged.''
  Yet during the confirmation process, it became clear that some 
Democrats thought she should be disqualified because she is a 
practicing Catholic. ``The dogma lives loudly within you'' is a quote 
from the Democratic ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, with the 
implication that anyone who takes his or her religious faith seriously 
can't be trusted to hold public office.
  Last December, Democrats raised questions about another judicial 
nominee because he is a member of a Catholic charitable organization, 
the

[[Page S6054]]

Knights of Columbus, which participates in such disturbing activities 
as serving veterans, raising money for the needy, and providing young 
people with scholarships. The Constitution is very clear on whether 
being a person of faith can disqualify you from public office. From 
article VI, ``no religious Test shall ever be required as a 
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.''
  ``No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any 
Office or public Trust under the United States.'' That is a quote from 
article VI of the Constitution.
  Religious liberty is a foundational part of our system of government. 
There is a reason it is the very first freedom mentioned in the Bill of 
Rights. More than one of the 13 original colonies were founded for the 
express purpose of securing religious freedom. By religious freedom, I 
don't mean the right to worship privately as long as you don't bring 
your faith into the public square. What people were looking for in 
America--what they still look for in America--is the freedom to live 
according to their religion and according to their conscience and 
beliefs, freely and publicly, without interference from the government. 
That is what the First Amendment was intended to protect.
  I want to move away from the Constitution for a minute, though. There 
is no question that Democrats' increasingly hostile public attitude 
toward religion raises some serious questions about constitutionality. 
I think that is clear. That is not the only disturbing aspect of it.
  I am also profoundly disturbed by the none-too-subtle implication 
that religious people are somehow second-class citizens, that we may 
have to tolerate them, but that we should seek to push them out of 
public life. That idea is also one that would be absolutely 
antithetical to the Founders.
  The Founders didn't see religion as something to be tolerated. They 
saw it as an absolute good, and that isn't just because a number of the 
Founders were men and women of faith. They didn't think religion was 
just a private good--that it kept you in a good place with God. No, 
they thought religion was good for society. Think of the famous passage 
from Washington's Farewell Address, which we read in the Senate, 
literally, every single year in observance of Washington's birthday.

  Let me quote:

       Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political 
     prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. 
     In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who 
     should labor to subvert these great pillars of human 
     happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and 
     citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, 
     ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not 
     trace all their connections with private and public felicity.

  Again, this is from President Washington's Farewell Address. This is 
a sentiment that occurs over and over again during the founding--that 
religion is a benefit not just to individuals privately but to the 
public, that it makes men and women into good citizens. It encourages 
them to uphold the law, to live virtuous lives, to take their oaths 
seriously, to respect the property of others, and to moderate 
problematic passions like vengeance and avarice.
  That is not to say that you have to be religious to be a good 
citizen, but it does point to the truth that religion is something that 
adds value to society and that it builds men and women who are a 
blessing to their neighbors and to their country.
  Americans are known for being a generous people. I don't think it is 
much of a coincidence that Americans are also known for being a 
religious people. Again, to be clear, that doesn't mean you have been 
to be religious to be generous, but religion encourages generosity. 
Think about how much of the charitable work in this country would go 
away overnight without religion. Churches and religious organizations 
support food banks and homeless shelters and crisis pregnancy centers. 
They run tutoring programs and scholarship programs and mentoring 
programs. They reach out to immigrants and refugees and to struggling 
parents and struggling families. They serve military members and first 
responders. They sign up people to vote. They help families looking to 
adopt. They implement recycling programs. They collect aid for 
individuals caught in the path of natural disasters. They build houses 
for those without a home, and I could go on and on and on.
  I will provide just one South Dakota example. A few months ago, I 
visited LifeLight's new youth center in the Pettigrew Heights area of 
Sioux Falls. In addition to providing spiritual opportunities, the 
center is focused on providing a safe place where underprivileged 
children can come to hang out, play games, have a snack, and do their 
homework. It is just one of the many tremendous things being done by 
churches and religious organizations in Sioux Falls and around my 
State. I doubt there is any area where good work is being done in this 
country where you won't find religious people helping out.
  I don't just want to see religious people tolerated. I want to see 
the Democratic Party rejecting the un-American idea that being 
religious somehow makes you less qualified to participate in the public 
square, and I want to see the Democratic Party standing up to condemn 
unconstitutional ideas like that proposed by one of their Presidential 
candidates.
  Until then, I will keep fighting to ensure that every American's 
fundamental right to live in accordance with his or her religious 
beliefs is protected.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                            Turkey and Syria

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, 3 weeks ago, a small number of U.S. 
Special Forces were working with our Syrian Kurdish partners to conduct 
operations against ISIS and hold more than 10,000 detainees, many of 
them hardened ISIS fighters. It was a product of a half decade of hard 
work by American and coalition forces and the Kurds to degrade ISIS, to 
put them on the run, and stabilize the postconflict region.
  Today, only 3 weeks later, as American troops continue their 
withdrawal from their bases in northern Syria at the President's 
orders, President Putin and President Erdogan have announced a plan to 
establish Russian and Turkish control of a region that was once 
controlled by American and Kurdish forces. Our partners, the Syrian 
Kurds, have been killed and wounded in Erdogan's invasion and forced to 
leave their homes in droves. Most importantly, the upper hand we once 
held over ISIS has been eroded.
  We don't know how many ISIS detainees have escaped from detention 
facilities or where they have gone. There seems to be no articulable 
plan on how to get them back. In the blink of an eye, President Trump 
has undone over 5 years of progress against the Islamic State.
  Three weeks after first announcing the troop withdrawal, the 
President does not seem to have a clear strategy for securing the 
enduring defeat of ISIS and fixing the mess he has created in Syria. 
Secretary of State Pompeo does not have a clear strategy. Secretary of 
Defense Esper does not have a clear strategy. Every day it seems like 
we are going in a completely different direction. One day, reports 
indicate the administration was considering a residual force in eastern 
Syria; the next report says the administration planned to target ISIS 
from Iraq. The next minute, reports said Iraq will not allow our forces 
to do that.
  What is the strategy here? America's security is at risk. ISIS is 
dangerous. ISIS is escaping. How will the administration continue to 
bring the fight to ISIS? What will the President do to prevent Russian 
and Turkish aggression and the potential slaughter of our allies and 
friends, the Kurds? When will the administration present its strategy 
to Congress?
  We need answers to these questions right away, but, shockingly, the 
administration's top officials, Secretary of State Pompeo, Secretary of 
Defense Esper, have now canceled two scheduled briefings with the 
Senate, and there is no new time on the calendar.

[[Page S6055]]

  Secretary of State Pompeo apparently had time to speak to the 
Heritage Foundation yesterday, which is four blocks away from the 
Capitol, but he doesn't have time to come to Congress, not even to 
brief us on Syria?
  Secretary Pompeo is derelict in his duty. He has an obligation to 
come here. It is not a question of time if he spoke four blocks away at 
the Heritage Foundation. He is ducking. We need answers, and if they 
don't have answers, we need to have a Q and A, a dialogue, and maybe 
that will push them to some answers. It is too dangerous for America to 
sit and do nothing--to run and hide, as Secretary Pompeo is now doing.
  Today Senate Democrats are holding a special caucus to hear from 
Brett McGurk, the former government envoy in charge of countering ISIS 
under both Presidents Obama and Trump. While I expect Mr. McGurk's 
presentation to be helpful to our caucus, it does not replace the need 
for the Trump administration and its officials to come to Congress and 
explain their strategy.
  At the same time, we should send a message to the President that both 
parties oppose his policy in Syria. The House has passed such a 
resolution on an overwhelming bipartisan vote, including the Republican 
leaders like Leader McCarthy, Representative Scalise, and 
Representative Cheney.
  I have asked the Senate twice now to take up the House resolution, 
only to be blocked by a single Republican Member. I continue to believe 
the quickest and most powerful way to convince the President that he is 
on the wrong track is for Congress to put a bipartisan, joint 
resolution on his desk saying so. That is what the House resolution 
does, and the Senate should take it up and pass it.
  We all know it is hard to shake the President from his thoughts and 
ideas, even when they are creating such disaster. His ego is enormous, 
but the one thing we can do is our Republican colleagues joining us in 
a resolution that reaches his desk. When Republican colleagues 
criticized him about Doral, he backed off. It is the only thing that 
can get him to change, and America is at risk.
  Why aren't our Republican colleagues stepping forward? Do they care 
more about protecting President Trump than protecting America? I hope 
not.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.


                            USMCA Agreement

  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, it has been over 1 year since the United 
States-Mexico-Canada Agreement was signed by President Trump and the 
leaders of Canada and Mexico. This landmark trade agreement is expected 
to create 176,000 new American jobs. It is expected to grow American 
businesses all over our country and help give a jump-start to our hard-
working farmers and ranchers. With 95 percent of the world's population 
outside of the United States, Montana producers need access to these 
global markets.
  Agriculture drives our economy in Montana. In fact, it is the No. 1 
economic driver in our State. Canada and Mexico both are in high demand 
for our products like wheat, barley, and beef. In fact, in 2018 alone, 
Montana had $731 million in total exports to Canada and Mexico.
  For our producers in Montana, the USMCA would be a positive step 
forward in providing certainty and alleviating the challenges and 
obstacles they faced virtually every single day this season.
  When I travel across Montana, I have heard from folks in every corner 
of our State: 4-H members, FFA members, farmers and ranchers at local 
county fairs, and producers along the highway. They all want action on 
USMCA. They all need relief. They are looking for something certain 
coming out of Washington, DC, in these uncertain times.
  I cannot stand by any longer as my colleagues in the U.S. House of 
Representatives fail to act. Listen, we have enough votes in the Senate 
to pass it. There are enough votes in the House to pass it. President 
Trump can't wait to sign it. Mexico is ready; Canada is ready; the 
United States is ready; and I can state that in my home State of 
Montana, we are very ready. I, along with the majority in the U.S. 
Senate, am ready to get this deal done and get it across the finish 
line for some of the hardest working folks in our Nation, our farmers 
and ranchers.
  Hard-working small business owners and folks on farms and ranches all 
over Montana are sitting and waiting for Speaker Pelosi to stop slow-
walking the USMCA. The House Democrats cannot continue to hold our 
farmers and ranchers hostage for any future political gain that we are 
seeing right now in the House. It has been a political game over there. 
This is negatively impacting the Montana way of life.
  There are countless numbers of Montana families out there who are 
surviving paycheck to paycheck. They are living on a prayer. They are 
sick and tired of politics and the partisan games being played in 
Washington, DC, and, you know what, I am too.
  We were elected to come here and get something done, not spin the 
wheels on cable TV at night just talking about other issues that aren't 
moving the ball forward on behalf of the American people. What 
Montanans care about is how they are going to put food on the table and 
how they are going to make ends meet this winter coming up. The USMCA 
is more than just a trade deal, it is an opportunity for more jobs and, 
importantly, higher wages.
  That is why I am here today. I am here to encourage our Democratic 
colleagues in the House to stop playing politics with our communities, 
our jobs, and our very lives. I am calling on the U.S. House to act, 
bring this important trade deal up for a vote. Let's have an up-or-down 
vote. Let the House Chamber speak. Let them vote.
  The USMCA has the potential to boost our Nation's GDP by $68 billion, 
plain and simple. That means more money in the pockets of Montanans. It 
is a better opportunity for our folks in agriculture. There is more 
revenue for Main Street businesses in Montana. The USMCA will deliver 
much needed trade certainty, secure intellectual property rights, and 
modernize digital trade.
  I am not alone in wanting swift action. I am honored to have support 
from the Montana Chamber of Commerce, the Montana Farm Bureau 
Federation, from the Montana Grain Growers Association, from the 
Montana Stockgrowers Association, and from the Montana Pork Producers 
Association. They are all with us to get the USMCA done. The longer we 
stall this deal, the further we stall economic opportunity in Montana 
and across this Nation.

  To Speaker Pelosi and to my colleagues in the House, the time to act 
is now. Our neighbors depend on it, my Montana farmers and ranchers 
depend on it, and the entire country depends on it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                           Colorado Farm Tour

  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Montana for his 
comments on the USMCA.
  I come to the floor today to talk about a farm tour that I have done 
every year that I have been in the Senate. This is a tradition that 
started when I was in the House of Representatives with the wheat 
growers in Colorado, where we go around the Fourth Congressional 
District talking about those issues that matter to our farmers in the 
wheat business. Colorado's Fourth Congressional District raises the 
vast majority of wheat in the State of Colorado, and about 87 percent 
of that wheat gets exported.
  Senator Daines' comments on the USMCA and what that means for Eastern 
Colorado are incredibly important. I hope that is a bipartisan effort 
that we can all get behind in the House and the Senate, and, of course, 
it has to start in the House, and we need the House to act as quickly 
as possible because those wheat farmers in Eastern Colorado need the 
certainty of new markets. The cattlemen in Colorado need the certainty 
of new markets and existing markets. That is exactly what the USMCA 
will do. I commend my colleague for his words on the USMCA.
  Over the last several months, I have been participating in this 
annual Colorado farm tour that I undertake every year with not only my 
staff but producers from across Colorado. It is in conjunction with a 
number of organizations in Colorado, like the Colorado Farm Bureau, 
Colorado wheat growers, corn growers, cattlemen, and others,

[[Page S6056]]

who all come together to show us every aspect of Colorado agriculture, 
from the production itself to the actual processing and finishing of 
agricultural products.
  We drove hundreds of miles across the State of Colorado, starting in 
Greeley at a cheese-making plant. Almost all of the milk that is 
produced in Colorado--Colorado being one of the highest milk-producing 
States in the country--goes into cheese that every American gets to 
enjoy. Whether it is Domino's pizza or Papa John's pizza, that cheese 
most likely comes from Colorado. This is a great opportunity on this 
tour to connect all four corners of Colorado and the work that we do in 
agriculture and to hear their concerns.
  We ended the farm tour at the State Fair in Pueblo.
  What was particularly special about this year's farm tour, though, 
was, of course, being joined by the Colorado Farm Bureau, and the fact 
that it is the 100th year anniversary of the Colorado Farm Bureau. 
Congratulations to the Colorado Farm Bureau. We will be talking about 
that more over the next several months. Congratulations on this very 
historic anniversary, and thank you so much for joining this tour and 
making it happen once again.
  As Members of Congress, all of us are used to discussing policy 
topics, but keeping farming and ranching at the forefront and keeping 
rural America at the forefront of those discussions is critically 
important because we need to focus specifically on those issues facing 
our farming and ranching communities.
  In Colorado, the ag community accounts for more than 170,000 jobs. It 
is responsible for more than $40 billion in economic activity. It is 
one of the largest economic drivers in our State--a State that has been 
transformed by energy jobs and high-tech aerospace jobs. Agriculture 
remains one of the highest job sectors in the State.
  Even though it is so vital to our State, we know how much of a 
struggle it has been in agriculture over the last several years. 
According to the Department of Agriculture, 2019 farm income is 
projected to be down 49 percent from its peak in 2013. Over the last 6 
years, we have seen a nearly 50-percent drop in farm income. Debt held 
by our farmers and ranchers is at $409 billion this year. That is up 
from $385 billion the year before. There is significant worry in the 
heartland about what is happening to our agricultural communities and 
the future of farming and ranching in this country.
  One way to immediately help to provide solutions to solve this 
problem for farmers and ranchers is to make sure that we implement the 
2018 farm bill programs as quickly and expeditiously as we can and that 
we resolve outstanding trade disputes, that we pass the USMCA, and that 
we resolve the trade dispute with China so that we can continue to open 
up new markets, develop new markets, and thrive with existing markets.
  When an industry that accounts for nearly 11 percent of our Nation's 
employment is struggling like agriculture is, we simply can't wait any 
longer to provide help. We must act now to put the ag community back on 
the path to sustainability, so that not only current generations of 
farmers and ranchers can continue in operation but new generations of 
farmers and ranchers can come back to Colorado, North Dakota, and 
States across this country to make sure they have bright futures in 
agriculture.
  Even in the face of difficult times, we saw on this tour how farmers 
and ranchers are innovating and looking to address new markets to 
increase their incomes. They are opening up new markets through the 
Asia Reassurance Initiative Act, whether that is a trade agreement with 
ASEAN or Taiwan.
  Another example is clean energy opportunities that our farmers have 
embraced. On one of the stops during the tour, we visited a farm in 
Eastern Colorado near Limon, CO, to talk about what wind production 
means for that rancher. The farmer leased the land, the area, to Xcel 
Energy, which is Colorado's largest investor-owned utility, to install 
wind turbines, which provides them with an alternative source of 
income.
  Another rancher in the county talked about how they may earn as much 
as $5,000 per turbine for the wind operations on their ranch. If you 
think about it, this farmer had 20 turbines on his land--that is $5,000 
times 20. That is $100,000 in income that this farmer would not have 
otherwise had. Farm income is down 50 percent, farm debt has increased, 
but this wind production, with a very small footprint, may be the 
difference between keeping in operation this year and next year. We 
have to welcome that kind of diversified agriculture opportunity.
  Another example of diversified income for agricultural producers is 
in Springfield, CO, in the far southeastern area of the State, where we 
visited a hemp processing plant. This Chamber has done great work when 
it comes to hemp, a new value-added opportunity for farmers and 
ranchers in Colorado. When this hemp processing plant is fully up and 
running, they are hoping to employ around 50 people. We went to this 
facility, and there is millions of dollars of equipment being invested 
in a small town. Employees will have a shop, a gym, and recreational 
facilities. They are going to build a lake there and hire 50 employees 
in Springfield. I remember asking one of the other county commissioners 
who was on the tour with us in Baca County: Did you ever imagine a day 
when one business would bring 50 employees to Springfield?
  The answer was very quick: No, never at all.
  This as an incredible opportunity, not only for the farmers in the 
area but the community that will now benefit from 50 good-paying jobs 
with benefits. That is just one other source of revenue that we can 
achieve.
  We also had the opportunity to visit Agriculture Research Station in 
Akron, CO, where they are doing tremendous research on dryland oilseeds 
and new technologies. One of the things we talked about is how we can 
make it more effective to produce dryland crops and how we can make 
oilseed opportunities available for additional value-added 
opportunities in the area.
  We also had opportunities on the farm tour to talk about mental 
health needs and what is happening in our communities. On too many 
stops during the farm tour, I heard about the impact that our 
struggling ag economy is having on the mental health of farmers and 
ranchers. A 2016 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study found 
that agricultural workers have a higher suicide rate than any other 
occupation.
  When we passed the farm bill in 2018, we also included language 
called the FARMERS FIRST Act, which will help to create mental health 
opportunities for those involved in agriculture and help to make sure 
that we have suicide assistance and prevention training for mental 
health assistance and suicide prevention efforts for farm advocates to 
help create support groups and reestablish the Farm and Ranch Stress 
Assistance Network. That needs to be something that we all talk about 
back home with our agricultural community. Because they have provided 
food and fiber for this country and, certainly, the world, we need to 
make sure we are supporting them in every way.
  We also talked about how we saw a nearly 40-percent increase in 
admissions for meth addiction in Colorado between 2011 and 2018. While 
we talk a lot about opiate addictions in this country, it is actually 
meth that our sheriffs are most concerned about in our rural areas. 
While we address the opiate epidemic, we also have to be giving and 
providing new tools and resources to deal with the addiction scourge of 
methamphetamine.
  Alarmingly, a significant number of that meth is coming into Colorado 
from, basically, industrial-scale manufacturing facilities and 
sophisticated operations in Mexico and China. We need to make sure that 
we disrupt those operations. We need to advocate more for the High 
Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program and the anti-methamphetamine 
task force to help law enforcement prevent cartels from getting these 
kinds of drugs into the country and continue to work on programs like 
the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to focus 
on recovery resources and prevention.
  Everywhere we went on the farm tour, we heard about the labor 
shortage, whether it was the cheese-making facility or whether it was 
the ranch or the hospitals that we visited on the farm tour. They 
talked about the need

[[Page S6057]]

for labor. We need a guest worker program that meets the needs of labor 
in this country.
  Housing issues seem to be something that we don't talk about when it 
comes to our rural areas. We talk a lot about it when it comes to the 
Denvers and the mountain communities and resort communities. Our rural 
areas are facing housing shortages and needs, as well. We introduced 
legislation and are working on legislation out of this farm tour to 
help focus our labor and housing shortage needs.
  I have talked about trade and the opportunities we have with trade to 
open up new markets and to resolve current trade issues, and we need to 
continue to work on that.
  While the agricultural community is currently facing very serious 
issues, I want to be clear that our farmers and ranchers are as strong 
as ever.
  Growing up on the Eastern Plains of Colorado and still living in the 
heartland of Colorado agriculture, I have always observed the 
incredible positive impact that agriculture has on our communities--
rural communities and urban centers as well. When the Federal 
Government gets out of the way of farmers and ranchers and growers and 
allows good things to happen, that is when our rural communities grow 
and thrive.
  A couple of weeks ago, we had the opportunity to celebrate National 
Farmers Day. It was a day to celebrate the great community that has 
always been the backbone of this Nation, but we can never express all 
of our thanks to this industry simply on 1 day of the year.
  To all of our farmers and ranchers, to those who make our breakfast, 
lunch, and dinners possible by providing abundant food and fiber for 
this country and this world, I am grateful for them and look forward to 
continuing to work on new solutions and better opportunities in the 
years to come.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                             Appropriations

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am here this morning very pleased to 
be at this point where we are talking about consideration of an 
appropriations package that includes the fiscal year 2020 bills for the 
subcommittees on Interior and Environment; Commerce, Justice, and 
Science; Agriculture, Rural Development, and Food and Drug 
Administration; and Transportation and Housing and Urban Development; 
and the various related agencies.
  It may be premature to call this a return to regular order, but I 
think that is kind of what it feels like. I would note that it is 
October 23, well past time that we should have finished our 
appropriations work, but we are advancing. We have bills that we have 
moved through the subcommittees and the full committee, and we are now 
moving packages of these to the floor.
  I am pleased that we are here, where we have an opportunity to take 
up these substantive measures that the full committee has addressed 
with strong bipartisan support.
  In the case of the Interior and Environment bill, there was unanimous 
support for our bill. Then, there is the opportunity to bring the bills 
to the floor for consideration, where other Members have an opportunity 
to debate these appropriations bills, offer amendments, and, then, 
advance them through the process.
  I am pleased this morning--particularly pleased--to be able to speak 
on the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee bill and to be here with my 
ranking member, Senator Udall. We have worked through this subcommittee 
account now for several years. It has been a good partnership, a strong 
partnership, with our teams working side by side. It is not the easiest 
of bills. We get our fair share of controversy.
  In addition to taking care of all of our public lands, we also have 
oversight of our Native peoples. We also have oversight of the EPA. So 
we have a range of subject matters that sometimes can bring us together 
and sometimes can cause some bumps along the way. Yet what we have 
committed to doing, I think, in working collaboratively, in working 
together, has resulted in a good, strong measure that the Senate now 
sees before it.

