[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 205 (Wednesday, December 18, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7136-S7141]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONDEMNING THE TERRORIST ATTACK AT NAVAL AIR STATION PENSACOLA ON
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2019, HONORING THE MEMBERS OF THE NAVY WHO LOST
THEIR LIVES IN THE ATTACK, AND EXPRESSING SUPPORT AND PRAYERS FOR ALL
INDIVIDUALS AFFECTED BY THE ATTACK
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Today we come together to honor the courage of
our brave men and women in uniform--our heroes--and remember the
victims of the tragic terrorist attack that took place at Naval Air
Station Pensacola on the morning of Friday, December 6.
I would like to thank my colleagues, Senators Rubio, Perdue, Isakson,
Shelby, and Jones, for standing with me today as we honor the sacrifice
and memory of the three victims and their families.
Amn Mohammed Sameh Haitham, known to friends and family as ``Mo,''
was just 19 years old from St. Petersburg, FL. He was a great athlete
who loved to make others laugh.
ENS Joshua Kaleb Watson of Alabama was a 23-year-old natural born
leader and selfless volunteer who had lifted others up. Joshua died a
hero after giving first responders information on the shooter's
location while he was mortally wounded.
Amn Apprentice Cameron Scott Walters of Richmond, GA, was just 21
years old, with a contagious smile. His dream was to serve our country.
Our sailors and law enforcement officials showed heroism and bravery
in the face of evil as they ran toward the shooter that day, saving
lives. To our first responders who came to the swift aid of those in
need, I would like to thank each one of them.
Today, the State of Florida stands united around the community of
Pensacola and the families of victims as we pray for healing. I join my
colleagues as we do everything we can to prevent future terrorist
attacks.
Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent
that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 457, submitted
earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 457) condemning the terrorist attack
at Naval Air Station Pensacola on Friday, December 6, 2019,
honoring the members of the Navy who lost their lives in the
attack, and expressing support and prayers for all
individuals affected by the attack.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no
intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 457) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in today's Record
under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. I yield the floor to Senator Rubio.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague Senator Scott
for offering this and all of our colleagues and, of course, all of the
Senators who voted for it unanimously.
My colleague from Florida has already mentioned the three names of
those in the service of our country who lost their lives in Pensacola.
I will talk about them more in a moment.
I do want to say a couple of things. First, Pensacola really is one
of the hidden gems of the State that Senator Scott and I represent. To
understand Pensacola, you must understand that is it not just a city in
which a naval facility is located. The Navy is very
[[Page S7137]]
much a part of the fiber of that community. I would almost equate it to
a college town's relationship with a university; that is how much its
identity is connected to this naval air station. This attack wasn't
just an attack on this facility, but it was an attack on the heart and
soul of Pensacola as a community.
As I had an opportunity to visit in the aftermath of the attack, I
was not just deeply saddened by the loss of life but impacted, first,
by the way the community responded and, second, by some of the stories,
which I hope we will learn more about as the information comes out, of
extraordinary bravery--not just the first responders but others who
happened to be there at that time who exhibited extraordinary stories
of heroism in the face of evil in this terror attack. People rushed
into the building the gunshots were coming from instead of running away
as most people would do. I want to point out some of those things.
ENS Joshua Kaleb Watson, who was mentioned earlier, happened to be
the officer on deck at the time of the shooting, and he ran toward the
shooter and was yelling for people to get out of the way. He actually
proceeded to tackle the killer and fought him in an attempt to disarm
him, all while being shot at least five separate times. He was wounded,
but he, nevertheless, happened to make his way out to flag down first
responders and be able to give an accurate description of the shooter,
which ultimately allowed him to be neutralized.
Amn Mohammed Haitham's family moved to St. Petersburg from New
Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. His school's assistant principal
called him ``the Perfect One'' because he was a good student, a track
star, and basketball player. This is a quote from the assistant
principal:
[He] would walk into any room and it would light up. He had
this magnetic personality--big smile, always happy. And
people would always gravitate toward him.
His commanding officer told his father that it was his son Mohammed
who had also bravely attempted to take down the gunman and lost his
life.
Then there was Cameron Walters of Georgia, described as ``an amazing
guy, he always had something good to say to everybody, and was always
smiling.''
The morning of the shooting, Airman Walters was randomly assigned to
watch duty in Building 633. He had been stationed in Pensacola for only
2 weeks before this attack.
Again, I want to thank Senator Scott, my colleague of Florida, for
offering this. It ensures that not only will we not forget the heroes
who sacrificed their lives while protecting fellow Navy members as this
tragedy unfolded, but it also reminds us of the obligation we have to
get to the bottom of how this happened and why this happened so that it
may never, ever happen anywhere again.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Agent Orange
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to draw attention to a group
of veterans who served this country decades ago but who continue to
suffer to this day as a result of their service. I am talking about
hundreds of thousands of veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange
during their service.
From 1962 to 1975, the United States sprayed over 20 million gallons
of Agent Orange across Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. Millions of our
servicemembers, not to mention millions of Vietnamese civilians, were
exposed. Fifty years later, hundreds of thousands of Vietnam-era
veterans are still paying the price.
