[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 194 (Thursday, December 5, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6865-S6873]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




FOSTERING UNDERGRADUATE TALENT BY UNLOCKING RESOURCES FOR EDUCATION ACT

  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam President, first, I thank the 
Democratic leader for the opportunity to move forward on this unanimous 
consent.
  As in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 212, H.R. 2486.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2486) to reauthorize mandatory funding 
     programs for historically Black colleges and universities and 
     other minority-serving institutions.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Alexander-Murray amendment at the desk be agreed to and that 
the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1255), in the nature of a substitute, was agreed 
to, as follows:
  (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute.)
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam President, I know of no further 
debate on the bill, as amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Hearing none, the bill having been read the third time, the question 
is, Shall the bill, as amended, pass?
  The bill (H.R. 2486), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senators from South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington State, and Alabama 
be allowed to speak for brief moments on the great job they have done 
and that I be given back my leadership time at 10:50.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, on behalf of all of us, I want to 
thank the Democratic leader for his courtesy and his support on this. 
He and Senator McConnell have made it possible for us to do this.
  I am going to limit my remarks to a couple of minutes, and then 
Senator Murray and then Senator Scott, Senator Coons, Senator Jones are 
here, and we will finish by 10:50.
  Madam President, it is hard to think of a piece of legislation that 
would have a more lasting impact upon minority students in America than 
the bill that the Senate just passed.
  I believe, in doing so, we have improved the provision in the House 
bill that was sent to us. That is what we did; we amended a House bill 
that we are now sending back to them. We have been working with leaders 
in the House to make sure that our bill is something the House can 
accept and pass. We hope that will happen in the next couple of weeks, 
and here is the result of it happening: No. 1, a big step for 
historically Black colleges and minority institutions--permanent 
funding at the level of $255 million a year for those institutions that 
serve up to 2 million minority students. That is No. 1.
  The second big step is one that Senator Murray and I and our 
committee, Senator Jones, Senator Bennet, Senator King, and many others 
have been working on for 5 years to simplify the form that students use 
to apply for Federal aid for college. Twenty million families fill out 
what is called the FAFSA, a Federal aid form, every year; then we have 
students who borrow more than $100 billion a year. What we have done in 
this bill is reduce the complexity of filing that FAFSA form by saying 
to students: You don't have to give your Federal tax information to the 
government twice. We will take the up to 22 questions that are a part 
of the 108-question FAFSA, and we will eliminate them, and if the 
student gives his or her express consent, the Internal Revenue Service 
will answer those questions for the student.
  I can't tell you how many times students, parents, college 
presidents, Federal aid counselors have told me that the application 
and the verification of this information has discouraged low-income 
students from coming to college.
  Five and one-half million of the twenty million students who fill out 
these forms have the accuracy of those forms questioned. This will 
eliminate that for most of the students because they will have to give 
that information to the government only once.
  I want to thank Senator Murray especially for her work on this. We 
work together on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee 
in the Senate, but Senator Coons, Senator Scott, Senator Richard Burr 
of North Carolina--which has the largest number of historically Black 
colleges--and Senator Jones of Alabama have also been crucial with 
their support.
  I yield the floor to Senator Murray.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, HBCUs, Tribal colleges, and other 
minority-serving institutions--or MSIs--are an essential part of our 
entire higher education system, and those institutions serve nearly 6 
million undergraduate students, a large majority of whom are students 
of color or Native students.
  Funding for those critical institutions should never be up for 
debate, and now, because of this, it will not be. I am so glad we have 
reached a bipartisan deal that will permanently fund HBCUs and MSIs.
  I know many of our colleagues worked very hard on this, but I 
especially want to thank Senator Jones for his leadership in pushing to 
make sure this got done, as well as my partner

[[Page S6866]]