  Last year was the first time since fiscal year 2010--9 years now--
that the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations was 
brought before the full Senate. We have been in a situation in which, 
for years, we have kind of been at the tail end of the line, the last 
of those spending bills to move. Now we are debating it in the first 
package, so we really feel like we have kind of arrived here. Again, 
you don't arrive here as part of the first package without having done 
a great deal of work. You don't do that and receive unanimous support 
coming out of the committee for the second year in a row now if you do 
not demonstrate this strong commitment that both sides have made to 
create an environment in which we can work through these issues in a 
bipartisan manner.
  The Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies portion of this 
minibus includes funding for all of the major Federal land management 
agencies. This includes the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land 
Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, as well 
as the Environmental Protection Agency. We also provide funding for 
essential Indian health, education, and resource management programs 
through the BIA and the Indian Health Service. Then we also provide 
funding and oversight for important cultural institutions, like the 
Smithsonian Institution, our National Gallery of Art, the National 
Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities. 
This aspect of our oversight is often kind of forgotten because it 
doesn't necessarily fit in with the public lands, with the EPA, with 
the BIA, but it is an important and an integral part of our 
subcommittee's work.
  Our subcommittee's allocation for fiscal year 2020 is $35.8 billion. 
This is $248 million more than last year, with an additional $2.25 
billion being made available by the wildfire cap adjustment, and I will 
speak to the wildfire cap issue a little bit later here. Similar to the 
approach that we took in fiscal year 2019, the bill rejects the 
proposed budget decreases. We make investments in our highest 
priorities, such as infrastructure investments for our land management 
agencies, Indian Country, and wastewater and drinking water 
improvements.
  The Department of the Interior itself is funded at $13.7 billion. 
These funds go to support energy development that is critical to our 
Nation's economy, to recreation activities that power our rural 
communities, and to conservation efforts to protect our public lands 
and the wildlife that relies on them. Funding is provided to support an 
all-of-the-above energy approach, both onshore and offshore, that will 
continue to help our country achieve energy independence.
  On the conservation front, investments in grants programs for species 
protection, wetlands conservation, and to combat wildlife trafficking 
are included. We also took a keen look at some of the invasive species 
that are wreaking havoc in certain of our regions, like the Asian carp, 
so we provide a lot of good focus there.
  Americans love to love our national parks, so this bill provides the 
funds that are necessary to meet our responsibility at the national 
park units. We also focus on the deferred maintenance, which is 
something we have talked a lot about in committee and on the floor. We 
invest $127 million for deferred maintenance. We also increase funding 
for historic preservation, which is critical to preserving the sites 
and the stories of our Nation.
  The USGS, the U.S. Geological Survey, receives funding for important 
programs that help our emergency responders during natural disasters 
like earthquakes or tsunamis. We work within this bill to provide 
assistance for responses to natural hazards and disasters as well as to 
inform the public. In my State of Alaska, the support for the 
Earthquake Hazards Program helps us. As a State that is very 
seismically prone, it helps us with warnings, and it helps to enhance 
the earthquake monitoring capability. The bill also maintains funding 
for mapping initiatives that will help to gather data to improve our 
maps, which enhances the safety of activities such as aviation. In 
certain parts of the country, believe it or not, we do not have current 
and accurate mapping. Certainly, in my home State--and I know in other 
parts of the country--the updates to the maps have simply not been 
made.

[[Page S6058]]

  We also fully fund another lands matter, PILT, which is estimated at 
$500 million, and it maintains our commitment to meeting the needs of 
local communities for county roads, public safety, and schools. I know 
many of us in this Chamber hear from our constituents about the 
significance of adequate PILT funding.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund is something that is near and 
dear to many in this body. You will see in this bill an increase to the 
LWCF, which receives $465 million. This is $30 million above the 
enacted level. This also includes $140 million for the NPS State side 
program as well as additional funding for recreational access. We focus 
on how we are able to access our treasured lands and ensure we have a 
level of conservation that is supported across the country.
  In working with Senator Udall over these years, I think it has been 
important--it has certainly been important for me--to have had a great 
partnership, a strong partnership when it has come to trying to meet 
the needs of those within Indian Country and having to fund the 
critical services. With this bill, I think we are making good measure 
to do that. The two primary agencies that deliver services to the 
Indian community are the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health 
Service. They receive a combined increase of $288 million over the 2019 
levels. We maintain all critical program funding with some important 
increases for Indian Country.
  For the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the BIA, we maintain the 
substantial increases we have provided over the last 2 fiscal years. We 
are helping on matters such as the construction, operation, and 
maintenance of Indian schools. We know, unfortunately, that in so many 
of the reservations in the lower 48, our schools are simply inadequate. 
The education scores we are seeing from our schools are not where we 
need to be. Making sure we are doing right by our Native children 
around the country is so important when it comes to education.
  We also include funding for irrigation systems. We also fully fund 
contract support costs. We increase funding for public safety and 
justice facilities construction and programs. Certainly, as I hear from 
folks in Alaska and those around Indian Country in the lower 48, public 
safety is something by which, again, we are not doing right by those 
whom we must serve in these areas. This is an effort that I intend to 
continue to push in my going forward.
  I would specifically like to point out to my colleagues that for the 
very first time, we include a comprehensive look with new funding into 
those issues related to murdered and missing indigenous women. Many of 
us have been shocked at what we are coming to understand about the 
murdered and missing of our Native women around the country. The data 
we have we know is lacking. We don't know what we don't know. Thus, 
oftentimes it is difficult to respond and to address resources. The 
fact is that many who live in Tribal communities are often located in 
rural areas that lack public safety, and even though you have high 
rates of violence, abuse, murder, trafficking, we simply don't have the 
resources there to help to respond to it.
  I have been working with several of my colleagues to address these 
challenges--Senator Udall, Senator Hoeven, Senator Daines, and so 
many--to shine a light in this area. We know it is going to take a lot 
of coordination and communication among law enforcement agencies to get 
this right. In this bill, we include $6.5 million for cold case 
investigations, equipment, training, background checks, and the 
necessary report language to move us in the right direction.
  Attorney General Barr came to the State of Alaska in May. In 
Anchorage, he had an opportunity to sit and listen to statewide 
leaders, Native leaders, and law enforcement. He then had an 
opportunity to get out of the rural areas and into the villages. After 
he left, he declared a public safety emergency in the State of Alaska 
because of where we sit. So we have been working with the Attorney 
General and greatly appreciate his efforts there, but we need to do 
more through these appropriations to look specifically at these issues 
as well.
  For the Indian Health Service, there are also programs we have an 
obligation to fund that are vital to Indian Country. Many of these 
programs and the costs associated with them have grown since we enacted 
the 2019 bill. Among these are leasing and staffing costs that are 
associated with new healthcare facilities that are operated by the IHS 
or by Tribes under compact agreements. Our bill funds these new 
increases. We provide additional funding for recruitment and quality 
improvement as well as providing a $24 million increase for facilities, 
including an increase for medical equipment.
  The Forest Service receives investments in funding for the improved 
health and management of our Nation's forests, including for recreation 
assets, such as the cabins so many of us enjoy, the trails on which we 
hike, and recreation special use permitting to allow certain businesses 
to operate in our national forests in order to enhance the many 
recreational experiences and opportunities.
  At the beginning of my comments, I mentioned the wildfire cap 
adjustment. It was back in the 2018 omnibus that we created the 
wildland fire cap adjustment, and fiscal year 2020 is the first year 
this is now available. The bill invests $5.167 billion in wildland fire 
activity, including $2.25 billion in fire cap adjustment funding.
  In my State over this past summer, we certainly saw intense and 
extensive fires. It was a recordbreaking heat year this past summer, 
and we had some pretty devastating fires. We are still talking about 
the fires just last year in California. We know the threat is real, and 
we know we have to respond. So making sure we have the capacity to 
fight fire is important. In this bill, we not only invest in fire 
suppression, but we also invest in State and volunteer fire assistance. 
We provide increases for hazardous fuels reductions.
  As far as the EPA budget goes, we prioritize funding for the programs 
that result in concrete actions to improve the quality of the 
environment across our country. The bill provides significant increases 
in State and Tribal grant programs, which will lead to tangible, on-
the-ground cleanup and environment benefits, which was another priority 
that was strongly supported by many in this Chamber.
  The priority that was targeted by many in the waters phase was water 
infrastructure development. Many of the newly authorized programs in 
America's Water Infrastructure Act are funded for the first time in 
this measure. Funding is also provided for the Clean Water and Drinking 
Water State Revolving Funds and for the WIFIA Program to build and 
support critical water infrastructure in communities in every State. 
The bill also equips the EPA with a powerful set of tools to further 
the Agency's core missions of clean air, clean water, and clean land.
  One of the issues I hear a lot about from the folks back home, as 
well as from my colleagues in the Senate, is the issue of PFAS and PFAS 
contamination. In this bill, we have provided $25 million in increases 
to address PFAS, including new funding for State-led cleanup and 
remediation efforts. We also focus on the research of human health and 
environmental impacts and related priority regulatory actions. There is 
a $20 million increase provided for EPA grant programs to support 
States in their cleanup and remediation efforts of PFAS-contaminated 
water sources as well as the water systems and the lands.
  The remaining $5 million in increases will support the EPA's priority 
actions on PFAS and supplement the research that other agencies are 
currently conducting on the chemicals.
  So we heard the concerns of so many, and we really worked to respond 
in this measure.
  Lastly, the bill includes important increases for our cultural 
institutions and our agencies. The Smithsonian Institution, the Gallery 
of Art, and the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities all 
receive increases in our measure.
  I think it is so important to make sure that when we think about our 
treasures--clearly our land, the cleanliness of our water, but we also 
have national treasures, and we see so much of that reflected in the 
arts, whether it is the Smithsonian, the galleries, or what the 
Endowment for the Arts and the Humanities do.
  Consistent with fiscal year 2019, we do not include new policy 
provisions

[[Page S6059]]

that were not in the enacted bill. So we worked with Chairman Shelby, 
Vice Chairman Leahy, and the ranking member, again, with Senator Udall, 
to assemble a package that both sides supported in committee.
  I want to reiterate the work Senator Udall and I put in to produce a 
bipartisan product that invests in programs that we care about--
programs that protect our land and our people and enable infrastructure 
projects to boost the economy and help communities provide vital basic 
services that many might take for granted. We also worked hard to shape 
this bill so that it reflects the priorities of Members on both sides 
of the aisle. I am proud--I am really very proud--of the good, 
bipartisan work to ensure that this Interior appropriations bill 
directs the Federal resources to where they are needed most, providing 
critical investments in communities across the Nation.
  Of course, this Interior bill is just a part of this package. We also 
have Commerce-Justice-Science, Agriculture, and T-HUD. All of these 
have significant impacts across the country. Certainly in my home 
State, we are looking at the Commerce-Justice-Science bill to help keep 
our fisheries healthy and provide assistance for public safety 
programs.
  In the Agriculture bill, there is funding for much needed water 
infrastructure in our villages, and it helps expand our ever-growing 
agricultural industries.
  Of course T-HUD makes sure that rural communities in my State can 
still receive things like essential air service and helps with our 
ferry transportation system and to provide Tribal housing.
  There is so much good in all of these measures. I would commend them 
to Members' consideration but would certainly urge passage of this very 
important Appropriations bill.
  I am pleased to be here with my colleague, the good Senator from New 
Mexico.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, it is great to be here with Senator 
Murkowski.
  I rise to speak in support of the fiscal year 2020 Interior 
appropriations bill, which is now before the Senate. I want to begin by 
thanking my chairman and partner in this endeavor, Senator Murkowski, 
for her working with me to produce a very fine bill that was crafted on 
a bipartisan basis. It is extraordinary that this bill is on the floor 
for the second consecutive year after many years when we were not able 
to move the bill by regular order. Much of the credit goes to her 
leadership and her commitment to working through tough issues in a fair 
and a pragmatic way.
  One of the reasons I am particularly proud of moving a bipartisan 
bill is the importance this bill has for my home State of New Mexico.
  This bill reflects the long tradition we have in my State of working 
across the aisle to support conservation priorities. It includes a 
number of important accomplishments for the State, including language 
to protect the sacred landscape of Chaco Canyon, along with funding to 
support the Valles Caldera National Preserve and the new resources to 
clean up the PFAS contamination in New Mexico and across the country.
  This bill is also an important reflection of why the work that 
Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman Leahy did earlier this year to secure 
a 2-year budget agreement is so important.
  The Interior bill delivers roughly 2.5 percent more funding than last 
year once you factor in the increase we received under the budget 
agreement and the savings we picked up from using the first year of the 
wildfire cap adjustment.
  The funds in this bill allow this body to make solid increases to 
support the Land and Water Conservation Fund and to protect and manage 
national parks, wildlife refuges, and other public lands. I know many 
hope we can do better on the Land and Water Conservation Fund funding, 
and so do I. While I am pleased about the increase in this bill above 
the enacted level, I will be working to improve the LWCF's funding when 
we conference with the House. But our efforts in the short term should 
not take away from the goal we have set on a bipartisan basis to 
provide permanent, mandatory, full funding of the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. That remains a top priority for me, and I think we 
can and should accomplish that in this Congress.
  The bill also makes critical investments in Indian Country. Many of 
those were mentioned by Chairman Murkowski, and we believe there are 
really solid things that have been done there--investments in Indian 
Country, providing a 4-percent increase for the Indian Health Service 
and a 2-percent increase for programs funded through the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Indian Education.
  We provide $2.25 billion in new firefighting funds using the wildfire 
cap adjustment, which means that these funds are finally, for the first 
time, provided without requiring reductions to other important 
programs. It also means that the Forest Service will not be forced to 
raid nonfire programs to pay for firefighting needs without knowing 
whether those funds will be repaid.
  The bill increases funding for the Environmental Protection Agency by 
2 percent in order to support new bipartisan infrastructure priorities 
and to make important investments in regional cleanup programs. The EPA 
is still struggling after years of budget cuts, but I am proud that our 
bill includes the best EPA budget in a decade and completely rejects 
the billions in cuts proposed by the Trump administration.
  It also provides vital resources to our counties by fully funding the 
payment in lieu of taxes program--a program that supports over $40 
million per year in local government services in New Mexico.
  This bill boosts funding for cultural agencies, including the 
National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, as well as the Kennedy 
Center, the National Gallery of Art, and the Smithsonian Institution. 
Specifically, I am very proud that we were able to increase the budgets 
of NEA and NEH by $2 million each. These funds provide a critical boost 
to local arts and humanities programs in small towns across the United 
States--programs that create countless jobs and ensure economic 
vitality in communities like those in New Mexico.
  I am also pleased that the bill contains no new funding requested by 
the administration for the Interior Department reorganization, 
including the efforts to dismantle the Bureau of Land Management. This 
bill sends a strong message that the administration needs to push 
``pause'' and work with Members on both sides of the aisle. It is 
vitally important that we now have both Chambers on record on this 
important issue, and I hope the administration hears us loud and clear.
  I appreciate that the bill contains no new poison pill riders for the 
second year in a row, which is all the more notable given the number of 
difficult issues that we confront through the EPA and the Federal land 
management agencies.
  I want to thank Chairman Shelby and Senator Murkowski for their 
commitment to moving a clean Interior bill.
  That said, I do want to note that the bill does continue several 
provisions that I oppose, including provisions dealing with the lead 
content of ammunition, biomass energy policy, Clean Water Act 
exemptions, and Clean Air Act exemptions.
  I also oppose a troubling provision in the bill that weakens 
protections for the sage grouse. Given the bad-faith efforts by this 
administration to weaken efforts to protect the sage grouse, it is 
extremely shortsighted for Congress to continue to block protections 
under the Endangered Species Act for the species when the 
administration has failed to hold up its end of the bargain.
  These provisions are contrary to the spirit of the no poison pill 
riders agreement. Thankfully, they are not in the underlying House 
bill, H.R. 3055, and I expect to have some frank conversations as part 
of the conference process about the need to remove them and the need to 
include a number of other important curbs on this administration 
included in that legislation. So I want to be on record that in the 
conference, I will be fighting to keep the House's positions on several 
of these very important items.
  I look forward to debating this bill, considering amendments, and 
ultimately passing it with a bipartisan

[[Page S6060]]

vote so that we can proceed to a conference with the House.
  I also want to express my personal thanks to the majority 
subcommittee staff--Emy Lesofski, Nona McCoy, and Lucas Agnew--for 
working with me and my staff. This is Emy's first bill serving as the 
clerk of the subcommittee, and I congratulate her on this milestone as 
the Senate takes up the bill. Their work is a great credit to Chairman 
Murkowski and Chairman Shelby.
  I would also like to thank my staff--Rachael Taylor, Ryan Hunt, 
Melissa Zimmerman, and Faisal Amin--for all of their hard work to 
accommodate the priorities of Senators on both sides of the aisle.
  I think one thing that Chairman Murkowski and I worked on was trying 
to handle any request that came to us from wherever in the Senate and 
deal with it in a bipartisan way. So I very much appreciate working 
hard with Senator Murkowski to get this bill done and to move it on to 
conference with the House and to get it into law.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                              S.J. Res. 50

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to address the Congressional Review 
Act measure we will be voting on later today.
  Let's be very clear. This is a vote the purpose of which is to 
overturn a very, very important part of the tax reform that we passed 
in December of 2017 that made the Tax Code much more fair than it was 
before. Specifically, I am referring to the limitations that we put on 
the ability of people to deduct State and local taxes.
  Let's remember what our Tax Code looked like before our tax reform. 
Wealthy individuals could deduct the full amount of any State and local 
tax deductions, however high they got. And we use the acronym ``SALT'' 
to refer to these State and local tax deductions. So why do I say that 
is unfair? Well, it is unfair because it subsidizes people who choose 
to live in high-tax jurisdictions. It does that because it lowers the 
tax bill of somebody who lives in a high-tax jurisdiction, like 
Manhattan or San Francisco, because they get to deduct the full amount 
of the outrageously high State and local taxes they choose to pay. The 
fact that they get to deduct that big number means the rest of us have 
to pay higher rates on our income than we otherwise would have to pay. 
Why should my constituents in Blair County or Cambria County or 
anywhere else in Pennsylvania--constituents with modest incomes who 
choose local governments that keep a modest level of service and 
therefore a modest level of taxes--why should those constituents have 
to pay higher tax rates to subsidize the folks who have multimillion-
dollar condos on the Upper West Side of Manhattan? It is totally 
unfair. They certainly should not have to do that. And have no doubt 
about it--the huge benefits of this unlimited State and local tax 
deduction that we used to have always flowed to a handful of States 
that have chosen to have very, very high taxes. California and New York 
are two good examples. Under the old regime, about one-third of all the 
benefits of the State and local tax deductions went to just those two 
States--just California and New York. They had one-third of all the 
benefits.