From the start, the Federal Government has tried to slow-walk
attempts to cover the care these veterans earned. It wasn't until 1991
that the VA recognized the connection between Agent Orange exposure and
several diseases and conditions, finally allowing these veterans to
seek treatment from the VA. Currently, the list of conditions at the VA
stands at 14, but science tells us the list is far from complete.
In 2017, then-Veterans Affairs Secretary Shulkin called for three
more conditions to be added to the list: bladder cancer, underactive
thyroid, and Parkinson's-like symptoms. Now, these weren't randomly
chosen. They were conditions found by the National Academy of Science
to be connected to Agent Orange exposure.
The science was there. The VA was there. Yet this White House and its
OMB Director, Mick Mulvaney, have blocked this effort to expand the
list of conditions.
Do you know what the deciding factor was? It wasn't scientific
evidence. It wasn't the advice of VA doctors. No, the White House
decided that the cost of providing care to 83,000 veterans suffering
from these conditions was just too high, and for that this
administration turned its back on 83,000 veterans who answered the call
to serve.
Unfortunately, this is just the latest example of the Federal
Government trying to avoid paying for the care of men and women our
Nation sent to war. My office hears regularly from veterans facing
problems like prostate cancer, Parkinson's, and other conditions that
have been linked to Agent Orange. Time and again, we hear how the VA
tries to deny benefits on the basis of a technicality. This is just not
right. Unfortunately, this administration is far from the first to
ignore evidence about Agent Orange in order to save a few bucks.
I want to share a few stories from my State of Virginia, where more
than 204,000 Vietnam veterans currently call home. In many cases,
veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange have been fighting multiple
administrations to get these life-or-death benefits--benefits they
earned by their service decades ago.
One veteran, William Badgett of Hampton, VA, was exposed to Agent
Orange during his service in Vietnam with the Army. He was in the 101st
Airborne, 1st Cavalry, where he served as a helicopter mechanic and
supply sergeant. He has been diagnosed with a number of health
conditions, including enlarged prostate, osteoporosis, kidney disease,
and hardened arteries, none of which are on the VA's presumptive list.
While the VA considers prostate cancer to be on the list, Mr.
Badgett's enlarged prostate is not presumed by the VA to be connected
to his exposure to Agent Orange simply because it is not cancer.
Another example: Sam Harvey from Newport News, VA, was exposed to
Agent Orange during the Vietnam war. He served in the U.S. Navy from
1966 to 1970 aboard the USS Constellation. He was diagnosed with
aggressive prostate cancer. Yet, with prostate cancer being on the
presumptive list, he struggled to get VA approval for the treatment he
needs.
Finally, I want to talk about Dorman Watts from North Chesterfield,
VA. He suffered for years to get the disability rating from the VA that
will qualify him for the comprehensive care from the VA. He has
prostate cancer and heart disease and is currently undergoing radiation
treatment from a private provider. This is unacceptable.
That is why I am glad Congress included important accountability
measures as part of the Defense appropriations legislation we passed
this week. Finally, after years of reluctance, years of ignoring the
science, these veterans are going to get some of the answers about the
conditions that have resulted from their service.
There is more than enough evidence to expand the list of Agent
Orange-related conditions. We should be thanking these veterans for
their service, not nickel-and-diming them. I urge my colleagues to
listen to the veterans in their States, and I urge the White House to
let the VA provide these veterans with the benefits they have earned.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Appropriations
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, following the longest government shutdown
in history earlier this year, it seemed to be a bipartisan consensus
that we need to get back on track with the regular appropriations
process. Both parties knew there was a funding crisis at stake this
fall if we could not come together and reach a compromise, so this
summer, that is exactly what we did--or at least we thought we did.
[[Page S7138]]
At the time we reached an agreement that set top-line funding levels
for defense and nondefense spending, there was a promise not to derail
the appropriations process with poison-pill policy riders, and we got
it done in August with plenty of time to spare. It wasn't perfect. No
negotiated product ever is, but we knew this agreement would provide us
the time and the space and the framework to get the appropriations
process back on track and leave room for necessary debate on government
spending habits. As our national deficit continues to grow, that could
not be more critical. I actually remember a time when concern about the
deficit and debt was a bipartisan concern, but apparently, it is not
currently.
Before we hit the first funding deadline, our Democratic colleagues
backed out of the commitment they made in August of 2019. The open
debate we hoped for did not happen. We were forced to pass two short-
term funding bills known as continuing resolutions, and now, here we
are, just days away from the current continuing resolutions expiration,
reading text of these funding bills that total nearly $1.4 trillion. We
are reading these for the first time.
When it comes to the appropriations process, I have learned from
experience; you are never going to be 100 percent happy. That is just
the nature of compromise. You have got to weigh the good, the bad, and
the ugly and decide how the scales tip. There is certainly a lot of
calculating when it comes to these appropriation bills, but let me
start with the good. I think the national security appropriations
package goes a long way to rebuilding our military, providing them the
resources they need to maintain readiness, and providing our Armed
Forces with the resources they need to face growing threats around the
world. From adversaries like Russia and China, to rogue regimes like
North Korea and Iran, our military must be prepared to counter a
diverse range of threats.