Senator Alexander, and, of course, Senators Coons, Scott, and Burr.
  I am also pleased that this legislation streamlines Federal student 
aid for more than 20 million students applying for aid and nearly 8 
million borrowers.
  Our Nation's outdated and overly complicated financial aid system is 
forcing students and borrowers to jump through too many hoops to access 
Federal financial aid and verify their tax returns, which they have 
already filled out, and to get help if they are struggling to pay their 
student loans.
  The FAFSA Act, which has been included in this bill, allows data to 
be securely shared between the IRS and the Department of Education, 
making it easier for students to fill out the FAFSA and pay their 
loans.
  This bill will strengthen privacy protections and how students and 
borrowers navigate their financial aid through a streamlined, more 
efficient process.
  This bill is also thanks to Jeff Appel, an integral member of Federal 
Student Aid who recently passed away. I am grateful for his 
contribution, and I know that he will be sorely missed.
  There is one more way in which this agreement we have reached is 
important. This proves once again that we can work across the aisle and 
get things done when we all stay focused squarely on what is best for 
students.
  We have a lot of work ahead of us to make higher education in our 
country more affordable and accessible and to hold schools accountable 
for student outcomes and ensure student safety on campus. I am hopeful 
that we can build on this bipartisan progress we have seen so far as we 
continue working together to reauthorize the Higher Education Act in a 
comprehensive way.
  Again, I want to thank all of my colleagues for their work on this, 
and I look forward to more to come.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam President, to avoid the risk of 
being redundant, I want to put a little skin on the bones as relates to 
what this act really means to college students, particularly those 
college students entering into the process for the very first time and 
their families.
  What it means is simply this: Simplification means more education for 
a lot more students, and that is good news. We oftentimes talk about 
the importance of keeping the American dream alive and keeping it well. 
This will provide significant opportunities for low-income students to 
get through the process very quickly.
  In South Carolina we have eight HBCUs. The economic impact of those 
graduates is around $5 billion of lifetime earnings. This bill makes 
that more achievable, more attainable, and keeps the American Dream 
alive and well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. JONES. Madam President, I am rising today with just, for lack of 
a better term, an incredible amount of hope and excitement--something 
we don't always see on the Senate floor these days. We go through so 
many routine measures. We go through so many political speeches. But 
today is truly a day of hope and excitement and optimism because we are 
on the verge of a significant moment for our Nation's historically 
Black colleges and universities and all minority-serving institutions. 
I frankly hope that in our partisan world we are living in and in our 
partisan America, people across this country are tuning in right now or 
at least will follow what is happening on the floor of the Senate 
today, where a bipartisan coalition has come together for a significant 
and important segment of our population that deserves the same economic 
and educational opportunities as everyone else.
  Fourteen months ago, I came to this Chamber to introduce a permanent 
extension, an increase of funding for these important institutions of 
education. Nearly half of all the funding they receive was set to run 
out on September 30, 2019. We secured a quarter of the Senate as 
cosponsors of the bill, and we laid out an ambitious proposal.
  In the new Congress, with the clock ticking down toward the deadline, 
we offered a more modest but bipartisan and paid-for plan to avert the 
looming fiscal cliff. But our goal and the goal of everyone here and 
the goal of all of those, including my friend Senator Alexander, was to 
always reach the ultimate goal of permanent funding, a permanent 
solution for these important institutions.
  All told, these schools serve 6 million students across the country. 
They are often the foundation upon which families begin to build 
generational wealth--not just one person who goes to college but 
generational wealth in communities that have long faced systematic 
barriers to doing so. They create good, sustainable jobs. They are part 
of the very foundation of our higher education system in this country 
and in my State in particular.
  With all the due respect to my friend Senator Murray from Washington, 
there is a little controversy about who has the most HBCUs. I would 
claim that Alabama does with 14, but that is for debate on another day. 
But we can all agree that supporting these schools and the students 
they serve is not a partisan issue. I think we can all agree on that. I 
think we have shown that we can agree that funding should never become 
a political football. We have all been working toward the same goal.
  To say the least, I am so deeply relieved that today we forged this 
bipartisan compromise that will allow these schools the funding and the 
certainty they need to go forward and continue fulfilling their 
important mission.
  I sincerely especially want to thank my colleagues on the HELP 
Committee and Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray in 
particular for their leadership and willingness to reach across the 
aisle and find the common ground for the better good of this community. 
I also want to thank my friend Senator Scott from South Carolina for 
joining me on what we have done over the last couple of years to 
introduce the FUTURE Act and to push it forward.
  I believe--and I have said this for so long--that we have so much 
more in common than we have that divides us. This is just one example. 
It is why I hope folks across the country are looking and see that we 
can come together and we can be unified.
  I am grateful today because in addition to the permanent funding of 
HBCUs and minority-serving institutions, this agreement, as the Senator 
from Tennessee said, includes a long overdue, first big step toward 
simplifying the FAFSA application.
  Even with a law degree, I can tell you that with my kids, trying to 
do that made me pull out what little bit of hair I have left. I didn't 
need to do that. It is not just a frustrating process; it can be so 
intimidating that students or their parents just walk away. In Alabama 
alone, kids walked away from millions of dollars of Federal financial 
aid and grants, not just loans. The FAFSA as it is today can be a huge 
barrier for students who want to go to college.
  The proposal we have on the table now will help save taxpayers and 
make the FAFSA process less painful by cutting up to 22 questions from 
the form. It lays the groundwork for a broader FAFSA reform that 
Senator Alexander and I have been working on to cut even further to 
between 17 to 30 questions.
  But getting across the finish line today is not just about renewing 
funding or cutting redtape. At their core, these issues are about 
opening doors of opportunity for young people who have talent and 
motivation to succeed in college and in life, but they have not 
necessarily had the financial means or the family connections to do so. 
This is about making sure we empower every young person in this country 
to reach their full potential and then pay it forward for future 
generations. That is what gives me hope standing here today. It is what 
makes me excited today.
  Again, I want to thank my colleagues for the incredible effort--
Senators Alexander and Murray in particular. Our hearts have always 
been in the right place. We have always moved the ball forward knowing 
that the long-term goal was to help these families for generations to 
come.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Madam President, today is about a moment of hope. Today is 
about a moment of genuine bipartisanship made possible by the 
discipline

[[Page S6867]]

and determined leadership of Senators Alexander of Tennessee and Murray 
of Washington State.
  I rise to join my friend and colleague, the Senator from Alabama, who 
has just given remarks following the Senator from South Carolina. At a 
moment when what most Americans see on their televisions is partisan 
division and dysfunction in the Senate and the House, I just want to 
remind all of us that we can get good, important, and significant 
things done together, as just happened on the floor a few moments ago.
  For generations, American families have worked and saved and strived 
to send their children to college, but for a long time, our Nation's 
original sin--the sin of slavery and racism--has left a long shadow and 
a stain on access to the critical opportunity of higher education. In 
much of our Nation, for decades, African Americans were denied entry to 
most of our colleges and universities and still today face unreasonably 
high barriers to higher education. The establishment of historically 
Black colleges and universities, HBCUs, and other minority-serving 
institutions of higher learning has been a critical answer to that 
tragic history of discrimination.
  Men and women who founded HBCUs refused to accept a system of higher 
education that denied opportunity to African Americans, and over 
decades, HBCUs have risen to become some of our Nation's finest 
academic institutions. They have educated hundreds of thousands of 
young men and women who have gone on to do incredible things and to be 
some of our Nation's greatest leaders.
  That is why all of us who have come on the floor today, Republicans 
and Democrats, have acted to make a permanent commitment to supporting 
HBCUs and minority-serving institutions with Federal funding. We have 
agreed to make permanent $255 million in annual funding for HBCUs.
  I am particularly excited about this legislation because my home 
State of Delaware is home to one of the finest public HBCUs in the 
country, Delaware State University. Founded in 1891, it is one of the 
country's premier land grant universities. Over the last 125 years, it 
has emerged as one of our Nation's premier HBCUs, graduating some of my 
State's best accountants, business leaders, researchers, scientists, 
teachers, social workers, and much more.
  My friend Dr. Wilma Mishoe, the University's first female president, 
will end her impressive tenure this month and be succeeded by Provost 
Dr. Tony Allen, who will continue the upwardly rising trajectory of the 
Hornets of Delaware State University.
  Their research programs are important drivers for innovation in a 
State with a long history of invention. It is home to the Delaware 
Center for Neuroscience Research, a partnership of institutions working 
to advance our understanding of our brains and how we form thoughts, 
memories, and feelings that may help unlock the key to addiction and 
other challenges our country faces. It is also home to OSCAR, the 
Optical Science Center for Applied Research, which is helping speed the 
detection of disease, supporting our soldiers in detecting threats, and 
even equipping the NASA Mars rovers with improved sensors. Delaware 
State has been the lead institution on grants from NASA, NSF, and NIH 
in just the last few years.
  We are very proud of Delaware State. The funding stream last year 
provided $880,000 in critically needed funding for STEM, faculty, 
research, and students.
  Let me last reference something that my colleagues have also spoken 
to: the streamlining of the free application for Federal student aid, 
or FAFSA, which impacts 20 million American families.
  I spent a long time--roughly 20 years of my life--actively involved 
in the national ``I Have a Dream'' Foundation, which provides college-
access opportunities for young people from families with no means or 
experience of attending higher education. I myself sat with dozens of 
young Delawareans and struggled as we finished the FAFSA form for them. 
This long-worked-for solution that Senators Alexander and Murray have 
advanced streamlining this form from 108 questions to 22 is a critical 
first step that will make a lasting difference for access to education 
all over our Nation.
  I am so grateful for the opportunity to join this bipartisan 
coalition and look forward to even more progress in the months and 
years ahead.
  Thank you.
  With that, I yield the floor.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, first, let me thank my colleagues from 
South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington State, Alabama, and Delaware for 
their hard work on this very important issue. I appreciated their 
words, and I think far more appreciated even than their eloquent words 
is the fact that we are getting this done, finally. I am so glad for 
it.
  Let me just add my words of support for the FUTURE Act. A few minutes 
ago, as I mentioned, we passed the FUTURE Act by unanimous consent. I 
am so glad and grateful that the Senate came together today to give 
these institutions and the students they serve the certainty needed to 
continue focusing on their important mission.
  In America, we believe in ladders up. People should have to climb 
those ladders. No one is going to put them up on a pedestal. But there 
should be the ladders there so that if somebody wants to work hard, 
they are given fair opportunity and barriers--sometimes barriers based 
on bigotry and discrimination--do not stand in their way.
  One of the best ladders-up we have in America is our HBCUs. HBCUs 
make up 3 percent of colleges and universities, but they produce 27 
percent of African-American students with bachelor degrees in STEM 
fields, 80 percent of African-American judges, 40 percent of African-
American engineers, 50 percent of African-American lawyers, and 40 
percent of African-American colleagues here in the Congress are HBCU 
graduates. So this is one fine ladder-up, as are our other institutions 
that spend much time helping Hispanic Americans and Native Americans as 
well.
  We need these ladders. They are part of America. We should help them 
whenever we can. Tribal colleges and universities serving Black, 
Hispanic, and Native American populations serve more than 130,000 
American Indians and Alaska Natives, the most underserved group in 
higher education. Hispanic-serving institutions have grown by nearly 40 
percent since 2009, helping the Latino community make big inroads in 
college enrollment and completion. They now enroll 66 percent of all 
Hispanic undergraduates but account for only 15 percent of nonprofit 
colleges.
  So all three of these types of institutions--the HBCUs, the colleges 
and universities serving American Indians and Alaska Natives, and 
Hispanic-serving institutions--are amazing ladders up. They are 
essential for making higher education accessible, affordable, and 
attainable for all Americans; essential for having that bright Sun--the 
American dream--actually shine on people instead of it being some words 
that are meaningless to them.
  This is a very fine moment, and I want to thank all of those who put 
this all together and made it happen. We can celebrate. Most of the 
things that pass by UC around here--or many of them--are really kind of 
small and narrow. This is not. This is very important. And my salute to 
those who made it happen, whom I mentioned earlier.