  Take New Jersey, right next door to my State of Pennsylvania. New 
Jersey has 4 million fewer people than we have in Pennsylvania, almost 
one-third fewer people, but they got more of the benefit of the SALT 
deductions than my entire State. That is because New Jersey is a very 
high-tax State. Guess what. It is a high-tax State because the people 
who live there voted for politicians who raise their taxes. That is 
apparently what they want. They want to have all of the services that 
go with that. They are happy with very high State income tax and local 
property taxes. That is their decision. Look, if you want to vote for 
someone who is going to impose exorbitantly high taxes on you, you 
should be free to cast that vote. But don't expect my constituents to 
subsidize them.
  So that was the regime we had in place. Tax reform came along, and we 
said: Do you know what we are going to do? We are going to put a limit 
on the amount of State and local taxes that a tax filer can deduct. The 
limit is $10,000. It is not trivial. It is a lot of money. But that is 
the limit. If you pay more than that in State and local taxes, you do 
not get to deduct it.
  In response to that, very interestingly, several of these high-tax 
States have designed a scam to get around the limitation we imposed. 
The scam is that they create this vehicle, and then they have their 
taxpayers pay their taxes into that vehicle and call it a charity, call 
it a charitable contribution. The money then goes out of that vehicle 
and goes to the government. It is not a charitable contribution at all. 
It is a transparent, obvious attempt to circumvent the law that we 
passed in 2017.
  The IRS came along and said: Well, this is an obvious scam. They 
developed a rule that shuts down the scam. It says: If you create this 
scam, this make-believe charity, as a way to circumvent the cap on 
State and local deductions, we are going to disallow the deduction. So 
the IRS ruling shuts down the scam and maintains the deduction cap, and 
what my Democratic colleagues want to do right now is have a vote to 
invalidate the IRS ruling--in other words, have a vote to keep the 
scam. That is what the vote is today, to make sure we destroy the IRS 
ruling and keep this scam in place.
  One of the ironies of this whole debate is that our Democratic 
colleagues voted against our tax reform because they said that it was 
too much of a tax cut for the rich, despite the fact that, in fact, our 
tax reform shifted the tax burden from lower income taxpayers to higher 
income taxpayers while saving money for everybody.
  The relative proportion of taxes paid increased for wealthy people, 
decreased for low-income people, while everyone had some savings. That 
was objectionable to my Democratic colleagues.
  Now they come along, and they want to repeal the rule that shuts down 
the scam. They want to perpetuate the scam that is a massive giveaway 
to the wealthiest Americans. It is amazing.
  According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 94 percent of the 
benefit--if they had their way and prevailed on this vote, 94 percent 
of the benefit would go to people whose income is over $200,000; 52 
percent of the benefit would go to taxpayers with income over $1 
million.
  Not only is it fundamentally unfair to ask people in some low-tax 
jurisdictions to subsidize the taxes chosen by people in high-tax 
jurisdictions, the subsidy all flows from low- and middle-income people 
to very, very wealthy people. That is the deal: Millionaires would 
receive an average tax cut of $60,000; taxpayers with income between 
$50,000 and $100,000 would receive an average tax cut of less than 
$10--not $10,000--$10.
  What we did when we put a limit on the ability to deduct State and 
local taxes was a big step in making our Tax Code more fair. The States 
came along and developed a scam to circumvent it. The IRS, quite 
rightly, saw through the scam and said: We are not going to allow that 
scam to continue. Now my Democratic colleagues want to tear up the IRS 
rule to perpetuate the scam. That is a very bad idea, and I hope we 
will all vote against the Congressional Review Act effort that is 
scheduled for a vote later today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2242

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am here today because, unfortunately, 
our elections still remain vulnerable to foreign election interference.
  Earlier this month, the Senate Intelligence Committee, which I am 
proud to serve on, released its report on Russia's use of social media 
to undermine our democracy.
  The committee's bipartisan conclusion was clear. Russia attacked our 
democracy in 2016; their efforts on social media are ongoing; and they 
will be back in 2020. Frankly, they never left.
  This echos all of the evidence we have seen from the intelligence 
community and from companies like Facebook, whose CEO, Mr. Zuckerberg, 
is testifying on the other side of the Capitol today on some of the 
ongoing efforts. We have seen this evidence, as well, from Special 
Counsel Mueller and many, many others.
  The alarm bells are going off, and what are we doing? We are running 
out of time to do something about it.

[[Page S6061]]

  Twice in recent weeks I have come to the floor to make a unanimous 
consent request on bipartisan legislation, which I have introduced, 
called the FIRE Act, and twice this bipartisan legislation has been 
blocked by my Republican colleagues. Actually, their actions earned 
applause from the President on Twitter.
  Again, let me once again go forward with what this bill does. It is 
pretty simple and very straightforward. It would say to all 
Presidential campaigns going forward: If a foreign power reaches out to 
your campaign, offering assistance or offering dirt on a political 
opponent, the appropriate response is not to say thank you; the 
appropriate response is to call the FBI.
  When I first introduced this legislation, we were concerned about the 
Mueller report's finding that the Trump campaign welcomed the 
assistance of the Russian Government during the 2016 election.
  At the time, I was also deeply alarmed by the President's comments in 
the Oval Office during the summer that he would entertain offers of 
foreign assistance in future elections.
  A lot has happened since then, which makes this legislation more 
necessary than ever. In the time since I last spoke on the FIRE Act, 
the President has used his office to seek dirt on a political opponent, 
Mr. Biden. It appears he pressured the Ukrainians. In the middle of 
ongoing trade negotiations, he went on national television to call on 
China to investigate Mr. Biden.
  He also, during this period of time, has used the bully pulpit to 
intimidate and threaten an intelligence community whistleblower. I am 
glad to see that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
have stood up for the integrity of the whistleblower program and the 
notions that whistleblowers are a critical part of keeping our system 
on the up and up and that whistleblowers should not be threatened.
  We have also heard in these past few weeks--I am not going to get 
into all of the details--a lot of contradictory and, frankly, almost 
Orwellian claims about whether the President's asking a favor of the 
Ukrainian President is evidence of a quid pro quo. Then, just in recent 
days, we have seen a series of career diplomats coming forward, 
basically trying to validate the whistleblower's complaints.
  I know the House is working on some of this, and our Senate 
Intelligence Committee is also looking at some of the 
counterintelligence concerns about the President's deals--about the 
President's deals particularly with Mr. Giuliani and his associates.
  I have particular interest, as well, in terms of what the Attorney 
General is doing when he is going out, asking our closest allies--our 
FVEY partners, in the case of Australia and the United Kingdom--to use 
their intelligence services to bring us dirt on the President's 
political opponents. That puts in jeopardy the trust basis the Five 
Eyes plan operates under.
  We need, more than ever, this basic FIRE Act bill to make it 
absolutely clear that if we see foreign governments interfering, the 
obligation ought to be on any Presidential campaign to tell the FBI.
  I see my colleague on the other side of the aisle, and I know she 
will probably object again. I just hope my colleagues will think about 
and look back on how history is going to judge this body. Did we do 
what was necessary to protect the integrity of our democratic process? 
And how in the heck did we allow the protection of our democratic 
process to become a partisan issue? We would never make protection of 
the power grid a partisan issue. Yet, unfortunately, I think we are 
going to see folks on the other side of the aisle object to this 
commonsense basic reform.
  If there are ways to improve on this legislation, I am wide open. I 
know my colleague raised concerns about the breadth. Let me be clear. 
Some of the claims that were made last time are not true, do not affect 
diplomatic efforts, do not affect folks who are visiting here in this 
country. We have been very, very clear. This is about a foreign 
government's offer or their spy service's offer of assistance during a 
Presidential campaign directly to that campaign.
  But if there are ways to improve on the legislation, let's have it at 
it. Let's offer an amendment. Let's at least vote. The truth is, we 
know what we need to do to protect our elections.
  Before I make my unanimous consent request, I want to recognize my 
friends and colleagues, Senator Klobuchar and Senator Wyden, who, after 
I make my request, will be speaking on a broader election security bill 
of which I am proud to be an original cosponsor as well. Let me simply 
say that I support their efforts to make sure we have paper ballot 
backups, to make sure we have postelection audits, to make sure if the 
Kremlin is paying for advertising on Facebook, they have the same kind 
of disclosure requirements as if they advertise on FOX--commonsense 
bipartisan proposals that, if they actually got to the floor of the 
Senate, I bet we would get 80 votes. My hope is that we will have that 
opportunity.
  The truth is, the only person winning from our failure to act--and, 
unfortunately, this person seems to be winning, as well, in Syria and 
seems to be winning, as well, in terms of the split between America and 
Ukraine--is Vladimir Putin.
  Again, I appeal to my colleagues: Let's move forward on the first 
step, protecting the integrity of our elections. Let's bring forward 
the FIRE Act. Let's make absolutely clear that if a foreign government 
tries to intervene in a Presidential election, the obligation is to 
report to the FBI and not say thank you.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be 
discharged from further consideration of S. 2242, the FIRE Act; that 
the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be 
read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would allow my colleague to speak on 
this item. I say to my colleague from Tennessee, and others, that if 
there are ways to improve this legislation, let's have at it. But the 
notion that we are going into a Presidential election in which our 
intelligence community has said that Russia and others will be back, 
and we have taken no action to prevent that when there are commonsense 
items from social media constraints to making clear the foreign 
government shouldn't intervene, to having paper ballot backups, to 
making sure we have appropriate campaign disclosure, we are shirking 
our responsibility, and I hope in the future my colleagues will 
reconsider.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2669

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am proud to be here with Senator 
Warner and Senator Wyden, both leaders on this election security issue.
  This is the second time I have come to the floor this week to urge 
the Senate to take action on election security legislation. It has been 
1,006 days since Russia attacked us in 2016, something that has been 
confirmed by all of President Trump's top intelligence agents. In fact, 
former Director Coats actually said they are getting bolder.

  The next major elections are just 377 days away. We must take action 
now to secure our elections.
  I know Senator Wyden will be addressing the actual hacking of our 
election equipment, which is so important, as well as other issues, but 
I am focused on this propaganda issue, this disinformation campaign 
that we have seen from the Russians.
  The Honest Ads Act, which is part of the bill that I will be asking 
for unanimous consent on, the SHIELD Act, which is going to be passed 
by the House today, includes a number of measures that would close 
loopholes to stop foreign spending on issue ads in our elections. It 
would boost disclosure and transparency requirements, and it would help 
to stop bad actors from using deceptive practices to mislead voters.
  All that may sound like a list of policy issues that seem very 
removed, but let me make it very specific. Here is one example of, 
literally, millions.
  In the last election, an ad was discovered that was paid for in 
rubles. It had been paid for in rubles before the election. It 
happened, but we did not know

[[Page S6062]]

about it until long after the election. It was the face of an African-
American woman, an innocent woman, in Chicago. She later called our 
office and said: I don't know where they got my face. They put her face 
on a Facebook ad that went to African-American Facebook pages in swing 
States. This is what the Russians did. Her picture was there, and it 
said: Don't wait in line to vote for Hillary Clinton. You can text your 
vote at--and it gave a five-digit number, like 86153.
  That is a crime. That is a crime. They are suppressing the vote. They 
are telling a voter to vote illegally in a way that will not register 
their vote. That is what we are talking about here--propaganda. Yes, it 
hurt one side in this 2016 election, but the next time it could be 
someone else on the other side of the aisle.
  Fundamental to our democracy and our Founding Fathers was the simple 
idea that we would determine our faith in America and that we would not 
let foreign powers influence our elections. That is what this is about. 
It is about protecting our election hardware and infrastructure, and it 
is also about protecting us from this disinformation campaign and all 
of this really bad stuff.
  I don't think my colleagues are interested in protecting--I hope this 
isn't their goal--the big social media companies. I hope their goal is 
to protect Americans so they can determine their own faith in an 
election.
  With that, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of S. 2669, the Stopping Harmful Interference 
in Elections for a Lasting Democracy Act, otherwise known as the SHIELD 
Act, which was introduced earlier today; further, that the bill be 
considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. That is very unfortunate, given how soon the elections 
are and what a difference we could make, especially with the 
disinformation campaigns. I hope my colleagues change their minds.
  The Honest Ads Act is a bipartisan bill with Senator Graham, the 
Republican chair of the Judiciary Committee. We must act.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2238

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will be making a unanimous consent 
request to move the SAFE Act in just a couple of moments. This is 
legislation that Senator Klobuchar and I have teamed up on for quite 
some time.
  It basically incorporates the three priorities that all of the 
nonpartisan election cybersecurity experts recommend: paper ballots, 
routine post-election, risk-limiting audits, and Federal cyber security 
standards for election systems.
  I am going to make some brief remarks and then pose a unanimous 
consent request.
  I just find it stunning that the Republican Party continues its wall-
to-wall campaign of obstruction against election security. Because of 
this legislative blockade, the Senate has been AWOL when it comes to 
stopping foreign cyber attacks on our elections.
  For example, I think most Americans would be stunned to learn that 
there is not a single mandatory, nationwide election cyber security 
standard on the books. For example, there are no rules barring 
connecting voting machines to the internet. I say to the Presiding 
Officer and colleagues that doing so is equivalent to putting American 
ballot boxes in the Kremlin. That is what happens when you don't have 
cyber security standards.
  Let's remember what happened in the election cyber security debacle 
of 2016. Russian hackers probed all 50 State election systems. Russians 
successfully hacked at least one election technology vendor, according 
to the Mueller report. Russians penetrated two Florida county election 
systems, according to Florida's Governor. That is just what we know 
about.
  People are always saying: Well, no votes were changed. Nobody knows 
that because you wouldn't know it unless you had a real forensic 
analysis conducted by cybersecurity experts who broke the systems down, 
and that hasn't been done.
  Despite all of the ways foreign hackers have already made it into our 
election infrastructure, Congress has refused to arm State and county 
election officials with the knowledge and funding they need to secure 
their systems.
  I will just make one additional point, and I thank my colleague for 
her courtesy because I know everyone is on a tight schedule. This 
summer, I saw for myself how vulnerable election systems are. I went to 
DEF CON, which is really the major ``white hat'' hacker convention in 
Las Vegas. I went because I wanted to see how easy it was to hack e-
pollbooks, voting machines, and other key parts of election 
infrastructure. I sure wish some of my colleagues on the other side, 
including the distinguished majority leader, could have seen all of 
these young people in the Voting Village going through a who's who of 
hackable voting machines and see how easy it was to compromise voting 
machines to alter votes, disrupt ballot printers, and meddle with 
registration systems.
  Teenagers in the DEF CON Voting Village showed me an e-pollbook 
hacked so completely that young people were playing video games like 
``Doom'' on it. I sure wish my colleagues could have been there.
  I sit on the Intelligence Committee. I am not going to get into 
anything classified, but I am going to close simply by saying that, as 
of today, the threats that we face in 2020 from hostile foreign powers, 
in my view, are going to make 2016 look like small potatoes.
  For that reason, I now ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee 
be discharged from further consideration of S. 2238, the Securing 
America's Federal Elections Act, otherwise known as the SAFE Act; that 
the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be 
considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, my mom would always say: You know, it 
is not a good sign if you are doing the same thing over and over and 
expecting a different result.
  My colleagues have sought several times, under the guise of election 
security, to circumvent going to the Rules Committee and trying to 
bring these bills to the floor.
  It is important to note that the legislation they are bringing would 
do something that most people, especially people in Tennessee, tell me 
they do not want to see happen. What it would do is take away authority 
from your local election commission, your State election commission, 
and then vest that authority with the Federal Government.
  Federalizing our elections, in my opinion, would actually make them 
less secure. Is there anybody who thinks the Federal Government is 
going to do a better job of administering an election in Williamson 
County, TN, where I live and where I have served on the election 
commission? The answer would be ``of course, not.'' They know that 
their friends and neighbors who served on those entities would do a 
better job.
  I must also remind my colleagues that every single Member--Democrat, 
Republican, and Independent; every Member of the Senate--agrees that 
foreign meddling in our Nation's business is a problem. For decades, 
foreign nations have sought to meddle in our affairs in the physical 
space. Ought we to have expected them to try this in the virtual space? 
It ought not have come as a surprise to us.
  We also know that Members are working on this issue, and that there 
has been progress that has been made by the Intel community, by State-
level authorities, and by those who are making certain these election 
systems are secure. And guess what. They are doing this without a 
Federal power grab taking place.
  I fear that my friends on the other side of the aisle still have not 
gotten

[[Page S6063]]

over that they lost in 2016. Further, they have yet to accept that 
their colleagues in the House of Representatives have turned their best 
hopes for correcting this electoral disappointment into a farce.
  We know that in 2016 the Russians seized upon partisan hysteria and 
used it to pit the American people against one another. They did not 
affect voting in election systems.
  It is not too much to ask that my friends in the minority cease using 
the business of the Senate to continue these requests.
  I do object to the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am going to be brief because I just think 
it is so critical to respond to the comments my colleague has made.
  The first argument was that, on this side of the aisle, people really 
aren't interested in election security. The fact is, what Senator 
Klobuchar and I and those on our side of the aisle have been interested 
in are the three priorities that independent cyber security experts 
agree are essential to protecting our elections: paper ballots, audits, 
and cyber security standards. So that ought to dispose of this issue 
that somehow on this side of the aisle, people really aren't interested 
in election security.
  Second, I want it understood that over here, we have been interested 
in working in a bipartisan way. But our ranking member, Senator 
Klobuchar, on the Rules Committee said that at one point there was a 
markup scheduled on these issues, and, essentially, the leadership on 
the other side of the aisle intervened, and it was canceled.
  The fact is that here we are, with just a few months until people 
start voting. They are going to vote in primaries early next year. They 
are going to go to the polls from sea to shining sea in the fall of 
2020. I will just say to my colleagues that we have something like 25 
States in America that are nakedly vulnerable. These are the States 
that are still using hackable, paperless voting machines and States 
that do not have routine, post-election audits.

  As Senator Warner, Senator Klobuchar, and I have said, and the 
distinguished minority leader, Senator Schumer, all we are interested 
in is working to deal with this issue in an objective way, based on the 
facts outlined by the experts who aren't at all political.
  I think it is very unfortunate that there has been an objection to 
the proposal from the distinguished Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, 
and the proposal from the ranking member on the Rules Committee, who 
has worked with me on the SAFE Act, and the SAFE Act itself because, as 
a result of this action, the Senate is missing yet another opportunity 
to provide an additional measure of security for the 2020 election.
  I will close with one last response in light of a comment my 
colleague, our new Senator from Tennessee, has made. She and I have 
talked about these issues, and I have appreciated it. She said that no 
votes were changed--no votes were changed in the election. Nobody knows 
that. Unless you do a forensic analysis and break down the machines, 
you won't know that.
  I sure hope that soon we will be back on this floor moving the 
proposal advanced by the Senator from Virginia and the proposal 
advanced by the Senator from Minnesota and me because these are 
measures proposed by independent experts who don't care about Ds and 
Rs; they care about what is right for America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                               Hong Kong

  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, as we gather today here in peace and 
safety in this quiet Chamber, we must remember that there is a city 
half a world away that is struggling to survive--a city that is 
fighting for human rights and human liberty and a city that is a 
solitary pinpoint of light on a continent of authoritarianism, a city 
called Hong Kong.
  The need there is urgent, and the hour there is late, and it is time 
for America to act. I know this because I have been there. I have been 
there myself. I have seen it. I have been to Hong Kong. I have been to 
the streets of Hong Kong. I have seen the protesters marching in 
support of and in defense of their basic human rights. I have seen them 
demonstrating for their basic human liberties. I have seen them 
confronting the police with their tactics of brutality and oppression.
  It makes me think that sometimes, in the course of history, the fate 
of one city defines the challenge of an entire generation. Fifty years 
ago, that city was Berlin. Today, that city is Hong Kong. The situation 
there is critical. Hong Kong is sliding toward becoming a police state. 
Have no doubt and make no mistake that Beijing wants to impose its will 
on Hong Kong. It wants to silence dissent in Hong Kong. It wants to 
steamroll Hong Kong, just as it wants to steamroll all of its neighbors 
in the region, just as it wants to control the region, and just as it 
wants ultimately to control the entire international system.
  We know what is at stake in this country because we have gotten all 
too familiar with Beijing's tactics. We have seen what Beijing has 
tried to do to this country for decades now. They have stolen our jobs. 
They have stolen our technologies. They have tried to build and are 
building their military on the backs of our middle class. Their aims 
are expansionist, and their aims are domination, and their aims are not 
compatible with the security or the prosperity of this country. That is 
why what is happening in Hong Kong today is so important and the fight 
there is so significant.
  Will a totalitarian China and totalitarian Beijing be allowed to 
dominate the city of Hong Kong, to silence it, and then to turn to the 
region as a whole?
  You know, let's review what is actually happening there in the 
streets of Hong Kong. This didn't start with the people of Hong Kong; 
this started with Beijing. This started with Beijing and its puppet 
government and its puppet chief executive in Hong Kong attempting to 
revoke the rights of Hongkongers--the rights, by the way, that Beijing 
promised to the people of that city in 1984 and again in 1997. They are 
trying to revoke those rights by bringing in a bill for extradition of 
Hong Kong citizens and Hong Kong residents to mainland China to be 
tried in China's courts, where there is no due process, where there are 
no basic guaranteed liberties, and where there is no recourse. That was 
Beijing's plan, and that would have affected not just the citizens of 
Hong Kong but the residents there, including over 80,000 Americans who 
are currently residents in the city. And the people of Hong Kong said 
no.
  On the 12th of July, just a few days after Beijing put forward this 
extradition bill, 2 million Hong Kong residents--2 million took to the 
streets in peaceful protest. This is a city of 7\1/2\ million. There 
were 2 million on the streets on the 12th of July. When the Hong Kong 
Government--the Beijing-controlled government refused to back down, the 
people of Hong Kong refused to be silenced. For months now, months on 
end, 20 weeks and more, the people of Hong Kong have been taking to the 
streets protesting, seeking to vindicate their rights, and they have 
been doing it in the face of escalating opposition.
  The Hong Kong Government--on orders, no doubt, from Beijing--has 
sought to deny the protesters permits to gather peacefully. They have 
sought to deny them the right to cover their faces because, let's not 
forget, China is a surveillance state, and the persecution and 
retribution against protesters is real, and it is constant.
  Now they are talking about a potential curfew. They are shutting down 
subway stations early so protesters can't get from one place to 
another. They have used violent tactics to put down the protests--tear 
gas and beatings and dye blasted at protesters.
  China continues to escalate--Beijing continues to escalate the 
situation, turning the screws on Hong Kong and taking away the rights 
and liberties of the people there.
  Hong Kong's demands are not outlandish; they are asking for what they 
were promised. They were promised in 1984, by the Government of 
Beijing--in a duly ratified international treaty, they were promised 
the right to assemble and the right to peacefully gather and protest. 
They were promised the right to vote and to be able to choose their own 
government. They were promised the right to speak openly. They were 
promised the right to worship. Those are the rights the people of

[[Page S6064]]

Hong Kong seek to vindicate today, and those are the rights Beijing is 
attempting to strip from this city as we stand here today in this 
Chamber.
  The people of Hong Kong--they have an expression. The protesters say 
they are going to be like water. They say ``Be water.'' Some have 
actually referred to this as a water movement. They mean ``Be fluid. Be 
reactive. Adjust to the situation.''
  I just have to say, having been there myself, having been to the 
streets, having seen the protesters, having met with them and talked 
with them, their courage and their bravery under pressure is really 
something to behold. It is an inspiration to me, and I think it should 
be an inspiration to all of us. Their love of liberty--you never love 
something more than when it is threatened--their love of liberty is 
really extraordinary.
  I want to say something the Reverend Chu Yiu-ming said about liberty 
and democracy. He said it so beautifully. These are his words:

       We strive for democracy, because democracy strives for 
     freedom, equality and universal love. Political freedom is 
     more than loyalty to a state. [Political freedom] professes 
     human dignity. Every single person living in a community 
     possesses unique potentials and unique powers, capable of 
     making a [unique] contribution to society.