                              Impeachment

  Madam President, now on a less happy subject, this morning the 
Speaker of the House instructed House committee chairs to begin 
drafting articles of impeachment against the President of the United 
States. That is a very solemn duty and solemn undertaking. The 
Speaker's decision comes after the House Intelligence Committee 
reported that its inquiry had ``uncovered a months-long effort by 
President Trump to use the powers of his office to solicit foreign 
interference on his behalf in the 2020 election.''
  We know Russia interfered on Trump's behalf in 2016, and now he is 
trying to make it happen again, this time by trying to push Ukraine.
  The charges against the President are extremely serious. No 
belittling of these charges will hold any water. The charge to use 
foreign interference on behalf of a candidate in the 2020 elections is 
dramatic and awful stuff.
  These charges concern our national security. They concern the 
sanctity of our elections and the potential corruption of our Nation's 
foreign policy for

[[Page S6868]]

personal political interests of the President of the United States. The 
gravity of those charges demands that Senators, if Articles of 
Impeachment are served to us, to put country over party and examine the 
evidence without prejudice or partisanship, which is why it is so 
disheartening, confounding, and deeply disappointing that, at this 
historic moment, I heard the Republican leader criticizing in such 
strident terms the process of the impeachment inquiry in the House for 
being too short and not including enough witnesses or due process for 
the President.
  I respond on two counts. First, the Republican leader is simply wrong 
to suggest that the House process has been anything but deliberate, 
evenhanded, and serious. Speaker Pelosi, the House Intelligence 
Committee, and the House Judiciary Committee are proceeding exactly how 
the Constitution prescribes. But, second, it is the height of hypocrisy 
to criticize the House process for being too short and not including 
enough witnesses when the Trump administration is the one blocking 
witnesses from testifying.
  What hypocrisy? How can a leader even say it with a straight face? 
Will this febrile obeisance to President Trump never cease? Are they so 
afraid of him and his bullying that they can't admit the obvious truth 
and twist themselves in pretzel knots to make arguments that are so 
spurious? It is the height of hypocrisy to criticize the House for not 
including enough opportunities for the President to make his defense 
when the President is refusing to participate. It is the height of 
hypocrisy to say that there are not enough witnesses when we don't hear 
a peep out of the Republicans urging the President to allow the 
witnesses that the House wanted to come forward.
  This hyperventilation about the length of the House process and the 
number of witnesses is simply ridiculous. The Trump administration is 
responsible for those things, not House Democrats. Everyone knows that. 
Everyone knows they have gone to court to block witnesses and 
documents.
  I remind my colleagues, if the Articles of Impeachment are indeed 
passed by the House, Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans must work 
with Democrats to set the parameters of a fair and impartial trial. 
Every Member of the Senate should support a fair process. The House is 
running a fair process now. We must do the same in the Senate if it 
comes to that.
  All week, I have been urging my Senate Republican colleagues not to 
spread or even speculate about the dangerous myth that Ukraine--not 
just Putin--interfered in the 2016 elections. The myth was invented by 
Putin's intelligence services to deflect blame away from Putin while 
driving a wedge between the United States and Ukraine, one of Putin's 
top goals. When certain Senate Republicans are parroting Putin's 
talking points, we have a serious problem.
  Hopefully, the overwhelming criticisms of the Members who did that 
this week have convinced them to stop and back off in the Republicans' 
absurd denial of fact and total defense of President Trump, even when 
it is obvious that he is not telling the truth. We have reached a low 
moment, and maybe the lowest of all was the mounting of Putin's 
conspiracy theory about Ukraine.
  Now, another insidious conspiracy theory was doused with cold water 
this morning. The truth comes out, Republicans, sooner or later. 
Another theory was doused with cold water when it was reported that 
Attorney General Barr's handpicked prosecutor had reportedly found no 
evidence that the FBI probe into the Trump campaign was a setup. 
Republicans in the House, conservative media personalities, FOX News, 
and other blind partisan loyalists to the President have long conjured 
and peddled these deep-state conspiracy theories without evidence.
  The Attorney General is even using the resources of the Justice 
Department--which could be exposing Chinese Communist Party's spies or 
tracking would-be radical terrorists or fighting opioids or tackling 
ransomware attacks on cities across the country--to investigate the 
origins of the 2016 probe. Attorney General Barr's actions are 
presumably in the hopes of turning up evidence to support these far-
fetched theories.
  Well, too bad, Republicans. Too bad, hard right. The Attorney 
General's handpicked prosecutor found no evidence to these conspiracy 
theories, that the investigation of President Trump was started with 
evil and political intent. The only evidence we have is that the 
outlandish loyalist theories peddled by President Trump and his allies 
to defend this administration are totally baseless.


                            Border Security

  Now, on another note, airport face scans, this morning, it was 
reported that the Trump administration will propose a rule to require 
U.S. citizens to have their faces scanned whenever they enter or leave 
the United States. This sounds like something out of China. Currently, 
all U.S. citizens are allowed to opt out of facial scans when entering 
or exiting the country. Now, the Trump administration is poised to 
remove that option and make facial scans mandatory for all travelers, 
including U.S. citizens.
  I have significant concerns about what this policy would mean for the 
privacy of every American citizen. Just last year, a cyber attack of 
CBP compromised the personal information--in this case, it was license 
plates--and facial data of just under 100,000 people. Imagine if DHS 
were required to retain the facial data of every American who travels 
in and out of the country.
  There are, of course, legitimate questions about whether the Federal 
Government is legally allowed to collect and store this data. Those 
questions must be answered before--not after--the Trump administration 
moves forward with its new rules. On something as serious as this, 
Congress should debate this issue.
  Regardless, I see no reason why the current opt-out policy must 
change, and I will work with privacy advocates in the Senate, like my 
friend Senator Markey, to legislatively prevent the administration from 
moving forward.


                               TRACED Act

  Another issue, robocalls, the House of Representatives yesterday 
passed bipartisan legislation to crack down on the tens of billions of 
robocalls that plague Americans every year. All of us are bothered by 
these darn robocalls. They come at the worse times, and they are on and 
on. You can't even shut them off.
  Last year alone, Americans were battered by 48 billion--billion--
robocalls. That is 150 calls per person, per year. Robocalls are 
annoying. They are persistent, and beyond that, many of them are 
dangerous to consumers. Foreign companies can make thousands of calls 
with a push of a button and can charge Americans simply for picking up 
the call. Can you believe that? Many are designed to scam elderly 
Americans. We have heard about elderly Americans who are frightened and 
send their life savings to these criminal callers. Many of the calls 
target institutions like hospitals and slow down important businesses.
  The TRACED Act passed by the Senate in May and recently amended and 
passed by the House requires phone companies to block robocalls without 
charging consumers and will give the Justice Department and the FCC 
better tools to prosecute scammers who prey on unsuspecting--many 
elderly--Americans. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the original Senate 
bill. I pushed hard to move it forward. The Senate should now take 
action on the amended and expanded robocall legislation from the House 
and pass it before the year is out.
  As we saw with the recent legislation to the democratic protests in 
Hong Kong, when there is bipartisan consensus on an issue, we can move 
swiftly to enact bipartisan legislation. These moments, unfortunately, 
are far too rare under Leader McConnell, who has avoided the 
consideration of legislation on the floor, even when it has bipartisan 
support, but I hope as we enter the final few weeks of the year, Leader 
McConnell will address the issue of robocalls and send this bipartisan 
to the President's desk.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). The Senator from Texas.


                             Appropriations

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know the American people, when they see 
what is happening in Washington, think that we fight all the time and 
we disagree about everything, but let me

[[Page S6869]]

just agree with my friend, the democratic leader, on the issue of the 
nuisance of robocalls.
  But as important as that is to our quality of life and to protecting 
vulnerable seniors and others who may be misled by some of these 
deceptive calls, some of the most basic functions of the Federal 
Government have not been fulfilled, like appropriating the money that 
is necessary to support our men and women in uniform. The bipartisan 
spending caps bill that we agreed to in August has been walked back by 
our Democratic friends, and we find ourselves with a lot of uncertainty 
here at the end of the year in terms of what the future may hold in 
terms of our ability to actually get anything done, things like pass a 
highway bill. That is one thing that Republicans and Democrats can all 
agree on, is our disdain for traffic and congestion.
  That is one thing we can work on together. We could work together to 
bring down drug prices, particularly the out-of-pocket costs for 
consumers with high deductibles and high co-pays. We could pass USMCA, 
the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement. All of these enjoy broad 
bipartisan support, but unfortunately, they are now all held captive by 
this impeachment mania which has stricken the House of Representatives, 
and it is scheduled to come over here to the Senate probably around the 
first of the year, depending on the schedule that Speaker Pelosi keeps 
in the House.


                              Impeachment

  So while there are plenty of good ideas out there about things that 
we can work on together on a bipartisan basis, we all know that the 
Senate and the Congress has limited bandwidth. We can't do everything 
we want to do. We need to prioritize. I would hope that our priorities 
would be the American people's priorities and not the political 
priorities here of partisans in Washington, DC, but unfortunately, it 
looks to me like the partisans are winning and the people are losing. 
We need to keep fighting against that. But that is where we are right 
now, particularly with Speaker Pelosi's announcement this morning that 
the House is now going to proceed to draft Articles of Impeachment, 
something that has only been done four times in our Nation's history. 
This will be the fourth time.
  We know what the outcome is likely to be with the 67-vote threshold 
here in the Senate, and I think all of us in America listened or have 
been exposed to anyway the various arguments on both sides of the 
question, but I don't really, frankly, expect anything new to come out 
of this. A lot of this is rehashed over and over again ad nauseam in 
order to justify a partisan impeachment process less than 1 year before 
the next general election. I would think we would be a little bit 
cautious about 535 Members of Congress working here in the Nation's 
Capital reversing the decision made by more than 60 million Americans 
in the last Presidential election. That is a very sobering and serious 
matter indeed, but, unfortunately, I don't see this issue getting the 
kind of sober and serious consideration that the Founders contemplated 
or that the American people deserve.