  That is extraordinary, and he is exactly right. Hongkongers know it, 
and that is what they are standing for, and that is what they are 
fighting for.
  The people of Hong Kong need our support, they deserve our support, 
and they are depending on our support. That is why it is time for this 
body to act. It is time to take up and pass the Hong Kong Human Rights 
and Democracy Act. The time for debate is over. The time for delay has 
passed. It is now time to stand with the people of Hong Kong and to 
send a signal to the world that the United States will stand with 
freedom-loving people, that the United States will stand up to Beijing, 
and that the United States will not permit China to dominate its 
neighbors and its region and the world.
  It is time for this body to act and to act now, and it is time to do 
more. That is why I will soon be introducing further measures to help 
support the people of Hong Kong. I will be calling for the imposition 
of Global Magnitsky sanctions on individuals and business entities that 
abet Beijing in its suppression of the freedoms of speech and assembly 
that rightfully belong to the people of Hong Kong.
  I would just say to those corporations doing business in China and to 
those multinational corporate entities and organizations like the NBA 
that it is time for you to take a stand as well. It is time for you to 
show a little backbone. It is time for you to show some independence. 
You may be multinational corporations that do business everywhere in 
the world, but remember that you are based here in this country. 
Remember--the NBA should--that you are an American organization. These 
companies need to remember that they are American entities, and it is 
time to show a little American independence.
  When Beijing tries to use threats of coercion and threats of market 
access to get the NBA to censure and to get corporations like Apple to 
censure, it is time for these corporations to stand up and say: We are 
not going to participate, and we are not going to become part of the 
Chinese Communist Party's propaganda arm. It is time for these 
companies to remember where their loyalties actually lie.
  I have to say, for too long now and for too many years now, we have 
seen too many of these companies and these same corporate executives--
who make money hand over fist in China--we have seen them happily send 
our jobs to China. We have seen them happily outsource our work to 
China. Now they want to import censorship into this country from China. 
Well, no thank you. It is time that they are open about what it is they 
are doing, and it is time they stand up to Beijing and say: No further.
  I want to say again that the situation in Hong Kong is urgent, and 
the people of Hong Kong are looking to the United States and to other 
freedom-loving peoples around the world for support and for strength. 
It is time that we send them the message--and call on our allies to do 
the same--that we must stand with Hong Kong because our own security 
and our own prosperity and our own ideals are at stake there.
  I think, finally, of the words of John Quincy Adams, whom I will 
paraphrase. He said: Wherever the standard of freedom is unfurled, 
there will be America's prayers, there will be America's benedictions, 
there will be America's heart, and today, there needs to be America's 
voice.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Remembering Ted Stevens

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the Senate this week is honoring our 
former colleague, Senator Ted Stevens, with the unveiling of his 
official portrait. I come to the floor to say some words about a friend 
and former chairman.
  Ted Stevens' life in public service started early when he joined the 
Army Corps in 1943. So great was his desire to serve our country that 
he joined after attending just one semester of college. During the war, 
he flew dangerous, unescorted missions in China and India, earning two 
Distinguished Flying Crosses for flights behind enemy lines. After the 
war, he returned to his studies and graduated from UCLA and Harvard Law 
School. Not long after that, he moved to Alaska to practice law, and 
there he began a life of service to the State he called home for the 
rest of his life.
  Ted served as a district attorney and became known for accompanying 
U.S. Marshals on raids, and that was really an early hint of his 
temperament and intensity on the job. Of course, all Senators devote 
their careers to their States, but few have the distinction of working 
to achieve statehood. Senator Stevens was one of them. Working in the 
Department of Interior in the 1950s, he became known as ``Mr. Alaska'' 
for his focus on achieving statehood. He worked tirelessly to assuage 
the concerns of then-President Eisenhower to get statehood passed 
through both the House and the Senate.

  When the Alaska Statehood Act finally passed, Ted returned to Alaska 
and served as a representative in the State House, becoming majority 
leader after just one term. Then, in 1968, he came to the Senate, where 
he would go on to serve for 40 years.
  Once here, he distinguished himself as a fierce advocate for Alaska. 
He fought relentlessly for funding to build rural hospitals, highways, 
courts, and military bases across the State he helped create. His 
efforts only increased when he ascended to the powerful chairmanship of 
the Appropriations Committee. He often quipped that being such a young 
State, Alaska needed extra help to catch up to its elder siblings; and 
help is exactly what he secured. One estimate says he steered more than 
$3.4 billion in Federal funding to Alaskan projects in just the last 14 
years of his tenure.
  Those of us who served with him on the Appropriations Committee got 
to know Ted's Incredible Hulk tie, which he would wear on days with 
especially difficult debates. He was a fighter and a fierce advocate 
for his State and his party. When a reporter once asked about his 
reputation for losing his temper, Senator Stevens replied:

       I didn't lose my temper. I know right where it is.

  But he would also cross party lines and work side by side with his 
appropriations colleagues, especially Bob Byrd and Daniel Inouye. They 
would trade the gavel between them, serving as chair and ranking member 
of subcommittees and the full committee.
  Beyond Federal funding, Stevens settled many longstanding issues that 
faced his young State. Chief among them was the settling of Tribal land 
claims. The Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act would become the 
largest land settlement claim in U.S. history. It was hailed as 
groundbreaking for its involvement of Alaskan Native communities from 
the outset.
  Always with an eye to the future, Ted Stevens not only supported 
Native leaders in asserting land claims, but he also supported economic 
development measures in the final bill.
  Personally, I remain thankful for Ted's support with the Ten-in-Ten 
Fuel

[[Page S6065]]

Economy Act, a bill I authored in 2007 with Senators Olympia Snowe, 
Maria Cantwell, Tom Carper, and others. The bill was drafted to 
increase fuel economy by 10 miles per gallon within 10 years, but it 
was responsible for much more. The Obama administration went on to use 
the Ten-in-Ten Act to set rules that will increase fuel efficiency to 
more than 50 miles per gallon by 2025 and save consumers more than $460 
billion at the pump.
  Here is how it got done. I couldn't get it done. It was controversial 
at the time and, believe it or not, Ted Stevens played a big role in 
getting this bill passed. As ranking member of the Commerce Committee, 
he and Senator Inouye included the language as part of a broader energy 
bill that President Bush signed into law in 2007.
  So this was a big deal, and it was controversial. Senator Stevens 
knew that, but he understood the importance of the issue, and he 
included the language in one of his bills, and it could not have passed 
any other way. It was a very big event for me, and it really sealed my 
respect for this Senator from a different party, a different State; but 
he cared, you could go to him, and he helped.
  I remember back then. Now our mileage is going up, and I think of 
Ted, when I talked to him, saying: OK. We will get it done--and he and 
Dan Inouye did do that. He said: ``My motto has always been `To hell 
with politics, just do what's right for Alaska.'''
  I don't think anyone who had the pleasure of knowing Ted Stevens 
would know him as anything other than a great legislator for the State 
of Alaska and a great legislator for the United States of America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the appropriations bill 
that is now before the Senate. I would like, however, to defer to the 
ranking minority member on the Senate Agriculture Appropriations 
Subcommittee for his comments, and then I would reserve the rest of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                             Appropriations

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, thank you and a huge thanks to my 
colleague for not just deferring to me to make comments, which I am 
going to make very brief, but also for the leadership of the 
subcommittee and the bipartisan work. It is the way the Senate should 
work. Let's just expand that spirit to the entire Chamber, and we will 
make a lot of progress.
  This bill maintains funding for important rural development programs, 
including housing and rural broadband, which is essential all across 
America. It provides assistance with farm ownership and farm operating 
loans because access to credit to farmers is critical to stay in 
business, and it helps new farmers come into the farming and ranching 
community, including minorities, women, and veterans.
  It provides critical funding for SNAP. In our country, no one should 
go hungry. It assists with school meal equipment grants, the Farmer's 
Market Nutrition Program, and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, 
all relevant to making sure our children and our families have basic 
nutrition. It assists on the international front with Food for Peace, 
the McGovern-Dole program that feeds millions of children around the 
world.
  I was down in Central America and found that the average child in 
Guatemala at 9 years old is 6 inches shorter than the average 
Guatemalan child raised in the United States--stunning. It is a huge 
factor and affects the entire course of the mind. America is doing 
incredible work around the world in poverty-stricken countries. This 
food program also increases school attendance, particularly among 
girls.
  Critical funding for the Food and Drug Administration is part of this 
bill for a whole host of reasons.
  There is only one thing in this bill that I have disagreement with, 
and that is funding for the relocation of the National Institute of 
Food and Agriculture and the Economic Research Service. I think those 
organizations do a far better job when they are here networking with 
the other key critical policy groups and when folks coming from Oregon 
and places remotely around the country visit NIFA and ERS at the same 
time as visiting other programs.


                          Tribute to Bob Ross

  Mr. President, for 11 years, Bob Ross has been a detailee from the 
Department of Agriculture to our subcommittee. That is because he is 
fabulous, and we just couldn't let him go here in the U.S. Senate. Most 
people in rural America haven't heard of Bob Ross, but millions and 
millions have benefited from his work, particularly his superb work on 
rural housing. He has been invaluable to us. Few people get a chance to 
leave such a mark to make the world a better place as much as he has.
  He is on to the next chapter of his life, retirement, and perhaps 
many adventures in retirement. Bob is sitting behind me. We thank him 
for his years of service and wish him all the best of luck in the 
chapters to come.
  I thank the chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture. 
It is a pleasure to work with him.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his 
work and also express appreciation for the bipartisan approach to the 
appropriations bill. This is regular order. This is how we are supposed 
to do things.
  It is not just the Ag appropriations bill, it is the other bills we 
have included in this package that includes Commerce-Justice-Science, 
T-HUD, as well as our Ag appropriations bill and Interior.
  This is the work of the Senate. This is regular order. This is how it 
should be done. So I am appreciative of the bipartisan approach taken 
not only on our bill but on these other bills and the fact that we now 
have them on the floor. I hope it continues in terms of regular order 
and bipartisanship that enables us to advance these bills in regular 
order.
  Then we have the other appropriations bills as well. We moved all 12 
of these bills through our full Appropriations Committee in a 
bipartisan way. Now we need to do the same thing on the floor and then 
go to conference with the House to get this done. We have a continuing 
resolution in place until November 21, so it is imperative that we 
continue this work and that we do it in this way.
  I am pleased to introduce the 2020 appropriations bill for 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 
Related Agencies. This legislation passed out of our Appropriations 
Committee, as I said, in the case of this appropriations bill, with 
unanimous support out of the full Appropriations Committee.
  I am pleased to bring it to the floor. The other bills we have 
included now in this package had broad-based bipartisan support as 
well, as the Presiding Officer knows being a member of the full 
committee.
  I am pleased to join my colleagues on the Subcommittees on Interior; 
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development; Commerce, Justice and 
Science. For now, my comments will be focused on our bill specifically, 
the Ag appropriations bill.
  Right now, farmers across this country are really up against it, no 
question about it. Whether you are from North Dakota, Oklahoma, points 
in between--east or west or north or south--our farmers are really up 
against it. In North Dakota, we have had unbelievable flooding. From 
snowstorms to rainstorms--but pretty much nonstop rain and other 
challenges that have left our fields swamped.
  We have a great diversity of crops, most of which have not been 
harvested because we can't get farm equipment out in the field in order 
to conduct that harvest.
  Earlier this year in May, we worked to advance supplementals to 
address the hurricanes--the other wildfires we had out in California, 
the hurricanes that hit the Southeast, and other weather disasters. So 
in that supplemental package we passed back in May, we included 
assistance that we call WHIP+ for the Midwest farm country, 
anticipating not only that we needed to address the flooding and 
problems that occurred this spring but if there were additional 
flooding coming. Of course, that is exactly what happened. So we worked 
to ensure that there is disaster assistance legislation passed that 
will help.
  Now we need to advance this appropriations bill to make sure we 
continue to support our folks not only due to the challenges they face 
because of weather issues but also low commodity

[[Page S6066]]

prices and the real challenges we face due to trade right now. We need 
to keep advancing on all these fronts. Of course, this legislation is 
an important part of that.
  It includes support for our producers, funding for ag research, 
housing and business loan programs for rural America, domestic and 
international nutrition programs, and food safety and drug safety 
because we also fund the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, as part 
of this bill.
  Again, these are very important priorities for this body that we need 
to take up and pass. The subcommittee has made difficult decisions in 
drafting the bill, and I am proud of the work that has been done to 
this point.
  It is written to our allocation of $23.1 billion, which is $58 
million above the current enacted level. We worked hard to invest 
taxpayer dollars responsibly, funding programs to provide assistance to 
our farmers in rural communities and supporting programs that provide 
vital direct health and safety benefits and safeguards for all 
Americans not only through the USDA but, as I said, the Food and Drug 
Administration.
  Agriculture supports more than 16 million jobs nationwide and forms 
the backbone of our rural communities. Our farmers are the best in the 
world, and what they do benefits every single American every single 
day. We have the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the 
history of the world, produced by our farmers and ranchers. It benefits 
every single American every single day. So we are talking about good 
farm policy and good ag policy. We are talking about something that 
benefits every single American every single day.
  Again, I thank Senator Merkley for the bipartisan working 
relationship we have had on our committee. I think this bill reflects a 
well-balanced compromise on a lot of the issues we had, not only among 
the members but on both sides of the aisle, and I hope my colleagues 
will join me in passing this important legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  (The remarks of Mr. CORNYN pertaining to the introduction of S. 2690 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')


                         Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, briefly on another matter, we are just a 
couple of months away from the 2-year anniversary of the passage of the 
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Because of this legislation, families across the 
country are benefiting from lower income tax rates and are able to keep 
more of what they earn. We have also helped families by doubling the 
standard deduction for children, expanding the child tax credit, and 
simplifying the Tax Code, which is something I think we can all agree 
needs to be done. For the millions of Texans who were filled with dread 
simply about filing their taxes, it was a welcomed relief.
  The journey to pass the legislation wasn't easy, of course, and there 
was no shortage--there never are--of naysayers. Many of our Senate 
Democratic colleagues claimed this legislation only benefited the rich, 
the evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. We know that is false 
because of what the facts tell us.
  Let me go back for a second and explain why this congressional 
resolution of disapproval we will be voting on at about 3 o'clock is so 
ironic and so mistaken.
  Prior to tax reform, without limit, taxpayers could itemize their 
deductions for State and local taxes. They got to deduct that from 
their Federal income taxes, which meant, in essence, in those high-tax 
jurisdictions--the cities and the States that had high local and State 
taxes--taxpayers from around the country were subsidizing those 
taxpayers in those high-tax jurisdictions.
  The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act attempted to deal with this unfairness by 
capping this deduction, better known now as the SALT deduction--the 
State and local tax deduction--at $10,000 for everybody across the 
country. Everybody was treated the same. Everybody was put on a level 
playing field. In other words, tax reform stopped the endless subsidy 
that taxpayers who were living in my State gave to fiscal decisions 
that were made by other States and local governments. There is no 
reason we should ask a taxpayer who is living in Austin to subsidize 
the financial decisions, the fiscal decisions, made in Albany, in 
Sacramento, or in any other State capitol.
  Before the cap, the wealthiest Americans were disproportionately 
reaping the benefit of this no-limit deduction. That is why the cap was 
included in tax reform--in order to support the middle class, not the 
top 1 percent. In the process, we prevented the richest people in the 
country from gaming the Tax Code.
  This chart, which was produced by the Senate Committee on Finance, 
courtesy of Chairman Grassley, talks about who benefits from the SALT 
cap repeal. This is what we will be voting on indirectly this 
afternoon.
  Here, 52 percent of the benefit goes to taxpayers with incomes of 
over $1 million. Our Democratic friends like to say they are the party 
of the working man and woman, but clearly they are working on behalf of 
the 52 percent of taxpayers who have incomes of over $1 million in 
their seeking to repeal this regulation that basically prevents a tax 
dodge. There are 24 percent of taxpayers with incomes between $200,000 
and $1 million who will be affected and 6 percent of taxpayers who will 
be affected who earn under $200,000. You can see that the majority of 
the benefit that our Democratic colleagues seek to confer is on the 
wealthiest people in the country.
  I don't have any ax to grind with people who have been successful and 
who have made a lot of money. They pay their taxes, contribute their 
philanthropy, and help in innumerable ways. This is simply a way to try 
to make sure our taxpayers in Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming don't 
subsidize the high tax rates in New York, Los Angeles, or other places 
that have high State and local taxes. In good conscience, we cannot let 
that happen.
  The fact is, since tax reform passed, a number of States have crafted 
a workaround--I call it a tax dodge--to circumvent this $10,000 limit. 
In June, the Treasury issued a regulation to stop them--this is the tax 
dodge--and required States to adhere to the limit that Congress passed 
into law and that the President signed.
  The financial consequences of what the Democratic Members of the 
Senate are trying to do here are enormous. The Joint Committee on 
Taxation estimates that doing away with the subsidy cap would cost 
about $700 billion over the next 7 years, or $100 billion a year, and 
almost 95 percent of the benefit would go to the people who make more 
than $200,000. Even according to the liberal Tax Policy Center, one-
third of the uncapped SALT deduction went to the top 1 percent.
  If I have heard Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or any of the 
Democrats who are running for President rail on and on about the top 1 
percent and income inequality once, I have heard it a thousand times. 
Yet here they seek to undo a cap that treats every taxpayer the same 
and essentially require taxpayers who are in low-tax States to 
subsidize those who are in high-tax States and localities. And 52 
percent of them make over $1 million a year. A millionaire would 
receive a tax cut of nearly $60,000--higher than the household incomes 
of many people who live in my State.
  That is what we will be voting on. That is what the Democratic leader 
from New York--a high-tax State and city--seeks to do for his 
constituents, but it is to the detriment of hard-working families in my 
State and in many States around the country.
  After continually hammering the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, it is actually 
duplicitous to argue that it somehow benefits the wealthy when there 
was just the most modest of cuts in the highest marginal rate. The 
benefit flowed to everybody in every tax bracket, but most of it went 
to the middle class. Yet, after hammering this side of the aisle for 
its somehow benefiting the wealthy to the detriment of the middle 
class, the Democrats are now working to help their richest constituents 
get back to the days of unlimited deductions.
  This is unfair. It is regressive. It benefits the people who need the 
help the least, and it hurts the people who need our attention and help 
the most. Asking Texans and all Americans to somehow foot the bill for 
$700 billion so that

[[Page S6067]]

the folks who live in these high-tax cities and States can get a 
$60,000 tax cut is something I am simply unwilling to participate in. I 
urge all of my colleagues to vote against this resolution of 
disapproval.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I echo what my colleague said about S.J. 
Res. 50, a congressional resolution of disapproval we are being asked 
to vote on this afternoon. I agree with the Senator from Texas. It is a 
mistake. It is wrong. I think he used the words ``ironic,'' 
``mistaken,'' and ``duplicitous.'' I would call this Democratic 
proposal the height of hypocrisy. That is what we are looking at right 
here, and I am planning to oppose it.
  Two years ago, the Republicans passed major tax reform for this 
country. What we wanted to do was to make the Tax Code simpler, make it 
fairer, and have people pay less, and that is what we have seen. To do 
it, we have also eliminated some tax deductions for the wealthy. One 
was the State and local tax deduction that was specifically aimed at 
the wealthy. We eliminated it. That is what our goal was--to eliminate 
those sorts of deductions so that people all across the country could 
see the benefits of tax reform.
  Let's be clear about who will be benefiting by the Congressional 
Review Act that is being proposed to be voted on today. There will be 
94 percent of the benefits going to those with incomes over $200,000. 
Those aren't the people who need tax relief in this country.
  We made choices when passing tax reform. We wanted to provide tax 
relief for the middle class, and we wanted to double the child tax 
credit. It worked. We wanted to double the standard deduction, and that 
worked. We wanted to lower the tax rates as well. The results are that 
a great majority of American households are actually paying less in 
taxes today than they were before.
  We have also had this great boost to the economy. We have more people 
working and one of the lowest unemployment rates we have seen. We have 
seen wages and incomes grow. We have seen the unemployment rate drop to 
a 50-year low. We have also seen economic growth beat all previous 
predictions. That is what we have gotten with the tax reform--the tax 
relief--that the Republicans have passed and that President Trump has 
signed into law. The Republicans are going to continue to focus on 
keeping taxes low for all Americans.
  The best description I have heard of this proposal is that it seems 
to be an effort to give tax breaks to rich people in blue States.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I guess if you live long enough and are 
around here long enough, you get to hear it all.
  Hypocrisy is when the party of the rich--now the party that gave $1 
trillion in the Trump tax bill to the largest corporations, with most 
of it going to the wealthiest one-tenth of 1 percent--now says it is 
for the working guy. Amazing. Hypocrisy is when donor States, like my 
State of New Jersey, give moocher States--those that actually receive 
far more than they give to the Federal Treasury--say that somehow we 
should continue to pay more. Yet that is overwhelmingly the reality 
that is going on. In fact, I find the comments of some of my colleagues 
here to be pretty ironic.
  I urge the Senate to reject these new IRS rules that are designed to 
block efforts by homeowners across America to avoid the Trump tax law's 
harmful caps on their State and local tax deductions.
  I thank Leader Schumer and Ranking Member Wyden for the opportunity 
to exercise our authority under the Congressional Review Act to stop 
these IRS rules from taking effect.
  It was 2 years ago when President Trump and his allies rammed their 
corporate tax bill through Congress. They promised middle-class 
families thousands of dollars in tax relief and $4,000 raises in their 
salaries. Instead, all they got was $1.5 trillion more in debt and an 
economy that was even more rigged in favor of big corporations and 
wealthy CEOs.
  Of course, as bad as the tax bill is for the whole country, it is 
even worse for States like New Jersey. That is because, even after 
borrowing over $1.5 trillion from China, the President still can't pay 
for his deficit-exploding corporate tax cuts. Where are all of my 
colleagues--all of those deficit hawks--who talked about exploding 
deficits and debt? They are silent.
  Even though he couldn't have enough of this $1.5 trillion of 
borrowing, what did President Trump do? He dipped into the wallets of 
New Jersey's and other States' middle classes by gutting the State and 
local tax deductions they used to write off, their property taxes. In 
2016, $1.8 million, or around 40 percent of New Jersey's taxpayers, 
deducted their property and State income taxes from their Federal 
returns. That average was about $18,000 per deduction. More than 80 
percent of those who deducted earned less than $200,000. So to say that 
the Trump tax law was a giant hit job on New Jersey's middle class is 
no exaggeration, for already New Jersey families are paying the price.
  Earlier this month, new data from ProPublica revealed that because of 
the new $10,000 cap on property tax deductions, home values in New 
Jersey have taken a huge hit. In fact, home values in Essex County, NJ, 
declined more than those of any other county in America.
  And according to nj.com, of over 30 counties across the Nation 
suffering the largest dip in home values, 16 of them are in the Garden 
State. That is why Governor Murphy and New Jersey's legislative leaders 
took action to protect homeowners from getting hammered. They adopted a 
program, as did over 30 other States. And, by the way, these States, or 
all these red States, are not the ``blue States'' or wealthy States. 
These are States that adopted similar provisions before the Trump tax 
bill that were getting the benefit of a local tax credit for charitable 
contributions to nonprofits set up by local governments. They adopted a 
program that 30-some other States have in the books in some form.
  In return, taxpayers could receive a property credit worth up to 90 
percent of their contribution. Other States have long used similar 
charitable contribution programs. For example, in Alabama, there is a 
100-percent tax credit available for contributions to private school 
scholarship funds. In Missouri, one program incentivizes donations to 
shelters for survivors of domestic abuse. In Florida, there are 
programs that actually go to an education fund and to a conservation 
fund. I could go through the list of these 32 States that had charity 
tax-credit programs across the country, which now the IRS rules are 
nullifying, and which all of those States--and many of my Republican 
colleagues who represent them--are now facing. What was completely 
acceptable and the IRS had no problem with now is not acceptable 
whatsoever.
  The IRS long respected these programs. So I was hopeful that New 
Jersey's charitable contribution credits would provide relief to 
homeowners suffering under the Trump tax scam and would be treated the 
same as all of these 32 other States.
  Unfortunately, as soon as New Jersey and other States took action, 
the IRS reversed course and issued new regulations, hamstringing this 
long-accepted type of charitable contribution program.
  These are harmful regulations for all of the 32 States that are 
represented through some of these programs, and the Senate has an 
opportunity to protect all of those 32 States' charitable contribution 
programs.
  Look, in an ideal world, New Jersey's charitable contribution credit 
wouldn't be necessary because Congress would uphold the full state and 
local tax deduction as a bedrock principle of our Tax Code. As a matter 
of fact, it is the oldest deduction in the history of the code, and it 
is a principle that I would especially expect my Republican colleagues 
to stand up for.
  Since the Federal income tax creation in 1913, the State and local 
tax deduction has encouraged States to stand on their own feet. It 
encourages States to make smart investments that, at the end of the 
day, make them less reliant on Federal handouts.
  In New Jersey, we know that when we invest in public schools, we 
prepare our students to succeed in high-paying fields. In New Jersey, 
we know that

[[Page S6068]]

when we invest in mass transit, we connect workers to new jobs and 
opportunities. In New Jersey, we know that when we invest in public 
health and law enforcement, we all do better because our streets are 
safer and our families are healthier.
  It is no coincidence that New Jersey is one of the most economically 
productive States in the Nation, to the betterment of all Americans, 
especially those in less productive States--donor State versus moocher 
States.
  Isn't that a good thing? Isn't a State's right to set its own tax 
policies a right worth defending?
  For as long I can remember, I have heard my Republican colleagues 
talk about self-reliance, about personal responsibility, about 
protecting not punishing success, and about States' rights. Well, the 
Trump tax law was nothing short of a massive tax on the success of 
States like New Jersey and the State rights of States like New Jersey.
  Likewise, I have heard Republicans talk about States' rights and the 
virtues of federalism. Well, guess what. The State and local tax 
deduction is a bedrock of federalism.
  Today's CRA vote is an opportunity for my colleagues across the aisle 
to actually stand up for those principles of self-reliance, of States' 
rights, and federalism; to walk the walk, instead of just talking the 
talk, and to preserve the programs of these 32 States with charity tax 
credit programs that are now all threatened of being extinguished by 
the IRS's determination.
  I want to close by sharing a constituent letter I received earlier 
this year about what the property tax deduction meant to one New Jersey 
family.
  This past April, Leigh, from Budd Lake, wrote:

       My husband and I just did our taxes today--and for the 
     first time ever--we owe money. And not just a little, 
     hundreds.
       We own a home and for the first time we were not able to 
     itemize our deductions; our deductions in fact were cut in 
     half.
       There is no incentive to us owning our home anymore. We are 
     an average middle class family paying a mortgage and trying 
     to raise three kids. I'm tired of our family being collateral 
     damage in yet another political fight.

  Leigh is absolutely right. New Jersey families shouldn't have to foot 
the bill for massive handouts for big corporations.
  To add insult to injury, while the new IRS rules crack down on New 
Jersey's efforts to save families like Leigh's money, last fall the 
Treasury Department made clear that corporations--listen to this--could 
continue to benefit from the same exact kind of workaround. 
Corporations can continue to benefit from the same kind of workaround.
  How is that for protecting the little guy? How is that for hypocrisy?
  It is not fair. It is not right. Our constituents deserve better. So 
we will continue to push for a long-term solution to this problem. I 
have introduced the Stop Attacking Local Taxpayers Act, or SALT Act, to 
restore the full deductibility of State and local taxes.
  Under my bill, the more you pay in property and State taxes, the more 
relief you get. It is the exact opposite of what the Trump tax bill 
says, which is that the higher the cost of living is in your State and 
the more you pay in State and local taxes, the more you owe the Federal 
Government come tax time. It is double taxation. It makes no sense.
  The SALT Act deserves the full consideration of the Senate, but in 
the meantime, we should use the opportunity before us today to help 
hard-working homeowners suffering from the Trump tax law. We should 
help these 32 States--overwhelmingly, most of them, Republican--that 
have a tax credit program be able to sustain that program for the 
benefits of the decisions they made in their States and for the 
purposes they made, whether it be education, conservation, or whatever 
else, that now are nullified by the IRS rule.
  Join us, and let's exercise our power with the Congressional Review 
Act to do what is right--to protect middle-class families throughout 
the Nation from higher property tax burdens, to protect States and 
their right to determine how their taxpayers will ultimately receive 
the benefits for making investments in education, for making 
investments in conservation, and for making investments in a whole host 
of issues, that these States, in their rightful judgment, decided were 
perfectly fine and that were always upheld by the IRS and are now 
nullified by the Internal Revenue Service's decision.
  That is what we have an opportunity to turn around, and I hope we 
will.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The Senator from Iowa.


              United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I address the issues before the 
Senate right now, I would like to express some concern I have about 
whether the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement will be able to get 
done this year.
  I come to the floor today to express growing worry. The Democratic-
controlled House of Representatives looks increasingly less likely to 
act this year on the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. That 
threatens passage of the trilateral trade deal this Congress, as next 
year is a Presidential election year.
  It has been about a year since the updated trade agreement with 
Canada and Mexico was signed by the leaders of the three nations. It is 
a whole year, and Democrats have still failed to act.
  Every day that passes, Americans are losing out on economic benefits 
of the USMCA. House Democrats seem to have no sense of urgency. For 
months now, House Democrats have said they are working on it, that they 
are making progress and that they are optimistic that they can get to 
yes.
  But conspicuously absent from their pronouncements are any mention of 
a date or timeline. With every passing month, these seem less like 
good-faith assurances and more like stalling tactics.
  The new Congress has been seated for more than 10 months now. How 
long is it going to take before this can come up?
  Ambassador Lighthizer, more than any other Trade Representative I can 
recall, has gone above and beyond to accommodate the other party's 
policy demands. For nearly a year now, Lighthizer has worked with House 
Democrats to find solutions on issues of concern to them, like labor, 
environment, intellectual property, and enforcement.
  I am beginning to wonder if Democrats are interested in reaching a 
compromise at all. It is looking more like they would prefer to deprive 
the administration of a victory, even if it comes at the expense of the 
American people. That should not stand.
  Earlier this month, I wrote a column with Congressman Kevin Brady, 
the ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee. We wrote 
that time would tell if Democrats cared more about undermining 
President Trump than helping the American economy and job creation as a 
result of it. Today, it is looking more like the former than the 
latter.
  If the USMCA is not brought up for a vote in the House very soon, 
Democrats will have a price to pay next year when the American people 
have a chance to weigh in. There is little Americans dislike more in 
politics than zero-sum, oppose-the-other-party politics, no matter the 
cost.
  The USMCA would create hundreds of thousands of jobs, protect 
American industries, and provide confidence to U.S. businesses and 
innovators to invest right here in America.
  That is what Democrats seem willing to sacrifice by inaction on the 
USMCA. But Democrats are making the wrong political calculus. This 
underestimates the intelligence of the American voter and their ability 
to sniff out a phony.
  President Trump has done his job. He has renegotiated a trade deal 
that nearly everyone besides a few congressional Democrats can agree is 
better than its predecessor we know as NAFTA.
  It is now up to the House of Representatives to do their job and 
bring this deal to a vote. If they don't act soon, the American people 
will hold them accountable a year from now.


                              S.J. Res. 50

  Now to the issue before the U.S. Senate--the State and local tax 
deduction. This week, Democrats are using the Congressional Review Act 
to force a vote on a resolution that would effectively repeal an IRS 
regulation aimed at preventing millionaires and billionaires from 
exploiting a tax loophole.

[[Page S6069]]

This loophole would allow top income earners to save billions of 
dollars in Federal taxes annually.
  New York City hedge fund and private equity managers would most 
assuredly be some of the biggest beneficiaries under this loophole. At 
the same time, the taxpayers with incomes under $50,000 would see 
virtually no benefit.
  In this case one might think my Democratic colleagues would be 
cheering on the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service 
for taking decisive actions and shutting down this loophole for the 
wealthy. But this doesn't seem to be the case. Democrats--and only 
Democrats--including the Democratic minority leader, are arguing in 
favor of allowing wealthy taxpayers to exploit this loophole. Moreover, 
predominantly Democratic States have been promoting and bemoaning the 
loss of this loophole.
  The loophole I am talking about is a concerted effort by 
predominantly only Democrat States to help their wealthiest residents 
get around the $10,000 cap on the deduction of State and local taxes, 
which has come to be known by the acronym SALT.
  These efforts to get around the cap have been called blue State SALT 
workarounds. These workarounds are essentially State-sanctioned tax 
shelters where wealthy residents make payments to a State or local 
government-controlled fund in exchange for tax credits they can use to 
wipe out most or all of their State taxes.
  These States then want the Federal Government to ignore this sleight 
of hand and recognize these payments as fully deductible charitable 
contributions when they are nothing more than State tax payments. Well, 
that is really too cute by half. It is cheating, and these States are 
encouraging it, forcing the rest of the country to subsidize these tax 
shelters for the wealthy.
  The Treasury Department and the IRS have correctly determined that 
these workarounds are contrary to the Federal tax law and have issued 
sensible regulations to clarify this tax treatment. In doing so, they 
applied longstanding tax principles that deny a charity deduction to 
the extent the taxpayer receives something of value in return for their 
charitable donation. It is simply common sense.
  Charity is by definition something done out of the goodness of your 
heart without expecting or getting something in return. That is 
certainly not the case with these workarounds. There is no charity 
involved. In fact, once taking into account both the State tax credit 
and the charitable deduction at the Federal level, a taxpayer could 
actually receive a tax benefit that exceeds the dollar value of their 
so-called donation. That is not charity; that is a tax scam.
  Some have attempted to justify this tax scam by pointing to State tax 
credit programs that existed prior to the existence of the SALT cap, 
but unlike the recently enacted programs, these older programs were not 
specifically designed to circumvent Federal tax law when they were 
enacted. These preexisting tax credit programs were targeted at giving 
taxpayers the option of funding certain nontraditional governmental 
activities, such as providing underprivileged children scholarships or 
to set aside land for conservation.
  My Democratic colleagues have painstakingly tried to defend these 
scams by claiming they are efforts to alleviate State tax burdens on 
the middle class; however, this argument doesn't even pass the laugh 
test. It is undeniable that these workarounds will overwhelmingly 
benefit the superwealthy, while the middle class will receive little or 
no benefit.
  I was pleased to see that at least one Senate Democrat was willing to 
be honest about this last night here on the Senate floor. Senator 
Bennet of Colorado put it this way:

       The vast majority of the benefits of repealing the SALT cap 
     would go to high-income Americans. Repeal would be extremely 
     costly, and for that same cost, we could advance much more 
     worthy efforts to help working and middle-class families all 
     over the country.

  To illustrate this point, I have here a chart based on a nonpartisan 
Joint Committee on Taxation distribution analysis. They have made very 
clear through their chart showing who would benefit from repealing the 
cap on deductions for State and local taxes.
  While eliminating these Treasury regulations wouldn't repeal the SALT 
cap entirely, it would effectively make the cap toothless, as more and 
more States would create workarounds. And let's not forget--the repeal 
of the cap is their ultimate goal.
  As we can see here on the chart, the majority of the benefits from 
repealing the SALT cap--52 percent--would flow to taxpayers with 
incomes exceeding $1 million. Let's think about that just for a minute. 
Less than half of 1 percent of all tax returns report income exceeding 
$1 million. Yet, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, these 
taxpayers would receive 52 percent of the tax benefit if this 
resolution of disapproval went through. Another 42 percent of the tax 
benefit would go to taxpayers with incomes between $200,000 and $1 
million. When combined with those earning over $1 million, you can see 
that fully 94 percent of the tax benefit would go to taxpayers with 
incomes over $200,000. To put this into perspective, only 7 percent of 
tax returns report income exceeding this level.
  Now compare this to taxpayers with incomes under $200,000, which is 
about 93 percent of all taxpayers. According to the Joint Committee on 
Taxation, this group would receive a measly 6 percent of the benefit 
from repealing the cap on State tax deductions, as the Democrats are 
proposing. Only a handful of taxpayers with incomes under $200,000--or 
about 3 percent--would actually see any benefit. Ninety-seven percent 
of these taxpayers wouldn't see even one penny of benefit from taking 
away the SALT cap.
  So, very simply, there you have it. The same Democrats who have 
criticized the 2017 tax bill as supposedly benefiting only the 
wealthy--can you believe it?--are now actively pushing an agenda that 
would overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy. This goes to show how off-
base Democratic criticism of tax reform really is, as we have heard it 
over the last 2 years.
  Far from being a giveaway to the wealthy, the tax reform passed in 
2017 was a concerted effort to provide tax relief for everybody. 
Republicans accomplished this tax cut for everybody primarily by 
lowering tax rates across the board, but we also did it by repealing or 
limiting certain regressive tax benefits, such as the deduction for 
State and local taxes, the SALT provisions we are talking about. We 
then used that revenue to increase benefits that better target low- to 
middle-income taxpayers. For example, we doubled the child tax credit 
from $1,000 to $2,000 and increased the refundability of that tax 
credit. We also nearly doubled the standard deduction, to the benefit 
of many lower and middle-income taxpayers. We likely couldn't have made 
those changes if we hadn't limited the deduction for State taxes that 
mostly benefited the wealthy.
  Democrats who wrongly associate this SALT cap with a tax increase on 
middle-income folks simply aren't looking at the facts or at tax reform 
as a whole. Two years ago, Republicans created a tax cut for an 
overwhelming majority of Americans. This is true even for taxpayers 
affected by the deduction for State taxes.
  Before tax reform, many upper-middle-income taxpayers--particularly 
those in the high-tax blue States--had to pay the alternative minimum 
tax. We refer to that as the AMT. For anyone who used to pay the AMT, 
after you struggled through the incredible complexity of the AMT rules, 
you realized an unfortunate fact: The AMT clawed back the deduction for 
your State tax payments. Therefore, many of these taxpayers saw little 
or no benefit from this deduction before tax reform.
  Democrats don't like to admit this inconvenient truth, but it is 
true. They don't seem to let facts interfere with their political 
rhetoric. So, yes, these same taxpayers are likely now affected by the 
SALT cap, but because Republicans largely did away with the AMT--at the 
same time, lowering everybody's tax rates--they still received a tax 
cut. Let's not forget that these taxpayers no longer have to deal with 
the mind-numbing complexity of the AMT. Now a question: Do Democrats 
really want middle-income families to have to go back to the nonsense 
of figuring out the alternative minimum tax every year?
  I have heard Democrats try to justify their efforts to undermine the 
SALT

[[Page S6070]]

cap by claiming it was part of some nefarious plot against blue States. 
That is simply not true. Yes, more taxpayers in blue States are 
affected by the cap given the high State taxes those States impose on 
their residents, but the fact is, on average, every income group in 
every State saw a tax cut under the 2017 tax cut bill. This isn't just 
coming from this Senator, Chuck Grassley, but an analysis by the 
liberal Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. In addition, recent 
filing season data released by H&R Block shows that, on average, 
residents of even high-tax States received a tax cut.
  We have also heard fears that the cap will negatively affect blue 
State revenues, as higher income taxpayers flee to lower tax 
jurisdictions. But concerns about such an exodus aren't new and didn't 
start because of the cap; they started because of sky-high taxes in 
those very same States.
  In November of 2017, prior to the enactment of this tax cut and 
reform bill, the Wall Street Journal wrote about ``The Great 
Progressive Tax Escape.'' This article focused on IRS tax return data 
between 2012 and 2015 that showed billions of dollars in taxable income 
leaving high-tax States for low-tax States due to taxpayer migration. 
Last time I checked, there was no SALT cap between 2012 and 2015. While 
there is some anecdotal evidence that taxpayer migration might be 
starting to increase due to the cap, it is not entirely clear at this 
point.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Bloomberg article from 
May of this year titled ``Blue States Warned of a SALT Apocalypse. It 
Hasn't Happened'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                             [May 21, 2019]

      Blue States Warned of a SALT Apocalypse. It Hasn't Happened

                          (By Martin Z Braun)

       To listen to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, the 2017 
     Republican tax overhaul that limited state and local 
     deductions to $10,000 was a devastating blow. The rich would 
     flee, the middle class would suffer and blue state budgets 
     would bleed.
       Perhaps this will come to pass over time, but so far, there 
     are almost no signs of it.
       New York, in fact, saw revenue rise $3.7 billion in April 
     from a year earlier, thanks to a shift in timing of taxpayer 
     payments, a stock market that rallied through much of 2018 
     and a decade-long economic expansion that's pushed national 
     unemployment to a 50-year low. Similar windfalls arrived in 
     New Jersey, California and Illinois--states that, like New 
     York, had warned of dire consequences from the law.
       And it turns out that tax refunds across the U.S. in 2019--
     those once-a-year checks from Uncle Sam that people use to 
     pay credit card debt from Christmas or buy a washing 
     machine--were roughly the same size as a year earlier. In 
     all, about 64% of American households paid less in individual 
     income tax for 2018 than they would have had the Tax Cut and 
     Jobs Act not become law, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax 
     Policy Center.
       ``Any comment that says this is an economic civil war that 
     would gut the middle class is overblown,'' said Kim Rueben, 
     the director of the State and Local Finance Initiative at the 
     Tax Policy Center. ``If there's going to be any effect of the 
     SALT limit on the ability of some states to have progressive 
     taxes it's too early to know that yet.''


                             Taxable Income

       In some ways, the $10,000 limit on state and local tax 
     deductions--SALT--is saving states money by lowering their 
     borrowing costs. That's because investors seeking to reduce 
     their tax bill are plowing a record-setting amount of cash 
     into municipal bonds, driving interest rates lower. The extra 
     yield that investors demand to compensate for the risk of 
     holding Illinois general-obligation bonds, for instance, has 
     fallen to the lowest since May 2015, according to data 
     compiled by Bloomberg.
       States are also benefiting from a broader tax base because 
     the law eliminated some exemptions and limited deductions, 
     like mortgage interest. Since states that levy income taxes 
     use federal adjusted gross income or taxable income as the 
     base, they have more income to tax.
       Still, the nerves of Democratic governors and their budget 
     officers frayed in December when income tax collections 
     plunged by more than 30 percent from the prior December. 
     Cuomo was quick to call the tax law ``politically 
     diabolical'' and an act of ``economic civil war'' against the 
     middle class.
       Then April came.
       New York collected $3.4 billion more in personal income tax 
     revenue last month than a year earlier, a 57% increase, 
     according to Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli. California took in 
     $19.2 billion in April, exceeding Governor Gavin Newsom's 
     estimate by $4 billion.
       New Jersey had a record April with tax collections up 57%, 
     allowing it to boost forecasts for the year by $377 million 
     and triggering a political battle over how to spend the 
     windfall. Illinois individual and corporate tax revenue was 
     $1.5 billion more than projected, allowing Governor J.B. 
     Pritzker to scrap a plan to put off pension payments.