                            American Energy

  Mr. President, on another topic, a number of our colleagues here in 
Washington have undertaken a radical approach when it comes to 
providing the energy that our country needs. As a matter of fact, if 
you think about it, it is because of the energy being produced by the 
oil and gas industry here in America today that the average price of 
gasoline is now probably roughly $2.50 per gallon.
  In Austin, TX, where I live, you can drive from the airport to my 
home, and you can see gas prices at $2.15 a gallon. It is cheap 
relative to the historical prices. And you think about what that means 
in terms of consumers, regular, everyday working folks and families. It 
means they are able to spend money on other things that are important 
to them in their lives and not spend all of their income on filling up 
their gas tank. That is a huge, huge gift to the American people and 
consumers, but rather than focus on the benefits of what our innovative 
and entrepreneurial industry has done, we know that some of our friends 
here in Washington want to reorder the world in their own image. They 
say the goal is to completely eliminate the most affordable and 
reliable sources of energy. For what? Well, in pursuit of net zero 
emissions. I will talk more about that in a moment.

  We remember earlier this year they introduced the Green New Deal--
arguably the most extreme energy and climate proposal this country has 
ever seen. The Green New Deal is chock-full of utopian ideas but 
completely devoid of any pragmatic plans to implement any of its pie-
in-the-sky proposals. It puts a range of unrealistic environmental and 
socialist policies under one big green umbrella with an unaffordably 
high pricetag.
  The best evidence of how extreme this proposal is, is when it came up 
for a vote in the Senate. Not a single Senator voted for it--that 
includes all of the cosponsors of the proposal. That is not exactly a 
profile in courage, to tell the American people this is the solution to 
our environmental and energy problems, and then when it comes up for a 
vote, you run and hide. Nobody voted for it. If this proposal were not 
so terrifying, it would be a terribly bad joke.
  While that may be the most extreme proposal we have seen, it is not 
the only one. We know some of our Democratic colleagues in the House 
have tried to impose government mandates. That means more regulation, 
more taxation, more control by Washington, all in an effort to achieve 
net zero emissions by the year 2050. In some ways, 2050 seems like a 
long way off, and in other ways it doesn't seem a long way off, but in 
pursuit of programs that would address a problem in 2050, how about 
let's take care of the business that is sitting here right before us 
today first. We seem to have lost any sense of urgency in our most 
important priorities, like funding the government and funding the 
military.
  On top of that, a number of our Democratic friends who are running 
for President claim we should ban fracking. I would really like to ask 
them if they even know what that is or how it works.
  Some of them have said they also want to ban the export of crude oil. 
This month, for the first time in 70 years, America became a net 
exporter of oil. I will talk more about that in a moment.
  Some are saying they even want to go so far as to ban the use of 
natural gas. Natural gas has been responsible for taking formerly coal-
fired powerplants and putting them into a cleaner energy source, which 
has actually reduced emissions by a substantial amount, but, no, in 
pursuit of their pie-in-the-sky utopian dreams, the ideologues want to 
eliminate something that has been a very substantial improvement in 
terms of the reduction of emissions while providing affordable energy.
  I think it is safe to say that we all agree--Republicans, Democrats, 
Independents, everybody--we should do what we can to protect our 
environment. In fact, we live here. We breathe the air. We drink the 
water. We should all be equally concerned about the environment.
  I really think some of these proposals are nothing more than virtue 
signaling. They are not a solution to a problem. All of these folks are 
trying to paint the energy industry as the enemy in the process. Every 
good story needs a villain, and our friends on the left believe the 
energy industry that has provided that cheap gasoline so people can 
drive to work, take their kids to school, or go about their business is 
really the enemy, not our friend. Well, it is just not the case.
  By the rhetoric you are hearing, you would think oil and gas 
companies have bankrupted the country, ruined our international 
alliances, and sent the entire globe into an energy famine. Well, that 
is not true. It is just the opposite of truth.
  When you talk about global energy security, American oil and gas has 
reversed the tide of the energy landscape in our favor and supported 
our friends and allies around the world in important ways.
  Our colleagues proposing these unworkable and unaffordable mandates 
would be wise to look at how the global energy landscape has changed 
over the last half century and consider the broader consequences of 
their proposal.
  To understand the importance of American energy on the world stage, 
we need to rewind just a bit to the 1970s. At that time, the vast 
majority

[[Page S6870]]

of the world's oil and gas came from the Middle East, giving these 
nations a great deal of power. In fact, you may remember back in 1980 
President Jimmy Carter announced something called the Carter Doctrine. 
He said if any foreign power would block the flow of oil through the 
Straits of Hormuz, it would be an act of war. That is what Jimmy Carter 
said in 1980, such was our reliance on imported energy from the Middle 
East. Our country dealt with this situation, and we addressed it 
responsibly and effectively.
  We know another indication of our dependence on imported energy is 
when the United States supported our friend and ally Israel in the Yom 
Kippur war of 1973. OPEC, the organization of petroleum exported 
countries, primarily Middle East countries, banned the sale of crude 
oil to the United States. Those who are old enough to remember, 
remember that prices quadrupled, some States banned neon signs to cut 
down on energy use because they were worried about the energy that 
would be necessary to create that electricity, and a number of towns 
asked for citizens not to even put up Christmas lights. This was 
because our source of oil and gas was cut off from the Middle East, 
such was our dependence. Despite strong domestic production, we were 
still relying heavily on imports. Once that supply was cut off, we were 
caught flat-footed.
  The Arab oil embargo brought to light the risk of our energy 
independence and underscored the need for America to do something about 
it. There was a consensus--has been a consensus--that we needed to grow 
our supplies here at home so we were less dependent on imports. So less 
than 2 years later, Congress, thinking we were doing a good thing, put 
a ban on export on American crude because we thought we needed it here 
and didn't want to export it abroad.

  Over the next four decades, a lot has changed. Advancements in the 
energy sector, including hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, 
have dramatically increased the production of American energy. As I 
said, for the first time in 70 years, America has become a net exporter 
of oil. That is how dramatically this has turned around.
  In the process, we have achieved our goal of reducing our reliance on 
imported energy from dangerous and unsettled regions of the world, like 
the Middle East, but pretty soon we found ourselves sitting on a gold 
mine, and it became clear it was time to lift the export ban. In 2015, 
after 40 years of no exports, that is what Congress did. We did so 
because we believed, No. 1, we had more than we could use here in 
America, but we also believed this would be a huge boon to our economy. 
That was part of the equation. Just as we were able to reduce our 
reliance on oil from unreliable and unstable regions of the world, we 
knew that by exporting the oil that America produced, we could help 
other countries--our friends and allies around the world--that were 
dangerously dependent on sources of energy from countries like Russia 
that is all too ready to use energy as a weapon. They say: Do what we 
say, and we will keep the energy and gas flowing. Do something we don't 
like, and we will shut you down.
  In the not-so-distant past, many of our allies in Europe looked to 
Iran and Russia for their energy needs, and the Baltic States, all NATO 
allies, relied almost exclusively on Russia for their oil, gas, and 
electricity. Seven European countries depended on Russia for 80 percent 
of their gas, and on the whole, one-third of the gas Europe consumed 
came from Russia.
  When our allies are looking to our adversaries for basic needs like 
heating, electricity, and fuel, that is a real problem. It is a 
strategic vulnerability not only for those countries but also for the 
United States.
  Our friend John McCain had quite a sense of humor--those of us who 
knew him during his lifetime. He aptly described Russia as a gas 
station masquerading as a country. Russia's ability to export that 
energy to other countries was the lifeline for their country. I think 
Senator McCain hit the nail on the head, especially when Russia uses 
that energy as a weapon.
  As I alluded, in 2009, we saw the vulnerability this created when 
Russia effectively turned the lights off in Ukraine. For almost 3 
weeks, they shut down the energy supply. This affected at least 10 
countries in Europe whose natural gas traveled through Ukraine.
  Just as the United States realized how dangerous our foreign oil 
reliance was, our allies began to understand the implications of their 
dependency as well. Many of our friends in Europe have been working to 
diversify their energy supply, which is a good thing, and build 
strategic gas interconnectors between countries reliant on Russia for 
natural gas. Getting a diversity of sources is an insurance policy for 
those countries so Russia can't just cut off their energy supply.
  Supplying our friends around the world with American oil and gas not 
only strengthens our security but it alleviates the power our 
adversaries, like Russia, hold in important regions of the world, like 
Europe.
  In addition to increasing global security, American oil and gas has 
allowed us to provide affordable, plentiful, and reliable energy to 
countries struggling to provide power for their own citizens.
  If you think about it, low-cost energy coming from America has the 
potential to be the greatest poverty reduction program in memory. For 
example, when I first traveled to India in 2004--if you drive from 
Delhi, the capital, to Agra, where the Taj Mahal is, you will drive 
across vast areas where the population is very poor. Huge swaths of 
that population lack access to things to cook their food with or 
electricity to light their homes. So what do they do? Well, they burn 
cow dung; they burn coal; they burn wood pellets or other high-emission 
fuel sources. By America agreeing to export the energy we have here--
the cleaner energy we have here--we are agreeing to help one of our 
closest friends and partners in the world and, in the process, help 
Prime Minister Modi and the leadership there lift more Indians out of 
this grinding poverty and relying on things like cow dung simply to 
cook their food.
  Last year, we doubled the amount of LNG exported to India, and I dare 
say that the sky is the limit.
  I think many of our Democratic colleagues should reflect back on the 
lessons of history before advocating a return to the 1970s when it 
comes to the way we approach American energy. I understand the 
importance of innovation in the energy sector to lower emissions, and I 
am all in, but rather than another government program, higher taxes, 
more regulation, or surrendering control of our freedom to Washington, 
DC, why don't we let the innovators, the entrepreneurs, come up with 
solutions? That is what has happened when it comes to American oil and 
gas. They came up with the answer, not Washington, DC, and we are all 
benefiting from the results.
  When it comes to innovation, I have introduced legislation--and a 
number of our other colleagues have, too--to increase research dollars 
going into ways to lower emissions by looking at alternative ways to 
deal with energy production, like electricity. For example, there is a 
small natural gas-fired powerplant in La Porte, TX--which I visited 
with our friend Senator Collins from Maine--that emits zero carbon 
dioxide. That is a boon to the environment, and I think it also 
provides a solution to the oil and gas industry because what they do is 
pipe the CO2 off the back end, and they use it to inject 
into the ground in the oilfields, so they produce more oil and gas. It 
is called secondary recovery.

  Here at home, it is easy to take dependable energy for granted. We do 
it all the time. We don't worry about having the energy to cook our 
dinner at night or refill our cars' gas tanks. We take that all for 
granted. But the truth is, in countless countries in the world and for 
the majority of the world, it is a completely different story.
  For our friends who advocate these utopian ideas like the Green New 
Deal, I don't begrudge their desire to improve the environment, but I 
would ask them to be more pragmatic when it comes to trying to solve 
the problem. I would ask them: Are you really trying to solve a 
problem? If you are, we want to work with you to reduce emissions, but 
if your goal is to pursue some fantasy that will not work and we can't 
afford, count me out. If you want to solve the problem, count me in.
  American energy is simply powering the world. It is strengthening 
global security and lifting millions of people out of poverty. We need 
to continue to harness the power of one of our country's greatest 
national assets.

[[Page S6871]]

  I will conclude there. I will continue to share some of my thoughts 
on the importance of American energy on the Senate floor. It is a topic 
bigger than one floor speech, and it will hopefully remind and 
encourage all of the Members of the Senate to work toward energy 
abundance and help keep energy affordable, which will improve the 
standard of living and the quality of the lives of all Americans.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                       Remembering Lauren Bruner