                             Timing Change

       April personal income tax collections in 28 states and 
     Washington increased by $16.3 billion, or 36.2% year-over-
     year to $61.4 billion, Bank of America Corp. said.
       ``SALT caps do not appear to be a broad system risk to 
     state credit quality at this point,'' S&P Global Ratings said 
     recently.
       A big reason for the sharp bounce-back after December's 
     deep revenue declines in New York and other high-tax states: 
     The SALT limits caused some people to change when they paid 
     their taxes. Wealthy taxpayers in December 2017 accelerated 
     big tax payments to take advantage of the unlimited state and 
     local tax deduction before it expired. Then, with the SALT 
     deduction capped, that incentive evaporated and taxpayers 
     waited until this April to pay their 2018 taxes.
       Also, some individuals failed to adjust their W-4s after 
     the passage of the tax law. So people who underwithheld 
     received more in their paychecks since then but had to pay 
     more tax in April or received lower refunds.


                            Trending Inline

       Still, there are some indications that residents in high-
     tax states are fretting about the law. Thirteen percent of 
     house-hunters in both New York and California said they have 
     started looking for homes in states with lower taxes, 
     according to a recent survey by brokerage Redfin Corp.
       In Westchester County, where a typical property tax bill 
     for a single family home is more than $17,000, the average 
     sales price declined 7.6% between the first quarter of 2018 
     and the same quarter this year. Sales prices for luxury homes 
     (average price $2 million) plummeted 22% during the same 
     period, according to appraiser Miller Samuel Inc. and 
     brokerage Douglas Elliman Real Estate.
       Almost half of income taxes paid to California, New York 
     and New Jersey are from the wealthiest 1% of earners. If they 
     were to move in large enough numbers, those states could be 
     in trouble. New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Maryland 
     sued the Trump administration last year to invalidate the 
     $10,000 cap, saying that it unfairly targets them. States 
     have sought to pass loopholes around the limit and there's a 
     push in Congress to reverse it.
       But migration rates in high tax states most affected by 
     SALT are below pre-recession levels, and generally in-line 
     with U.S trends, Moody's Investors Service said in April. 
     Jobs, housing and the weather influence migration more than 
     taxes, according to Moody's analyst Marcia Van Wagner.
       ``Armageddon hasn't resulted from the changes to SALT, but 
     it still may be too early to measure its impact,'' said Matt 
     Dalton, chief executive officer of Rye Brook, New York-based 
     Belle Haven Investments, which manages $9 billion of 
     municipal bonds. ``You see more mansions listed in New York. 
     Manhattan real estate sales just had their worst quarter in a 
     decade.''

  Mr. GRASSLEY. As this article highlights, revenue for blue States 
this tax season were up, not down.
  The ratings agency Moody's released a report in April saying that 
there were no discernible signs that individuals were fleeing high-tax 
States as a result of the SALT cap. However, even if taxpayer migration 
were to occur as a result of the cap, the answer to the problem isn't 
repealing the SALT cap; it is for States to look in their own backyard 
at their own tax-and-spend policy.
  The truth is, these State politicians aren't concerned about their 
own taxpayers. What they are really worried about is their continued 
ability to gouge those taxpayers with ever-increasing State and local 
taxes, which used to be subsidized by taxpayers from other States 
through the Federal Tax Code because there was no SALT cap.

  In closing, I want to turn back to this very chart, the same one I 
discussed earlier. For Democrats still on the fence as to whether to 
vote to repeal the IRS regulations on the SALT work-arounds, you ought 
to study this chart very closely.
  I ask a question to the other side: Could you, with a straight face, 
argue that a vote to protect these work-arounds is not a vote to 
provide a massive tax cut for the wealthy? This chart shows it is 
helping the wealthy.
  For Democrats who intend to vote for this tax scam anyway, I don't 
want to hear any more long-winded speeches about how the tax bill of 
2017 benefited the wealthy. The fact is, after tax reform, the wealthy 
now shoulder a larger share of Federal tax burden than they did under 
the prior law.
  This was made possible by reforms to regressive tax expenditures, 
such as our capping the SALT deduction. What is more, these reforms 
allow us to target more tax relief to lower and middle-income 
taxpayers.

[[Page S6071]]

  State work-arounds through the SALT cap are nothing more than State-
sanctioned tax shelters. By voting to undermine that cap, Democrats are 
voting to enrich the wealthy taxpayers whom they persistently have 
vilified as not paying enough. Moreover, they put the tax relief 
provided to the middle class in jeopardy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to make sure the Senate and the 
country understand what this debate is all about.
  Senate Republicans have been writing letters to the Department of 
Treasury saying that the Treasury SALT rule hurts their State 
charities. Yet they have been unwilling--at least based on what I am 
told--to be part of an effort to fix this and to support those 
charities. That is what we would be doing in our effort today to 
overturn the Treasury Department's flawed--deeply flawed--SALT 
regulations.
  My view is that these regulations illustrate essentially what was 
wrong with the Republicans' 2017 tax law. This was a law that was half-
baked and rushed to shovel hundreds of billions of dollars to those at 
the top of the economic pyramid in our country. Then $1.5 trillion was 
borrowed so that Donald Trump and his Republican allies could find a 
way to cover this tax cut for cronies and donors.
  Then, because they still needed revenue, Republicans deliberately 
targeted middle-class homeowners in States like New Jersey, New York, 
Maryland, and Oregon for tax increases.
  For some communities in Oregon, it is not uncommon for property tax 
bills alone for middle-class folks to exceed $10,000. But when our 
Republican colleagues took this flawed approach on the SALT issue, they 
didn't want to listen to experts. So the Trump Treasury Department 
stepped in, and without any clear authority to do so, the Treasury 
Department reversed a longstanding IRS provision that had allowed 
taxpayers a full deduction for charitable contributions to State tax 
credit programs.
  In essence, the Treasury Department created a new rule that extended 
the $10,000 cap on State and local tax deductions to also include 
charitable contributions to State tax credit programs.
  To make matters worse, because Republican Senators began to see what 
an absurd approach this was, Secretary Mnuchin put together another 
carve-out for Republican interests, trying to figure out how to manage 
this flawed regulation. In effect, businesses using these same 
workarounds to fund private school voucher programs would be exempt 
from the regulation. Middle-class families pay more; businesses pay 
less. That is the Republican way.
  My view is that the Treasury Department shouldn't be putting its 
thumb on the scale on behalf of Republicans, and it certainly shouldn't 
be using what amounts to a phony regulatory justification to fix this 
extraordinarily poorly drafted law.
  While Donald Trump certainly intended for these regulations to hurt 
middle-class families in some parts of the country in Democratic States 
and protect Republican interests, the bad news for my Republican 
colleagues--and this is why so many Republican Senators are writing the 
Treasury Department, talking about why their State charities are 
getting hammered. The regulations produced by the Treasury Department 
are overly broad, and they hurt the majority of States by effectively 
eliminating the benefit of those State charitable tax credit programs. 
These include credits that support priorities like conservation, child 
care, charitable giving, and access to higher education.
  This is particularly striking, given that the Trump tax law was 
already estimated to slash overall charitable giving by as much as $20 
million a year.
  Now on top of that, the regulations that I oppose and feel so 
strongly about coming from the Treasury Department threaten more than 
100 charitable State tax credit programs in 33 States.
  My Republican colleagues' constituents will be hurt by these 
regulations, just like my constituents at home. We are talking about 
childcare centers in Colorado and Missouri; foster care organizations 
in Arizona; historic preservation groups in Kansas; charities in Iowa, 
Kentucky, and Mississippi; conservation groups in Arkansas, Iowa, 
Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee; rural hospitals 
in Georgia, the home State of the Presiding Officer; universities in 
Indiana, Idaho, Montana, and North Dakota; and volunteer responders in 
Nebraska.
  As today's debate proceeds, you are going to hear about these 
comments against these regulations that were submitted to the Trump 
administration. There is a rural hospital in Georgia that was able to 
upgrade its heart monitors, a childcare center in Colorado that helps 
parents remain in the workforce, and a conservation group that has 
preserved more than 10,000 acres of land in Florida's gulf coast.
  In wrapping up, I just hope my Republican colleagues will put their 
constituents first by shielding them from these unintended consequences 
of losing their charitable tax credits and supporting this resolution 
offered by the leader, Senator Schumer, myself, and other colleagues.
  Senate Republicans have a choice. They can keep writing letters to 
the Treasury Department, complaining about the regulations that hammer 
their State charities, or they can join us in voting to reverse this 
policy. I just hope that Senators move to this vote, and they take the 
option that I think is the only one you can explain to the folks at 
home in a townhall meeting. I have had more than 950 of them. I am 
going to have some more very shortly. There, folks have a chance to 
really see what your priorities are.
  The question here is, Are your priorities with folks at home, with 
these State charities that I have emphasized--everything from 
conservation to healthcare, to children? Are you going to support the 
State charities doing that important work or are you going to continue 
to support the Department of the Treasury with their incredibly flawed 
regulations to hammer these State charities?
  I hope Senators from all sides--from those 33 States that I have just 
ticked off--will vote to protect those charities and join me, Senator 
Schumer, and a host of other colleagues in voting to get rid of the 
Treasury Department's rule and stand with us on the CRA.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                 United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement

  Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I come to the floor frustrated--frustrated 
by the fact that it has been 327 days since President Trump signed the 
USMCA, and the House has done nothing to take it up.
  It is not because the House hasn't had time. They have found time to 
do a lot of things, like continue on their partisan expedition toward 
impeaching the President. They passed a bill without a pay raise for 
our troops, spent a lot of ``energy'' on the Green New Deal, and one 
Member of the House took the time to show the world she was frightened 
by her garbage disposal.
  The question is, What is preventing Congress from getting the USMCA 
done?
  From Humboldt County all the way to Hamburg, IA, at my townhall 
meetings or during a visit to a small business or manufacturing plants 
and everywhere in between, I have been hearing one thing consistently 
and across the board: Iowans want the USMCA now.
  These hard-working folks know the impact the USMCA will have on 
Iowa's economy and the U.S. economy as a whole. There is no reason 
Iowans should be waiting in limbo for this agreement to be ratified.
  This trade agreement is a win for the American people, plain and 
simple. Mexico has already ratified the deal, and Canada is well on 
their way. Our trade partners are ready. The United States-Mexico-
Canada Agreement is about modernizing a trade deal with two of our 
closest allies that would grow more than 175,000 jobs across this 
country.
  NAFTA was ratified in 1994. That was 3 years before Wi-Fi became 
available to the public, 5 years before USB drives were invented, 12 
years before the launch of Facebook and Twitter, and 16 years before 
computer tablets were on sale. None of us are living with 1994 
technology, so why should we be living with a 1994 trade policy?

[[Page S6072]]

  President Trump understands the need to modernize trade with two of 
our closest allies, and that is why he negotiated a great trade deal 
with Mexico and Canada--the USMCA. Passing the USMCA will allow us to 
compete in today's 21st century economy. It will provide folks back 
home in Iowa with some certainty--certainty in a time where prices have 
been low and markets have been eroded from other trade wars.
  Iowans want and need USMCA. Canada and Mexico are our States' top two 
trading partners. In 2018 alone, we exported $6.6 billion worth of 
products to our neighbors to the north and to the south. Trade with 
Canada and Mexico directly increases the value of Iowan exports like 
beef, adding $70 in value to each head that comes from the State.
  In case you didn't know it, Mexico is the No. 1 consumer of Iowa 
corn. I was up in Northwest Iowa a couple of weeks ago visiting with 
one Iowa corn farmer, and he said that if we were able to get the USMCA 
deal done, it would have a direct impact--positive--on his farm.
  It is not just our farmers who will benefit from the USMCA; it is 
also our businesses and our manufacturers. I was visiting with some 
business leaders at a roundtable in Des Moines, and time and again they 
told me how important it is that we get this trade deal done and in 
place.
  All of this leaves me scratching my head, wondering when the House is 
going to do what Americans are demanding. When will they stop 
obstructing the good work done by our President to get a deal in place?
  House Democrats need to do their job so Iowa farmers, manufacturers, 
and business owners can do theirs. Now is the time to pass the USMCA.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Ms. McSALLY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak in support 
of the USMCA, and I appreciate all of my other colleagues who are 
speaking out as well.
  Almost a year has passed since President Trump signed the U.S.-
Mexico-Canada Agreement and notified Congress of the administration's 
intention to enter into the deal. Legislation to implement the 
agreement must originate and be approved first in the U.S. House of 
Representatives and then the U.S. Senate, where it will pass with a 
strong bipartisan vote, including mine.
  This modernization of NAFTA matters for Arizona businesses, hard-
working citizens, and families. Mexico has already ratified USMCA, and 
Canada is in the process of doing so. Congress needs to pass USMCA 
without any further delay.
  Simply put, USMCA is a win for Arizona. Trade with Mexico and Canada 
is key to Arizona jobs and opportunities. Almost 50 percent of all 
Arizona exports go to Mexico and Canada, and more than 228,000 Arizona 
jobs rely on this trade. In 2018, Arizona and Mexico engaged in $16.6 
billion worth of cross-border commerce.
  Exports to Canada and Mexico support Arizona jobs across a broad 
variety of industries. In 2018, Arizona companies exported $2.3 billion 
worth of computer and electrical products, $1.4 billion in appliances, 
$928 million in transportation equipment, and $796 million in machinery 
to Canada and Mexico. Arizona miners exported $1 billion in minerals 
and ores, and Arizona farmers exported almost $600 million in 
agricultural goods. One out of five Arizona manufacturers export to 
Canada and Mexico, and most of those are small and medium-sized 
businesses. It is not too hard to see how much Arizona communities, 
farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and business owners stand to gain 
from Congress finalizing the USMCA.
  A few weeks ago, I was honored to host Vice President Pence in the 
Grand Canyon State. One of our stops took us to Caterpillar's proving 
grounds in Green Valley, AZ, where the company tests their impressive 
machinery and trains operators on new equipment.
  With roughly 660 full-time employees in our State, Caterpillar knows 
what a critical role cross-border commerce--and the passage of USMCA--
is for Arizona. Caterpillar recycles 150 million tons of scraps a year 
to create new products. This kind of innovation should be promoted, not 
penalized. USMCA encourages this kind of innovation by specifically 
prohibiting restrictions on remanufactured goods. In turn, companies 
like Caterpillar are not penalized but encouraged to be thoughtful in 
their environmental footprint.
  I made many other visits to local businesses this year and heard 
straight from Arizonans about why we need to get this deal passed and 
now. The USMCA opens doors for Arizona to continue leading in the 
aerospace, financial services, film and digital media, and bioscience 
sectors. It enhances intellectual property protections and will benefit 
Arizona's emerging automotive sector by requiring at least 75 percent 
of a car to be built with North American parts in order for it to be 
sold duty-free. Arizona's farmers and ranchers will have new 
opportunities to export dairy, eggs, wheat, chicken, and turkey 
products to Canada.
  Earlier this month, Speaker Pelosi said about USMCA that her 
Democratic caucus in the House was ``on a path to yes.'' Well, with 
less than two dozen legislative days remaining in 2019, I sure hope 
that is true, and I would encourage them to get to yes now.
  The USMCA is good for our country, and too much time has passed 
without any House action. During these divided times, this is a 
proposal that should bring both sides of the aisle together. It is good 
for America, and it is good for Arizona.
  USMCA is a clear win for my constituents in Arizona. Arizonans in 
every corner of our great State need to contact their Representative in 
the House and tell them to encourage Speaker Pelosi to bring this bill 
to the floor immediately. Let's pass USMCA now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, as our colleagues can hear, we are on 
the floor talking about the USMCA and the need to get this agreement 
passed. It really is frustrating. I feel as if we have come to the 
floor, time and again, to encourage our friends in the House, and I 
guess we are all but begging them to take a pause from their political 
agenda and take one vote--just one vote that is going to make a 
tremendous amount of difference in the lives of businesses, of our auto 
manufacturers, our farmers, our chemical producers, and workers.
  Our friends across the aisle like to say they are all for the 
workers. Well, if you are all for the workers, let me tell you 
something, there are 12 million--get that--12 million workers who are 
directly impacted by the benefits that would come from the USMCA, and 
this is across every single industrial sector.
  As I have been about Tennessee, what I have heard from so many is a 
simple question: When are you going to pass this? How long is it going 
to take? We have heard that you have people in logistics, people who 
are in farming, and people who are in every single part of the economy 
who are saying: Why can't you get this done?
  We all know there is support that we hear about--bipartisan support--
wide bipartisan support in the other Chamber and, indeed, wide 
bipartisan support here in the Senate, but for some reason, they just 
can't seem to find the time to schedule the bill and call the vote.
  America is waiting on them to take this vote. There are 120,000 small 
and midsize American businesses that will be able to continue exporting 
their goods to customers in Canada and Mexico. Do you know what is 
significant? These businesses, small and midsize businesses, are 
located in every single one of our States.
  The updated customs and trade rules are certainly going to make sure 
that even startups are able to participate in this cross-border 
economy. I have talked to so many new-start businesses that are coming 
through our universities and our entrepreneur centers, and they say: We 
want to make certain that we have access to markets around the globe.
  Isn't this great? They are not just thinking locally or regionally. 
Some of these talented young Americans, what are they doing? They are 
thinking globally. They are planning ahead for decades of productivity. 
This is going to ease regulations for our dairy and beef and pork 
farmers who are in Tennessee.

[[Page S6073]]

  Indeed, I was out in the past couple of weeks and talked with a 
farmer who is a cattle farmer. He came to one of our meetings, and I 
got around to questions and answers. The very first question was, When 
is this going to be done? When is it going to be done? Why is it taking 
so long? There was agreement between Mexico, Canada, and the United 
States months ago. Why can't this get a vote?
  These are real problems for real people who are working real jobs and 
are very dedicated and are working diligently. The intellectual 
property provisions that are in this bill are so significant for our 
singers, our songwriters, and our musicians who call Nashville home, 
and they want to see this take place.
  I have to tell you, I know that all of these issues I have discussed 
might not matter to those who are always interested in the 24-hour news 
cycle and winning the shiny object debate of the day, but I will tell 
you this: This matters to Tennesseans because Tennesseans exported 
$13.7 billion worth of transportation equipment, electronics, 
machinery, chemicals, fabricated metal, appliances, paper, plastics, 
rubber, and other goods to Canada and Mexico in 2017--a $13.7 billion 
export community to our neighbors to the north and south.
  Tennessee businesses and workers have waited long enough, and they 
want to see the House take action and the vote be completed and the 
USMCA become a reality.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Romney). The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments from my 
colleague from Tennessee about the importance of this agreement in her 
State, and I can tell you it is also important to a State a little 
further north called Ohio. Our No. 1 trading partner, by far, is Canada 
and No. 2 is Mexico, and we want this agreement.
  I hear about it all the time I am out talking to our farmers. They 
are concerned about the weather. They are concerned about what is going 
on with the China market. They are concerned about low prices. They see 
this as an opportunity. They see this as kind of the light at the end 
of the tunnel.
  If we can get the USMCA done, that expands markets for us and, 
therefore, increases our prices and gives us a chance. It is the same 
situation with a lot of manufacturers. It is amazing how many of them 
depend on Mexico and Canada to be able to sell their products. This is 
a big deal in Ohio and a big deal for our country. So I am here today 
to try to urge the House of Representatives to go ahead and move on 
this and then to urge the Senate to take it up right away. The Trump 
administration negotiated a good agreement. It deserves a vote.
  I am a former trade lawyer--a recovering one--and I am also a former 
member of the Ways and Means Committee and a former U.S. Trade 
Representative, and now I am on the Finance Committee, where we deal 
with trade. The bottom line is that, in all of those years working with 
trade, it is a complicated area. It is a politically difficult area. 
But the bottom line is that we are about 5 percent of the world's 
population in America, and yet we have 25 percent of the economy. The 
way we do well is to sell more of our stuff to the 95 percent of the 
people who are outside of our borders.
  It should be fair. We should have a level playing field. That is the 
kind of context in which I look at the USMCA. Does it meet these 
criteria, where we can sell more of our stuff and we have a more level 
playing field? Yes, it does. That is exactly what this agreement does. 
It is a good agreement, and it deserves to have a vote. If it has a 
vote, it will pass because logic, I think, will prevail.
  As crazy as this town is these days and as partisan as things are, 
the logic of this is inescapable, which is that you have the USMCA, a 
good agreement, and then you have the status quo, which is NAFTA, which 
is not as good in any respect. If you vote no on USMCA, you are 
effectively voting yes for the status quo. I don't think that will 
happen. I think it will pass if we can get it to the floor for a vote.
  Taken together, our neighbors, Canada and Mexico, make up the most 
important foreign markets for U.S. products, and not just for Ohio. In 
fact, according to the recent data we have, one-third of all American 
exports in 2019 this year have already gone to Mexico or Canada, well 
ahead of any other foreign markets. So trade with Mexico and Canada is 
now responsible for 12 million jobs nationally. Every single State 
represented here has jobs related to this.
  In Ohio, again, our No. 1 and No. 2 trade partners are Canada and 
Mexico, with 39 percent of our exports going to Canada alone. That is 
twice the national average, by the way. So we are particularly focused 
on Canada and Mexico, which represent $28 billion in trade total.
  What I am hearing from farmers, manufacturers, and service providers 
is that this is really important for us. So we have to be sure that, 
because this relationship is so important, it is built on a solid 
foundation. The NAFTA agreement which it is built on is now 25 years 
old. It is outdated. It has not kept up with the times, and it has to 
be improved upon. That is what USMCA does. It basically says that we 
are in the 21st century, and we have to make changes to this agreement.
  NAFTA doesn't have things in it that one would expect in a 21st 
century agreement.
  Start with the digital economy. So much of our economy now operates 
over the internet. Yet there is nothing in the current agreement, 
NAFTA, that protects this trade like our modern agreements do.
  Another aspect is labor and environmental standards, which are weak 
and not enforceable in the NAFTA agreement but are in the USMCA. That 
is a big change in and of itself.
  This is not just a name change. This is a fundamental change in the 
way in which we relate to our neighbors to the south and north.
  This handy-dandy chart I put together shows us some of the 
differences between the two agreements. The first one has to do with 
economic impact. The independent International Trade Commission has 
done a study on this. They are required by law to do it. They say that 
the new USMCA is going to create 176,000 new jobs. That is the green 
check under USMCA. That is a big difference right there. If we want to 
create more jobs, by the way, here are 176,000 new jobs, and 20,000 of 
those jobs are in the auto industry. That is very important to our 
country and particularly important to States like mine.
  Second, businesses in Ohio and around the country rely on internet 
sales that we talked about earlier. Internet sales and rules for the 
internet are unchanged in NAFTA. Frankly, there is no chapter in NAFTA 
that deals with commerce over the internet. It is unbelievable. It 
turns out that the USMCA does, and that is important because small 
businesses that rely on access to Canada and Mexico through internet 
sales are going to have an easing of their customs burdens for small-
value products. They will have data localization protections. They will 
have a prohibition on Mexico and Canada requiring that there be 
localization of the data in those countries. Finally, this prohibits 
tariffs on data, which we don't have now. These are all important key 
elements in the agreement to keep our internet economy moving. So under 
the rules for the internet economy, there is a green check for the 
USMCA, and NAFTA doesn't have it.
  Let's talk about the next subject, which is enforceable labor and 
environmental standards. In the agreement we have now, the NAFTA 
agreement, there are no labor or environmental standards that are 
enforceable--none. Whereas, in the new USMCA, standards are actually 
enforceable. There are consequences if they don't abide by them. This 
is part of the leveling of the playing field. Think about it. In 
Mexico, one of their great advantages has been lower labor costs and 
labor conditions--the inability to organize and so on. This changes 
that now that we have labor standards. By the way, Mexico has already 
made changes to their labor laws because of the agreement we have with 
them under the USMCA, which, by the way, was negotiated with these two 
countries and submitted back on September 30 of last year. It has been 
over a year. So it is about time to move it. Again, the USMCA has 
enforceable environmental and labor standards, and NAFTA does not.
  There are some other provisions that are interesting that lead to why 
this is

[[Page S6074]]

good for the economy. The International Trade Commission, or the ITC, 
also says that this agreement will increase the GDP of our country, 
which is the economic growth of our country, and, significantly, in 
fact, more than the Trans-Pacific Partnership did. Remember that the 
TPP is an agreement that a lot of Democrats have spoken very favorably 
of because of its impact on the economy. The USMCA actually increases 
our economy more than the Trans-Pacific Partnership would have.
  Another issue that is unusual but is in this agreement and is helpful 
to our manufacturing in Ohio and around the country is that 70 percent 
of the steel used in manufacturing vehicles has to be made in the 
United States, Canada, or Mexico. So this is a new standard that does 
not exist in NAFTA at all. This means more steel jobs in America and 
more heavy manufacturing jobs in this country. So we have a check on 
USMCA, yes, with 70 percent of the steel. In NAFTA, there is nothing 
with regard to how much steel has to be coming from North America.

  It also states that, with regard to the wages in Canada, Mexico, and 
the United States, there would be a minimum wage of $16 per hour for 
about 40 to 45 percent of this manufacturing we are talking about. So 
any vehicle made in Mexico or anywhere else in America has to be 
produced by workers making 16 bucks an hour or more. This is again 
about leveling the playing field, and, frankly, this is the kind of 
provision that we would see in a provision negotiated by a Democratic 
administration, not a Republican administration. My Democrat friends 
have been calling for this for years. It is in the USMCA agreement, and 
it is good for us because it will result in more jobs coming to the 
United States of America, where we have not just higher labor standards 
but higher wages. So 40 to 45 percent of the vehicles must be made by 
workers earning $16 an hour. Check the box for yes in USMCA and no in 
NAFTA.
  It is another example of how this agreement is one that addresses a 
lot of the concerns the Democrats have raised over the years. When I 
was U.S. Trade Representative, we talked a lot about these issues. We 
talked a lot about them in the Finance Committee. They are in this 
agreement.
  My hope would be that Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats in the House 
would take this into account and at least allow this agreement to be 
voted on by the full House. If that happens, I can't believe that logic 
wouldn't prevail, that NAFTA versus USMCA wouldn't result in our 
passing USMCA. All of these things are going to help.
  The one element that I think has gotten the most attention in farm 
country is the fact that the dairy protections in Canada have been 
changed so we have a chance to send our dairy products to Canada from 
Ohio and other dairy States. It is more than that. It also affects 
commodities--wheat, soybeans, and corn--and our proteins: beef, 
poultry, and pork. This is really going to help our farmers. That is 
why 1,000 farm groups around the country have supported this agreement.
  Again, with what is going on with China, with the smaller markets, 
with the difficult weather we have had, and the fact of low prices for 
commodity crops--all are real problems--this is a godsend. It is really 
needed for our farmers.
  A lot of Democrats are telling me: Rob, this is just like the NAFTA 
agreement in so many respects.
  It is really not. It is a different agreement. The truth of the 
matter is that this agreement is going to catch us up to the 21st 
century with regard to our important trade relationship with our two 
neighbors to the north and south. It is about improved market access 
for manufacturing and a level playing field for workers and farmers. It 
is about being sure that we have the ability in the modern digital 
economy to get a fair shake. Put these two agreements side-by-side, and 
this is a much-needed upgrade. It has to get a vote, and, if it does, I 
think it will pass.
  With all the improvements we talked about today, this is not just an 
exercise in rebranding NAFTA. This is about a new agreement that is 
really a big difference, and it is a binary choice. Are you for this 
new agreement, which is better in every respect, or are you for the 
status quo, which is NAFTA?
  My hope is that the House will take this to the floor, and, if they 
do, I think it will pass. It will then come to the Senate, and I am 
confident that in the Senate we will have the support to pass this on a 
bipartisan basis.
  What I am most confident in is the fact that American workers, 
farmers, and service providers are going to have the chance to improve 
their economic opportunities because this agreement is going to be good 
for all of them.
  There is a lot of politics going on right now, and I get that. But, 
folks, this is not even an election year. Let's finish it up this year 
before we get into the 2020 election year. Let's be sure that before 
Thanksgiving, we have the agreement passed in the House and sent to the 
Senate to take a look at it.
  It is too important. We need to keep the American people first and 
put politics second and get this done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, we have been talking about the USMCA and 
the Senator from Ohio crammed into just a few moments quite a bit of 
facts. We are late in time, so I am going to try to abbreviate my 
remarks.
  The Senator from Ohio taught me something a few years ago that is an 
undisputed fact: We sell twice as many goods to countries where we have 
trade agreements than we do with countries where we don't. This is an 
opportunity to expand on an already great success story in terms of our 
trade with Canada.
  What do we see now in trade with Canada and Mexico? We see 12 million 
American jobs, more than $500 billion worth of exports, and the USMCA 
would enhance and improve that. It is good for large manufacturing. It 
is good for small manufacturing. It is good for small business. The 
tech industry benefits from the USMCA. As the Senator of Tennessee 
pointed out, the creative industry--those people in Nashville and in 
Hollywood--will benefit also, in terms of our ability to protect our 
intellectual property. Farmers, ranchers, and agribusiness will all 
benefit.
  We strengthen our position with regard to China. This is not an 
agreement with China, but we will be in a stronger position to compete 
with China because of this.
  I urge the Speaker of the House of Representatives to bring this to a 
vote in the other body. There is one person on the face of the Earth 
who can bring this bill, and that is the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives. She needs to do it, and if she does, we will see a 
rare opportunity for bipartisanship in the U.S. Congress. The House, 
controlled by Democrats, will pass the USMCA because they know it is 
good for jobs and they know it is good for families and working people. 
The Senate will pass it on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis, and that 
ought to be refreshing.
  I want to do something that I seldom do. I am going to quote the 
Washington Post. I don't get a chance to do that very often. The 
Washington Post has strongly endorsed USMCA. The editorial board wrote 
recently: ``USMCA would be a real improvement over the status quo,'' 
and it went on to urge Democrats, including many who have already said 
they support the agreement, to bring the USMCA up without delay.
  This is an opportunity for us to move this economy forward. This is 
an opportunity for us to join with Canada and Mexico, which have 
already indicated their support for this treaty, and an opportunity for 
bipartisanship, which needs to break out more in this building.
  So I join my colleagues. I am glad to rise with them in support of 
urging the Speaker to bring this bill to the floor, and I urge quick 
adoption in the House and Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Mr. President, the American people elected President 
Trump based in part on his promise to negotiate better trade deals with 
foreign nations--first among them, our largest trading partners, Canada 
and Mexico.
  The President and his administration wasted no time in working with 
these two neighbors to rewrite the North American Free Trade Agreement 
to reflect today's economic reality. Those talks produced the United 
States-
Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA,

[[Page S6075]]

which the President unveiled more than 1 year ago.
  When NAFTA was written more than a quarter of a century ago, the 
internet was in its infancy and few could have foreseen the 
increasingly globalized and digital economy we have today. USMCA takes 
us into the 21st century, updating antiquated rules to prohibit the 
theft of trade secrets, reward American innovators, and improve cross-
border e-commerce, while also providing increased market access for 
American businesses and benefits for American workers in more 
traditional sectors like agriculture and manufacturing.
  Market access is very important to agriculture and to our Nation's 
economy in general. Ninety-five percent of the world's population lives 
outside of these United States. Without good trade agreements that give 
us free access to the world's marketplace, we cannot prosper in 
agriculture or any other business that depends on exports. The USMCA 
will result in a fairer deal for U.S. businesses and consumers.
  Today the American people should ask why it has taken more than a 
year for the House and Senate to take up, debate, and pass an agreement 
that will boost the American economy and job creation.
  Manufacturers, farmers, and other businesses in my State of 
Mississippi certainly want to know why we have not done that. The truth 
is, House Democrats have delayed taking action because they want first 
to deny President Trump a win for as long as possible and, secondly, to 
secure last-minute favors for Big Labor.
  It is ironic that these same Democrats and big labor groups now 
oppose USMCA because of environmental protections or labor rights. The 
truth is, they are largely responsible for the original NAFTA, which 
they now claim incentivized a mass exodus of U.S. companies to Mexico 
and decimated our manufacturing sector.
  Unfortunately, Democrats' inexcusable foot-dragging is just hurting 
American consumers and businesses. For years, Mississippi has worked 
aggressively to increase the market penetration of its manufactured 
goods and agricultural products in foreign markets. My State exported 
$11.8 billion in goods in 2018--a 61-percent increase over the past 
decade. Foreign trade accounts for almost 10 percent of Mississippi's 
GDP. More than 50,000 workers and large manufacturers, medium and small 
businesses, and farms played a role in producing these goods for use 
around the world but primarily to Canada and Mexico, my State's largest 
trade partners.
  The bottom line is, the USMCA represents an important new tool for 
Mississippi to expand its ability to sell more of what we produce to 
consumers abroad. There is no good reason for the House to have held up 
this 21st century trade agreement, and it is time to finally take a 
vote, send it to the Senate, and get it done.
  We all are benefiting from the strongest U.S. economy and lowest 
jobless rate in decades. Congress needs to do its job to help maintain 
and strengthen this economic growth. USMCA will create more certainty 
for businesses and increase business confidence, which improves the 
state of the world's economy.
  Let's pass the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement and spend more 
time on accomplishing as much as we can on issues that will actually 
make a difference in the lives of the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to support the USMCA--the United 
States-Mexico-Canada Agreement--along with my colleagues. You heard a 
number of them already. You will hear more. It is compelling.
  It is time to act. We are ready to go. This legislation has to start 
in the House under fast track. We need the House to move forward. There 
is no question that the bipartisan support is there. Bipartisan support 
is here in the Senate, and bipartisan support is there in the House as 
well. It is just a matter of bringing the legislation to the floor and 
getting it passed.
  The benefits of this agreement are very clear. It will increase 
exports, expand consumer choice, raise wages, and boost innovation 
throughout North America and especially here in the United States. An 
analysis by the U.S. National Trade Commission found that USMCA will 
raise GDP by nearly $63 billion and create 176,000 jobs in the United 
States. It is clear that we need to move forward.
  The agreement will secure and expand market access for our ag 
products for an ag State like mine. It will grow our manufacturing base 
for manufacturing States like Ohio, whose good Senator is here to my 
right. It will provide important modernizations for our technology 
sector for States like the Presiding Officer's State. It is certainly a 
high-tech State.
  It will solidify the United States as the global energy leader. We 
are now, as you know, exporting energy in a bigger way than we ever 
have before. This just builds on that momentum. These are all 
significant wins for our States individually and for this country as a 
whole.
  As I said, ag is certainly a big issue for us in North Dakota. The 
USMCA really makes an important difference and a helpful difference for 
us in agriculture. For the last 50 years, our country has had a trade 
surplus. Our farmers and ranchers can outcompete anyone in the world. 
They produce the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world, 
and we have a positive balance of trade in agriculture. We need these 
types of trade agreements in place to continue that positive balance in 
our agriculture trade. In my State, for example, we shipped $4.5 
billion of agriculture products around the globe in 2017, making us the 
ninth largest exporter of agriculture goods among the 50 States. Our 
farmers and ranchers depend on being able to do that. What we are 
seeing right now are low commodity prices in our country, which is 
making it very difficult for our farmers and ranchers. The best way to 
work out of that is with trade agreements that allow us to sell more 
globally.
  According to the ITC, when fully implemented, USMCA will increase 
food and exports to Canada and Mexico by $2.2 billion. This agreement 
secures existing market access, makes ag trade fair, increases access 
to the Canadian market, supports innovation in agriculture and more, 
which is why it is so critical that we pass this legislation as soon as 
we can.
  By maintaining all zero-tariff provisions on ag products, USMCA will 
secure crucial market access in Canada and Mexico for our farmers and 
ranchers. Canada and Mexico are critical markets for U.S. ag products. 
To give you some examples, Mexico is the No. 1 buyer of U.S. corn and 
DDGS, distillers dried grains with solubles; and Canada is the No. 2 
buyer of U.S. ethanol. Additionally, Mexico is the No. 2 buyer of U.S. 
soybean meal, oil, and whole beans. Canada is the No. 4 buyer of 
soybean meal and the No. 7 buyer of soybean oil.
  Again, you are talking about two very large markets for ag products, 
for manufacturing products, and for technology--two incredibly 
important partners. I can go on.
  Again, I want to be respectful of my colleagues on the floor. This is 
one of those cases where it is clear. This is absolutely beneficial to 
our country. The point is, it is a bipartisan issue. I think, whether 
you talk to Members of the Senate or to Members of the House, they will 
tell you this is a bipartisan issue. This is a trade agreement that is 
good for our country and good for two very strong allies and neighbors. 
Obviously, Canada and Mexico are two very large trading partners.
  We have been on the floor before asking for the House to advance this 
legislation. If we could start the legislation here, we would. We would 
pass it right now, and we would pass it with a bipartisan vote, but it 
requires the House to get started. I hope that all of our colleagues 
will visit with their counterparts from their respective States in the 
House and urge that this bill be brought to the floor, passed in the 
House, and delivered to the Senate so we can pass it for the President 
to sign and put it into effect for Americans across this great country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, this is a classic example of everything has 
been said but not everybody has said it yet. One of the great 
traditions of the Senate is to be sure everybody says it. We are going 
to say it now, and we will

[[Page S6076]]

continue to say it until the House finally has that vote.
  It has been pointed out that this agreement was signed well over a 
year ago. It has been pointed out that our two biggest trading partners 
are Mexico and Canada, in that order. It has been pointed out that 
there is lots of focus on agriculture. Every State is an agriculture 
State. Every State has that as a significant part of their economy. 
Nobody in the world does that part of the economy more efficiently or 
more effectively than we do. So that is important. It is important to 
realize that lots of other things are in trade, as well, but 
agriculture has to be mentioned a lot until we get this done.
  Whether I was at the Missouri State Fair in August or the roundtable 
meetings I was at in our State in October, cost comes up--$88 billion 
is the agricultural economy in Missouri. We are about the same amount. 
I think Senator Hoeven said his State is in the top 10. Ours is too. We 
export about $4 billion worth of ag products. We also export pickup 
trucks and airplanes and lots of technology from our State. We export 
our fair share of beer cans and other things that go all over the 
world. We are going to continue to make that happen.
  Opening markets make a big difference. It also makes a big difference 
in how you look at the world. If you have strong trading relationships, 
you are pretty careful with how you deal with all those other 
relationships. We need to do that. We need to have this vote. The votes 
are in the House. The votes are in the Senate. It is up to the Speaker 
to bring this up.
  I think the U.S. Trade Representative is working as hard with 
Democrats in the House as he could possibly be expected to do to maybe 
look at those last few things that might make this a better deal.
  Senator Portman did a great job talking about why the choice here is 
if you want to continue to have NAFTA--which has been great for all 
three partners, Canada, Mexico, and us--or do you want to have USMCA, 
which in area after area has the 20-year update it needs.
  We need to get on with this. We need to get on with the activities of 
the day.


                        Remembering Ted Stevens

  Mr. President, I am going to start off by saying one of the things we 
are going to do today is accept the official portrait of Ted Stevens, 
President pro tempore of the Senate--the highest office that the Senate 
can possibly give to anybody. It is the highest office in the Senate.
  He was the chairman one time of the Commerce Committee, chairman of 
the appropriating committee, and a guy who flew those tough planes in 
the toughest areas in World War II.
  He was a person who always did his best to try to figure out the 
Senate and then be sure that the Senate worked for America and the 
Senate worked for Alaska. When it came to both of those things, it was 
hard to beat Ted Stevens' best. He knew how to make this place work.
  He would be disappointed in the dysfunction we see right now, but he 
would be optimistic that in the greatest country in the world, we will 
figure this out. All of us who had a chance to serve with him--I had a 
great relationship with him when I was a House Member. I learned a lot. 
I think of him often. I miss the way he represented his State and our 
country so uniquely and so dynamically and so effectively.
  I look forward to not only the recognition here on the floor that he 
will receive today but the permanent recognition he will receive as we 
today hang his portrait in the U.S. Capitol.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as the Senator from Missouri has 
stated, this is a significant day. This is a very special day in the 
Congress, as later this afternoon we are going to gather to pay tribute 
to a truly great Senator, the late Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska. His 
official portrait will be unveiled shortly by the U.S. Senate 
Commission on Art. It will be part of the U.S. Senate Leadership 
Portrait Collection, which honors past Presidents pro tempore and past 
leaders. Like all of the family, the friends, the colleagues, and the 
former staff who have gathered for this occasion, I am so very pleased 
that he will be memorialized forever here in the U.S. Capitol and will 
be watching over all of us.

  There are only 38 Members who are currently in the Senate who served 
with Ted, but I think it is important that all of us--and really every 
American--know who he was and why he so clearly deserves this honor.
  Ted was a public servant. He was the ultimate public servant. He 
dedicated his life to public service. He spent more than six decades 
fighting for our State and the country he loved. His service began 
during World War II, when he flew as a pilot in the Army Air Corps. He 
flew missions behind enemy lines in China in support of the Flying 
Tigers. The stories we have heard over the years are truly legendary of 
his efforts in the war.
  After the military, Ted helped Alaska to achieve its dream of 
statehood. He was basically Secretary Seaton's point man at the 
Department of the Interior during the Eisenhower administration. Think 
about what that means to have the opportunity to shape statehood for 
your State and then to go on and serve your State at this level as he 
did for some 40 years.
  He went on to become one of the longest serving Republican Senators 
of all time. In this Chamber, he represented Alaska with great dignity, 
with great distinction over the course of 40 exceptional years. He was 
truly a public servant.
  Really, from the very beginning, Ted was one of those special kinds 
of guys. After being appointed to the Senate in 1968, he established 
himself as a leader among leaders. Over the course of his time in the 
Senate, he chaired the Select Committee on Ethics; Rules and 
Administration; Governmental Affairs; Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation, as well as the Committee on Appropriations. From 1977 
to 1985, his colleagues chose him to be the Assistant Republican 
Leader. He led the Senate's Arms Control Observer Group for 15 years, 
and he served as the President pro tempore, the senior member of the 
Senate's majority party, from 2003 to 2007--so leadership across all 
levels.
  As one might expect, Ted was a force to be reckoned with. He made 
sure Alaska's voice was heard and was heard in every debate. As such, 
he secured an incredible number of legislative victories that shaped 
both the State of Alaska and our Nation.
  He helped to settle most of Alaska's Native land claims, returning 44 
million acres of land to First Alaskans and establishing a new model 
that empowered our Native peoples to create new economic opportunities. 
Ted was instrumental in securing the passage of a bill that enabled the 
construction of our 800-mile-long Trans-Alaska Pipeline, which, to this 
day, remains the backbone of our State's economy and is a critical part 
of our Nation's energy security supply.
  Ted was a guy who worked very, very hard but who also loved to fish. 
He loved to be outside. His focusing on fishing led him to be very 
concerned about what he saw as being the overfishing by foreign fleets, 
which was taking place just miles off of Alaska's shores. So he worked 
across the aisle with Senator Warren Magnuson to protect and sustain 
our fisheries into the future. The Magnuson-Stevens law has been 
repeatedly reauthorized and, to this day, still bears their names.
  It really is impossible to overstate the beneficial impact that Ted 
had on Alaska. Now, keep in mind he came to the Senate in 1968--less 
than a decade after Alaska had become a State. So he knew as well as 
anyone how tough those early years of statehood were. He knew probably 
as well as anyone how difficult life was for so many Alaskans, 
particularly in the rural parts of our State and, more than anyone 
else, he helped to change that.
  Ted was an appropriator for a long time. He was legendary in that 
role. He once convinced the entire Committee on Appropriations to go to 
Alaska for 2 weeks to see Alaska's needs firsthand. The Federal funding 
he secured year after year allowed many Alaskans to gain access to very 
basic infrastructure. We are talking water and sewer--things that most 
Americans would take for granted. He also worked to help develop Alaska 
so we would have a telemedicine network that would work. He helped to 
facilitate bypass mail and Essential Air Service for our rural 
communities--programs and benefits that continue to this day.