  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, on September 10, just a few months ago, 
Lauren Bruner, a veteran of Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941, passed 
away. Mr. Bruner wasn't just any veteran. He was a veteran who served 
on the USS Arizona during the attack that morning.
  On Saturday, December 7, millions of Americans across the country 
will pay tribute to the attack at Pearl Harbor National Memorial to 
commemorate what happened that morning, which brought the United States 
fully into the Second World War. Aboard the USS Arizona were 1,512 
officers, sailors, and marines. The attack that day on December 7 
killed 1,177 of them, and 335 brave people survived that morning. 
Lauren Bruner, who passed away September 10, was one of four who were 
on that ship that December morning in 1941 who have survived.
  Lauren Bruner passed away at the age of 98, and on this Saturday, his 
ashes will be interred at the USS Arizona to join his shipmates--those 
who were lost that morning and others who have joined their fellow 
sailors, marines, and officers since.
  Three men remain that are veterans of that war from the USS Arizona: 
Lou Conter, 98 years old; Ken Potts, 98 years old; and Donald Stratton, 
97 years old from Colorado Springs, CO. Ken Potts and Don Stratton will 
join together for most likely the last time this Saturday as they will 
watch a live video feed of the ceremony at Pearl Harbor at the USS 
Arizona Memorial to view the interment of their shipmate, Lauren 
Bruner, at the USS Arizona.
  The Senate was able to play a small role in recognizing what brought 
Don Stratton, Lauren Bruner, and the others together. You see, on that 
morning, when their ship was bombed, Lauren Bruner had been shot in the 
leg and Donald Stratton was on fire. The two of them and four of their 
other shipmates were on a control tower as the ship was on fire when a 
rope appeared. It was a line from the USS Vestal, a ship next to the 
USS Arizona. A line was thrown from a sailor named Joe George. They 
tied to the tower and were able to shimmy across 70 feet from the 
burning USS Arizona--while they were on fire--to the USS Vestal, to 
their safety.
  Lauren Bruner had 70 percent of his body burned and was shot in the 
leg. Don Stratton suffered burns and spent a year in the hospital as a 
result. He went back into the service to continue the rest of the war.
  This Chamber in Congress helped make sure that the gentleman who 
threw that rope, that lifeline from the USS Vestal to the USS Arizona, 
received final recognition for his act of heroism. Joe George went for 
decades without recognition for his act of bravery to save these six 
sailors. He was able to receive just a couple of years ago, on December 
7, 2017, the Bronze Star, in recognition of his acts.
  December 7, 2017, also marked the last time that Donald Stratton was 
able to join the memorial service to commemorate December 7, Pearl 
Harbor. I have this picture here that I will show of Donald Stratton, 
who again this weekend will be joining Ken Potts as Lauren Bruner is 
interred to join the other men and women who lost their lives that 
morning.
  This is an opportunity for us to once again say thank you to the 
2,403 people overall at Pearl Harbor who were killed, to the people who 
survived, who went on to fight the Second World War, and our veterans 
today who live and continue to live a legacy that was given to them 
that December 7 morning.
  On Saturday, as we join our families and do weekend work, I hope we 
will take a little bit of time to reflect once again on a dark chapter 
in American history that led to a great American century, to be 
thankful to the men and women who served our country, to the men and 
women who fight for our Nation each and every day, to the people like 
Ken Potts and Lou Conter and Donald Stratton, who continue to remind us 
each and every moment why this Nation is worth fighting for.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                               Tax Reform

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about 
the importance of passing the expired tax credit provisions for many 
small businesses and industries that support families and help 
revitalize economic, depressed communities, and those that are 
underserved.
  We all know that 2 years ago, the Republicans and President Trump 
enacted a $2 trillion tax break for large corporations, and there was a 
lot of lobbying here that went in to getting that legislation passed. 
Yet, when it comes to these provisions, which are just about tax 
certainty in the Tax Code that has been there for decades that really 
needs to be reauthorized, Congress is not getting the job done, and we 
need to come to terms now about why it is so important to help small 
businesses have tax certainty in the code, to help families and 
communities, and to get this provision done by December 31.
  We all know how important it is that these individuals, green energy 
companies, economic development, and many other aspects of the Tax Code 
are being basically held hostage--since, I believe, 2017--by Congress's 
inattention to this issue. Our Tax Code is most effective when we have 
certainty, predictability, and when we have made decisions out of 
Congress that we think we do want to incent and motivate investment.
  Renewables are a large source of private sector infrastructure 
investment, and the clean energy tax credits have allowed industry to 
scale and invest in technologies that have brought prices down in wind 
by 68 percent and solar prices by 88 percent. We have seen unbelievable 
growth in the energy sector because of our investments in the green 
energy tax credits.
  Another example is the biodiesel tax credit that I worked on with 
Chairman Grassley for years. That particular tax credit and its 
uncertainty and Congress's failure to act and give predictability have 
led to more than 10 biodiesel plants being closed so far, and there 
could be many more closed if we fail to act before December 31.
  This means a loss of jobs and a loss of production of fuel. It means 
the loss of economic benefit to regions, and it means an impact to 
soybean and other sectors that have been a part of this growing 
economy. We need to act before more plants close.
  I am very concerned about a particular facility in Grays Harbor, WA. 
While it may employ only 37 people at this point in time, Grays Harbor 
is an important point in the Washington State economy, located on our 
coast, and has many great attributes positioned for the future of 
trade. Not only do I want to see biodiesel grow, I want to see 
biodiesel exports grow. I think it is shortsighted that Congress can't 
get its act together to give people predictability and certainty about 
the Tax Code.
  Let's talk about some other examples that are not just about clean 
energy--for example, the medical expense deduction. These deductions 
give taxpayers certainty on deductions for high out-of-pocket medical 
costs, and these are things that allow people to deduct qualified 
expenses that exceed 7\1/2\ percent of their gross income through 2018. 
This year, the threshold increased to 10 percent of adjusted gross 
income. If we are not going to give people certainty, it is going to be 
more dollars out of their pockets.
  Another example is the mortgage debt forgiveness. When you lose your 
home, you should not have to pay taxes on your mortgage debt. That is 
what is going to happen if we don't give people certainty in the Tax 
Code. Without this provision, if your house is foreclosed on and the 
remaining debt forgiveness is in bankruptcy, the amount you would have 
to pay is the same amount you would have to owe instead of being 
forgiven.
  So, to me, that inability to not have that mortgage debt deduction--
it is just wrong that Congress can't get its act together. If you are 
going to get your act together and pass a major bill

[[Page S6872]]

for corporations, you should at least give small businesses and 
individual taxpayers the certainty they deserve in the Tax Code.
  These provisions have been in the Tax Code for a long, long time. 
This is not like a surprise. It is not as if we haven't done this 
before. But instead of taking care of today's Tax Code before December 
31, people are off making grandiose discussions.
  I get it that some people on this side of the aisle would like to 
change and make corrections to the Tax Code, and other people on our 
side of the aisle would like to make a $100 billion investment in child 
tax credit. Look, I am appreciative of that discussion, but quit waging 
that battle, and do our day job, and take the Tax Code and the expiring 
provisions, and give taxpayers certainty by the 31st of this month.
  Another example is that the expired provisions would help address the 
high cost of higher education by allowing students and families to 
deduct up to $4,000 for tuition and other high education costs. With 
total student loan debt of $1.5 trillion and average student debt of 
over $31,000, provisions like these on deductibility are very 
important.
  On employment and economic development, nearly 26 percent of the 
provisions that are expiring are related to incentivizing employment 
investment in lower income communities.
  