[[Page S6077]]

  There is absolutely no doubt that the people of Alaska are better off 
because of Ted Stevens. Many around the State still lovingly refer to 
Ted as ``Uncle Ted.'' We are happier, and we are clearly healthier. We 
are a safer and more prosperous State because of his contributions. Yet 
the same is true for every American because Ted's accomplishments did 
not end with the State of Alaska. He was a patriot. He was firmly 
committed to our national defense and the security of our country. He 
had great admiration for those who answered the call to serve in 
uniform, as he had. He traveled the world to visit with our troops and 
hear directly from them.
  He was a longtime leader on the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Department of Defense. He and Dan Inouye would kind of share the 
chairmanship, one between the other practically. Throughout his Senate 
tenure, he fought tirelessly to make sure our military had the best 
equipment, better pay, and the needed care it sought. He was a defender 
of those who defended us.
  Ted was an avid surfer when he was young, and he recognized the 
importance of sports in our daily lives. I can remember a story that 
has gone around for so many years; that of having to put his eldest 
daughter, Sue, on a boy's softball team because we didn't have a girls' 
league in Alaska at the time. So he championed title IX of the 
Education Amendments Act, which provides equal opportunity for women to 
participate in sports. He also authored the Amateur Sports Act, which 
created the U.S. Olympic Committee, and worked to ensure funding for 
physical education programs--programs, again, that had that fingerprint 
of Ted Stevens from so many years prior.
  I can go on and on about Ted's accomplishments. His legislative 
accomplishments are considerable and far too many to speak to here 
today, things like his work to ban damaging high seas drift nets to the 
funding he secured to advance AIDS and breast cancer research. He was 
involved in so much.
  In recognizing that other colleagues wish to speak of Senator Stevens 
as well, I, instead, will speak very briefly about what I feel made him 
so effective and really so beloved--because he was beloved, maybe 
feared a little bit but beloved.
  The first thing to understand is that Ted had a pretty simple motto. 
It was not very complicated.

  He said:

       To hell with politics. Just do what is right for Alaska.

  He lived by that every day that he served here. He would work with 
anyone who was willing to do right by the State of Alaska no matter who 
one was, where one came from, or which side of the aisle one was on. I 
mentioned Senator Inouye and the relationship that Ted had with him on 
the Subcommittee on Department of Defense and on the Committee on 
Appropriations. They formed a very close relationship. They had a lot 
in common. Obviously, they were both veterans, and they were both from 
young, offshore States. Yet they looked out for one another. They had 
one another's backs. On committees, as I mentioned, they would be 
chairman and vice chairman and would trade off but would work with one 
another. In later years, it was not uncommon to find them both smoking 
cigars out on the pro tempore's balcony in the early evenings, talking 
about what had happened that day or what was going to happen the next 
day.
  Another thing that folks should know about Ted is that he was 
definitely a fighter. I am told that Newsweek described him as a 
``scrapper'' when he first arrived in the Senate, and it certainly 
proved to be an apt description throughout his tenure. Yet Ted was, 
again, pretty clear: If Alaska's interests were at stake, he was out 
there to defend them.
  There were times he would put on his Incredible Hulk tie and channel 
the big guy's persona. When that happened, everyone knew to look out 
because Ted was going to the mat for Alaska on that day. Look out. Some 
suggested that Ted had a bit of a temper.
  A Senator is chuckling back there. I hear that.
  I think Ted knew that a little bit of a temper could actually serve 
him pretty well, and he would usually have a cute, little gleam in his 
eye when he would say, ``I never lose my temper. I know exactly where I 
left it.''
  Ted was one of those guys who was great to his people, but when 
something needed to be said--when it needed to be direct and to the 
point--he was not going to shy away from it. That was another part of 
what really made him a legend around here.
  I think those who are listening and those who know me know I have an 
immense, great affection for Ted and that this day and the recognition 
he is receiving has great personal meaning. I had the extraordinary 
fortune to know Ted Stevens for almost my entire life. At one point, he 
was my boss. I was a high school intern. My first opportunity to really 
be out of Alaska on my own was when I was an intern here for Senator 
Ted. Later, of course, he was my colleague in the Senate, where he 
mentored me and partnered with me to help serve Alaska. Above all that, 
he was a true friend--truly a friend--and I miss him dearly.
  I am reminded of him all the time. I have his old office in the Hart 
Building. I have pictures and mementos that remind me of Ted. Every 
time I go back home to the State, I think of him. It is not just 
because, when I land, it reads ``Ted Stevens Anchorage International 
Airport.'' It is also when I go out to the communities and see a road 
or a bridge or a community that is no longer utilizing a honey bucket 
system because of the work that Ted did. When you go home, when you 
visit in Alaska, you see firsthand the impact he had. You see it 
everywhere. I often say that Ted built Alaska and that Ted was Alaska. 
So you can see why we named him the ``Alaskan of the 20th Century'' and 
why we remain so grateful for all that he has done for us.
  I am happy there is now going to be a place in the Capitol where I 
can visit Ted, talk to him, and think about what he might have said and 
about the counsel he might have provided for our State and our Nation. 
I do hope his portrait will be a reminder to those of us who serve here 
that we can work together even on the hardest of days and that, if we 
do, we can achieve great things for the American people, which 
sometimes might just require us to say: To hell with politics. Just do 
what is right.
  I am honored and privileged to be here with so many Alaskans, 
including Catherine, Ted's wife, as well as many of his children and 
grandchildren. I know they are overwhelmed by the number of friends and 
colleagues and staff who are here to celebrate Ted's life and legacy.
  In channeling here, I think Ted is looking down on all of this and is 
thinking: Enough already. This is too much. You all have to get back to 
work because, after all, we have appropriations bills on the floor.
  With that, I yield to the fine Senator from Mississippi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I will speak for only a few moments, and 
then the distinguished junior Senator from Alaska will close this part 
of the debate.
  The senior Senator from Alaska mentioned that only 38 of us have 
actually served with Senator Ted Stevens. Of that group, I am the 
junior-most in rank, and I know that because I was the junior-most 
Member of this body more than a decade ago when I rose on this floor to 
pay tribute to this great Senator from Alaska, Ted Stevens, on his last 
day in office.
  I did not speak from my desk, as you can imagine. I didn't have a 
very prominent desk at the time. I chose instead to stand as close as I 
could directly behind Senator Stevens. I suppose I wanted to have his 
back, at least figuratively, for one last time. And I wanted to make 
sure I could see his wife Catherine in the gallery, as I may have done 
just a few moments ago, because she meant so much and still means so 
much to all of us and to my wife Gayle and me.
  What we learned from Ted Stevens guides our work today. I was honored 
to serve alongside him for just a few years. I was anguished when he 
had to leave us in 2008, and together with all of us, I mourned his 
death in 2010.
  Seniority is earned when the people of our States see fit to return 
us time and again to Washington to do their business. Respect is earned 
when we

[[Page S6078]]

engage in the long fight to fulfill our oaths and to support and defend 
the Constitution.
  Ted Stevens earned both seniority and respect for 40 years. When he 
was elected as the third Senator ever from the Land of the Midnight 
Sun, he had already served his country brilliantly, as has been 
mentioned, as a brave pilot in World War II for the Flying Tigers and 
as a key leader in putting that 49th star on the American flag.
  The portrait being unveiled in the Old Senate Chamber today, where so 
many great debates took place, is a fitting homage to Ted Stevens. As 
the senior Senator has mentioned, the seemingly gruff exterior depicted 
was a facade over one of the most genuine and patriotic people ever to 
walk these halls.
  He went to work every day to defend Americans and to make good on the 
promise of the country he so deeply loved. He belongs in the place of 
honor where his portrait will be displayed. Members who served with Ted 
Stevens will look on that portrait and remember that.
  I hope our more recent colleagues who have joined since Ted Stevens 
left will come to know what a giant he was. As chairman of the Commerce 
Committee, a committee Ted Stevens once led, I went to Alaska with the 
junior Senator from Alaska this summer to learn, among other things, 
from coastguardsmen keeping our Nation safe in the Far North. But I saw 
a lot of that State, and there is a lot to see.
  Despite its geographic size, Alaska is in many respects a small town. 
Like my home State of Mississippi, everyone knows just about everyone 
else, and virtually every Alaskan knew Ted Stevens. They knew what he 
did for them. They knew what he did for this country.
  I could see his legacy this summer. The evidence of his leadership is 
everywhere in so many ways. He helped turn America's last frontier into 
a thriving community for Alaskans and Americans and a place of wonder 
and adventure for any of us who will visit there.
  While he was at it, he performed small acts of kindness that I will 
never forget and heroic acts of statesmanship almost every day in his 
chosen homes--this closed Chamber and that wide open State.
  I can't wait to see the portrait. I can't wait to tell him hello and, 
once again, to look him right in the eye.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, we are taking about somebody today who was 
actually a mentor for me right here in the U.S. Senate--Ted Stevens.
  I believe it was 33 years ago when I first met him--33 years ago--and 
I was in the House, and I was coming to the Senate. He was a power in 
the Senate then. He was a worker. He was involved. He was involved not 
only in what happened in Alaska, where he was a champion of his own 
State--and should have been--but also in the world. He wanted to make 
sure that America had a defense second to nobody; that we were 
powerful, but we were peaceful.
  I had the occasion to serve for years and years on the Appropriations 
Committee and on the Subcommittee on Defense with him. I hadn't been on 
the committee long, and Senator Byrd was chairman of the committee, and 
Senator Hatfield from Oregon had been, and he tasked me with a lot of 
things that probably as a freshman--you know, second-year, third-year 
guy here--I probably was appalled but pleased--maybe not appalled, but 
pleased--what he would do. He told me one day: Senator Shelby, you are 
going to be chairman of this committee. I looked around, and I said: 
Oh, it will be years. I will never be that.
  But Ted Stevens was a Senator's Senator. He was involved, as I said, 
in just about everything in the Senate--the Rules Committee, the 
Commerce Committee, Appropriations, and Defense.
  I will never forget his experience, his wise suggestions to me that 
probably helped me on my way. I traveled with him around the world 
because we had serious meetings on the Defense appropriations bill.
  All I can say is that we are going to unveil a portrait of Ted 
Stevens here in the Senate later today, and it is a fitting tribute to 
a great Senator representing the State of Alaska but a U.S. Senator 
representing us all, Ted Stevens.
  Ted, I will never forget you. We miss you. You left an indelible 
imprint on the U.S. Senate. I am glad I got to meet you and work with 
you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I want to add my voice in recognizing 
what an important day it is here.
  I want to thank the Senators from Alabama and Mississippi and, of 
course, my good friend Senator Murkowski. Many other Senators--the 
Senators from California, Iowa--all came to the floor already today to 
talk about this great American, this great Alaskan.
  I try to come to the floor about once a week, and I do a speech that 
I call the ``Alaskan of the Week'' to talk about an Alaskan who has 
done great stuff for our State, their community, the country.
  But as Senator Murkowski just mentioned in her remarks, I am 
literally able now to talk about the Alaskan of the Century. That is 
right. The State of Alaska legislature voted that Ted Stevens was the 
Alaskan of the Century for reasons we are all talking about today. So I 
just want to add a few more words about this legendary U.S. Senator, 
whose portrait we are unveiling today.
  Let me say it is more than fitting that we have a portrait of Senator 
Stevens in the Halls of Congress. It is a small tribute compared to the 
magnitude of his contributions to our country and to our State. Yet, in 
so many ways, it is proper and fitting because his spirit certainly 
remains in this body. It is an example of leadership and public service 
that you hear and I hear and I know Senator Murkowski hears all the 
time--how so many of my colleagues still talk about Senator Stevens and 
what he meant, just like my good friend the Senator from Alabama and so 
many others.
  So I will just give a little more color to this great man's life. He 
was born in Indiana in 1923. When he was a young boy, the Great 
Depression hit. Senator Stevens supported his family by selling 
newspapers on the street, and after the untimely death of his father, 
he moved to California to live with an aunt and uncle, where he learned 
to kind of relax and to surf. The surf board that he learned to surf on 
stayed with him in his office until the end.
  As was already mentioned, he was, of course, a part of America's 
``greatest generation''--a pilot, 14th Army Air Corps, flying supplies 
to General Chennault's Fighting Tigers over ``the Hump''--India, China, 
Burma--very dangerous missions. In 1953, armed with a law degree from 
Harvard, he made his way to then the Territory of Alaska, where he 
found, in his words, ``the passion of my career, the Alaskan dream.''
  So what was this dream of Ted Stevens? A dream of an Alaska with 
promises of the 21st century ``springing up from the Arctic,'' he 
said--an Alaska where our Federal Government works with us, not against 
us, to achieve our destiny to develop our resources and our economy for 
the benefit of all Alaskans but also for the benefit of all Americans; 
an Alaska that lives up to the potential the Congress of the United 
States saw when it voted to allow Alaska to become the 49th State.
  Senator Stevens worked tirelessly for these dreams, and in the last 
speech he gave on this floor of the U.S. Senate, he recounted some of 
his successes.
  He said: ``Where there was nothing but tundra and forest, today there 
are now airports, roads, ports, water and sewer systems, hospitals, 
clinics, communications networks, research labs, and much, much more.''
  He went on to say: ``Alaska was not Seward's folly and is no longer 
an impoverished territory. Alaska is a great State and an essential 
contributor to our Nation's energy security and national defense.''
  In that speech, he said that he was proud to have had a role--a 
role--in that transformation of Alaska.
  Now, I think we are all realizing that in that speech Senator Stevens 
was being very humble. He didn't have just a role; he played the lead 
role. Indeed, everywhere any Alaskan goes across the State--as Senator 
Murkowski has already stated--you see signs of his hard work, his 
dedication to the Alaskan dream and the critical role he played in 
transforming our great State.

[[Page S6079]]

  But I think many of us--and we have already heard it being talked 
about today--also see his hard work in the friendships and example he 
set here in the U.S. Senate, friendships not based on party labels but 
on a commitment to service.
  As I mentioned, Members of this body, like Senator Shelby, still 
approach me on a regular basis, saying what an impact Senator Stevens 
had.
  His friendships were of course legendary: Scoop Jackson; Henry 
Magnuson; Pat Roberts; John Warner; Senator Shelby; Senator Leahy; 
Senator Biden, who, as Vice President, traveled to Anchorage to speak 
at Ted Stevens' funeral; and, of course, as Senator Murkowski 
mentioned, his famous, enduring friendship with Hawaii's Daniel Inouye.
  Senator Murkowski also mentioned his famous motto: ``To hell with 
politics, just do what's right for Alaska.'' As a matter of fact, I 
happen to be wearing a very special pair of cufflinks that once 
belonged to Ted Stevens. That very motto is on these cufflinks. When we 
are doing important stuff, I will wear these on the floor to remind 
me--and I think all of us--of what is important not just for our States 
but for our country.
  As was already noted, it wasn't just Alaska that he focused on and 
achieved so many great results for; it was our Nation. Whether national 
security, strengthening our military, taking care of our veterans 
through improved pay and benefits, as Senator Murkowski mentioned, 
modernizing our fishing industry, our telecommunications industry, 
being known as the title IX--the ``Father'' of that important 
legislation, making sure young girls have the opportunity to play 
sports--if you are an American and you have daughters--I have three--
and they are playing sports right now, guess who had so much to do with 
that. The late great Senator Stevens. He was also in many ways the 
Senator who cared more about the Olympics and focused on them more than 
any other Senator.
  One other thing about Senator Stevens. No matter how far he rose--and 
we are hearing about the high levels he attained in the Senate--he 
never forgot what was most important: serving the people of Alaska. 
When our constituents traveled thousands of miles to come to DC, he 
always made time for them. Thousands of Alaskans have notes from him--
congratulatory letters, condolence letters, and letters of 
appreciation.
  At his standing-room-only funeral in Anchorage, where I had the honor 
of serving as an honorary pallbearer, someone asked for a show of hands 
from the audience--hundreds and hundreds of people--how many had 
received a letter from Senator Ted Stevens. Nearly every person at that 
service raised their hand.
  Of course, he treated his staff like family. If you worked for 
Senator Stevens--as my wife, Julie, did--you were always part of that 
family and you could always expect loyalty from him the rest of your 
life.
  These principles--relentless focus on Alaska, fighting the Feds if 
you must, working across the aisle for the betterment of Alaska and 
America, maintaining a strong military and national defense, and deep 
reverence for our veterans and fellow Alaskans--are a key part of the 
Stevens legacy.
  I am deeply honored to serve in the Senate seat Senator Stevens held 
for over 40 years and to literally sit at the same desk--right here, 
this desk--he used in the Senate. More important, I try to live by and 
serve my constituents according to these principles and the example he 
set for Alaska and America. But here is something else that is really 
so remarkable about Ted Stevens. I said I try to serve in that example, 
but, as you are hearing on the Senate floor, so many other Senators 
have said that and believe that too. That is really remarkable and 
shows how much influence he still has in this body to this day.
  Like most Senators, I try to get home every weekend. Senator 
Murkowski and I just have a little farther to go than most--well, 
actually, a lot farther than most. Our State recently dedicated a 
wonderful statue of Ted Stevens in the Ted Stevens International 
Airport. It is life-size. He is sitting on a bench with an inviting 
smile, cowboy boots on, and his briefcase nearby. It is right in the 
middle of the airport in Anchorage. I often walk by it, touch it, and 
quietly say: How are we doing? It gives me inspiration and strength and 
peace to do that.
  With the unveiling of the official portrait of Ted Stevens today and 
its placement permanently in the halls of the U.S. Senate, I will have 
another image of this great Alaskan and this great American from which 
to draw inspiration, but I think so many other Senators will as well.
  So congratulations, especially to the family of Ted Stevens: 
Catherine, his wonderful wife; his children: Ben, Walter, Ted Junior, 
Susan, Lily, and Beth, who is with us in spirit, as are so many other 
Alaskans and others who had such deep respect for Senator Stevens; and 
to his wonderful grandchildren, many of whom Julie and I have known and 
watched grow up with pride since they were born.

                              S.J. Res. 50

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I support the resolution that the 
Senate is voting on today to disapprove of new rules from the Trump 
administration to diminish the value of tax credits offered by State 
and local governments.
  From the very beginning, I have been against the 2017 tax bill that 
became law. At a time of skyrocketing economic inequality, this tax law 
has given the largest tax cuts to the wealthiest people and biggest 
corporations. But in Maryland, 376,000 families are paying higher taxes 
according to our Bureau of Revenue Estimates, due in large part to the 
tax law's $10,000 limit on the state and local tax deduction. According 
to the IRS, 46 percent of households in Maryland claimed the State and 
local tax deduction prior to the new tax law, which is the largest 
share of any state in the country. The average State and local tax 
deduction in Maryland was roughly $13,000--well over the $10,000 limit. 
Everything in the Maryland State budget, such as education, 
transportation, and state Medicaid funding, is now more burdensome for 
Maryland taxpayers to finance.
  To make matters worse for working Marylanders, on June 13, 2019, the 
Treasury Department issued a regulation against tax credits offered by 
State and local governments for charitable giving. This misguided 
regulation reduces a taxpayer's Federal deduction for charitable 
donations by the amount of any tax credit the taxpayer receives for 
their donation from State or local governments. The effects of this 
regulation go well beyond programs recently established by some States 
attempting to mitigate the damage of the new tax law. These rules will 
be deeply detrimental to longstanding tax credit programs throughout 
the Nation. In Maryland, this will affect tax credit programs for 
affordable housing, conservation, and community endowment funds.
  Ultimately, allowing this regulation to take effect will make it even 
more difficult for State and local communities to fund our schools, 
emergency responders, health care, roads, and other critical services. 
That is unacceptable, which is why I support the Congressional Review 
Act resolution to overturn the Treasury Department's June 2019 
regulation.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. I yield the floor.


                          Vote on S.J. Res. 50

  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading 
and was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the 
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), 
the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Massachusetts 
(Ms. Warren), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?

[[Page S6080]]

  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 331 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Baldwin
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--52

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Harris
     Isakson
     Sanders
     Warren
     Whitehouse
  The joint resolution was rejected.

                          ____________________