  The new markets tax credit. There is probably not a Member in the 
Senate who has not had a jurisdiction in their State use the new 
markets tax credit as one of the most effective economic development 
and community tools. This credit encourages private investments in low-
income communities. Since the program was enacted in 2000, the new 
markets tax credit has delivered over $95 billion in project financing 
to more than 6,000 projects and created over 1 million jobs.
  Why can't we have certainty on the new markets tax credit by December 
31 of this year? There is no reason.
  The new markets tax credits expire, and where are we going to be on 
building affordable housing, healthcare facilities, community clinics, 
research and technology incubators, and mixed-use commercial programs? 
I see no reason why we can't get this job done. I have been working 
with Senators Cardin and Blunt on a bill that would make this program 
permanent, and, hopefully, we wouldn't have to go through this routine 
every year.
  But take another example. The work opportunity tax credit has been an 
incredibly effective tool in helping individuals, including veterans, 
to find gainful employment. The work opportunity tax credit provides up 
to $2,400 for hiring a certified person, including veterans and people 
receiving SNAP and TANF benefits. We know this program works. In my 
State, for each person certified to receive the tax credit, there is a 
net savings of $17,700 in Federal subsidies. Where is the voice for 
people who say: Let's give a tax credit and put people to work and 
actually reduce Federal subsidies? Oh, we are letting it expire again 
and giving uncertainty in the Tax Code.
  Why? I am not sure because people are too busy posturing in a big 
debate instead of getting our basic tax extender homework done. Let's 
not continue to fail. Let's get out here and give these work 
opportunity tax credits the predictability people would like to see. In 
2013, Washington had over 26,000 individuals certified with the tax 
credit, helping them find employment, and that represented a total of 
$42 million in savings.
  All of these issues I am talking about--investments in our 
communities, investments in tax credits that give businesses 
certainties so that they can continue to drive down costs, investments 
in low-income communities, investments to help retrain and get people 
off the subsidies--why can't we get this done? I hope that people will 
understand that these small businesses and these families don't have 
people running through the halls to lobby for them as they did on the 
big corporate tax break, but I guarantee you, they deserve the tax 
certainty. They deserve the predictability.
  Yes, we can continue to debate the last big tax bill all through 
2020. I guarantee you that we will spend a lot of time talking about 
it, and each side can raise their voice and wage their battle. But do 
not fail to get this basic job done that we keep failing to do--
literally, not giving these businesses and individuals certainty, I 
think, since 2017. People keep thinking you are going to make it 
retroactive for 3 years. No, stop. Get this job done and give the 
certainty to small businesses and underserved communities that they 
deserve. Help them to succeed just like you helped big corporations.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.


                 Nomination of Richard Ernest Myers II

  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I rise along with Senator Burr to urge our 
colleagues to support the confirmation of Professor Richard Myers to 
serve as a district court judge for the Eastern District of North 
Carolina.
  President Trump has nominated an eminently qualified and principled 
individual to serve in the Eastern District. In his career, Professor 
Myers has worked as a journalist, a prosecutor, and a professor. Each 
step Professor Myers has taken in his professional career has prepared 
him for this role. From the newsroom to the courtroom to the classroom, 
Professor Myers has shown his commitment to the principles of truth, of 
justice, and of wisdom. I cannot imagine a more solid foundation upon 
which to place the responsibility of a district court judgeship than 
that of Professor Myers, which he has exhibited throughout his career.
  Professor Myers is a first generation college graduate who has close 
ties to Wilmington, where he has chosen to locate his chambers. Once 
confirmed, Professor Myers will hold court in Wilmington, the same city 
where he was raised, where he went to college, and where he was a 
journalist. North Carolinians are lucky to have someone like Professor 
Myers with his caliber and his sense of duty to represent us in the 
Eastern District of North Carolina.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote for Judge Myers', or soon-to-be 
Judge Myers', confirmation when it comes up later today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I also rise today to voice my strong support 
for the President's nomination of Professor Richard Myers to serve as a 
judge in the Eastern District of North Carolina. I might add for my 
colleagues that it is the longest court vacancy in the history of our 
court system. Professor Myers was reported out of committee on a strong 
bipartisan vote on October 31. I am pleased that the Senate will today 
consider his nomination.
  I want to give my colleagues some additional insight into a man whom 
we are asking them to vote on and that goes beyond his stellar legal 
credentials. The first thing I want my colleagues to know is that 
Professor Myers embodies a work ethic and diligence that we deserve in 
all of our judges. As an immigrant of Kingston, Jamaica, Professor 
Myers is a first-generation college student in his family. He worked 
his way through his undergraduate degree at the University of 
Wilmington, and after college he pursued a career in journalism. He 
worked for the Wilmington Morning Star. It was his investigative 
reporting that gave him the desire to earn his law degree. He graduated 
magna cum laude at the University of North Carolina School of Law and 
began a legal career as a clerk for Judge David Sentelle of the DC 
Circuit Court of Appeals.
  Second, Professor Myers will be a judge who understands the value of 
public service, having made a career change from practicing at a 
prestigious private firm to contributing to our Nation's justice system 
following the attacks of September 11, 2001. He said that his change in 
career ``was something I felt that I could do and that I owed to a 
country that had been really good to my family.''
  He did this first in the Central District of California and then in 
the Eastern District of North Carolina. Professor Myers then took a 
different path of service at the University of North Carolina at Chapel 
Hill, instructing the next generation of lawyers to be people who, in 
his own words, ``do the right thing every day.''
  If confirmed, Professor Myers will serve on the Eastern District of 
North Carolina and, as Senator Tillis said, will hold court in 
Wilmington. Ironically, this court is currently meeting

[[Page S6873]]

in the building that once housed the Wilmington Morning Star, his first 
job as a reporter. However, when considering Professor Myers' story, it 
seems fitting that someone with the character, work ethic, and 
servant's approach to life will be returning to the building of his 
first post-college job wearing the robe of a Federal judge. I have 
faith in Professor Myers' ability to do the right thing every day in 
this critically important role, and I am grateful for the opportunity 
to speak on his behalf to our colleagues. This is well-deserving, and 
he will be an incredibly effective serving judge in our district court 
system. I urge my colleagues to support him unanimously.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Myers 
nomination?
  Mr. BURR. Madam 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 bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the 
Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Paul), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue), and the Senator from 
South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 
the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Minnesota 
(Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the 
Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 21, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 383 Ex.]

                                YEAS--68

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Murphy
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Warner
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--21

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cortez Masto
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murray
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Booker
     Harris
     Isakson
     Klobuchar
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Warren
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

                          ____________________