This funding bill will continue the work of Congress under President
Trump to invest in our military by providing a nearly $20 billion
increase over last year's defense funding levels. It will provide funds
to both modernize and grow our aging fleet so we can continue to send
our troops around the world where they are needed. One of the major
challenges we face is the development of new technologies by our
adversaries. We cannot have our enemies deploying hypersonic glide
vehicles, artificial intelligence, and missile defense systems that
rival or perhaps surpass our own. That would be destabilizing. That may
produce a miscalculation, which would be dangerous.
This bill sends funding toward the research and development of new
technologies so we can stay on the leading edge. We should not be
satisfied with anything other than America being in the lead when it
comes to our national security.
I am glad this package also includes a number of provisions that
support our men and women in uniform, including a 3.1 percent pay
increase, which is the largest in a decade. Above all, this defense
funding answers our commanders' request for steady and predictable
funding so they can address and plan for the threats of today and
prepare for those we will face tomorrow.
In addition to strengthening our national security, this package will
also make our community safer here at home. It sends vital funding to
the Department of Justice law enforcement grant programs and invests
$1.4 billion in the border wall system on the Southwest border. As a
border State Senator, I can tell you the Border Patrol, whom I consider
the experts when it comes to border security, say there are three
components of border security: There is physical infrastructure; there
is technology; and then there is the personnel, the boots on the
ground. This appropriation bill invests $1.4 billion in this system
that includes a border wall.
Despite concerted attempts from our Democratic colleagues, the
President's authorities to transfer funds that he deems necessary for
border security remain intact.
Now, the domestic spending bill takes strides to address some other
challenges. It allows us to bolster our fight against the opioid
epidemic, expand mental health access, and improve our crumbling
transportation infrastructure. It includes $400 million for farmers and
ranchers in Texas and elsewhere affected by drought, trade wars, and
low commodity prices. It would also send an additional half a billion
dollars to the Army Corps of Engineers that can be used for
infrastructure projects right here at home.
With less than a year until the next election, it would provide more
than $400 million in additional funds to safeguard our election systems
so that voters can head to the polls with the confidence that their
vote will be counted correctly.
As we continue to bring down healthcare costs for the American people
by providing them more choice and competition for their premium dollar,
this legislation permanently repeals some of the three most oppressive
ObamaCare taxes that are burdening American families: the premium tax,
the Cadillac tax, and the medical device tax.
This bill also extends funding for critical healthcare programs like
community health centers. This is the safety net in our healthcare
system, the community health center. It is something I have long
supported.
Despite pushes from our colleagues across the aisle, appropriators
also managed to fight off an electric vehicle tax credit expansion,
which would be nothing more than a taxpayer subsidy for wealthy
Americans who want to purchase electric vehicles.
There are a lot of great provisions in these appropriations bills to
address some of our top priorities, but I remain concerned that, with
some of the shortcomings, these could also be described as the bad part
of this appropriation process.
The domestic funding bill includes a range of controversial
provisions that will move us further away from our goal of decreasing
the national debt. It significantly increases deficit spending without
offsets or pay-fors for long-needed reforms for mandatory spending
programs, which are the primary cause of our deficits and debt,
accounting for about 70 percent of Federal spending.
This bill also includes a terrible provision, which is a retroactive
tax on American energy companies. We did this without any sort of
consideration by the committee of jurisdiction--the Finance Committee,
upon which I sit--with no opportunity to provide amendments or even a
debate on this massive retroactive tax. The only choice we are given
now that it has been included as a result of the negotiations among
five people is the choice to vote either up or down on this massive
piece of legislation.
This bill also extends other tax benefits, without addressing
problems with the Tax Code, which actually have a negative impact on
American businesses and families.
This funding bill would also extend the National Flood Insurance
Program, which is long overdue for reforms. This sidesteps the need for
those reforms entirely. The program is hemorrhaging money, and we need
to be looking at ways to improve it, instead of continuing to flush
good money down the drain.
As I mention, we started this process on a strong path with the
budget agreement that was reached in August. I know I wasn't alone in
thinking that would help us get the regular appropriations process back
on track, but things quickly took a turn--not for the good, not for the
bad--but for the ugly. Our colleagues let government funding come
second to their disagreements with the President. They tried to inject
the very poison pills they vowed to steer clear of and derailed the
process that they committed to restoring.
Rather than having an open debate and votes on spending, as we
planned, the process fell to just a handful of people negotiating
behind closed doors. This is reminiscent of the smoke-filled backroom
deals that Congress has long been criticized for, and we really have no
alternative but to vote up or down on this massive $1.4 trillion
spending package without any opportunity to debate it or, more
importantly, to change it by offering amendments.
The way I see it, this has been the plan of Speaker Pelosi and the
minority leader here in the Senate all along. If you think about it,
this really puts the power in their hands, which is exactly what they
want, and they can extract concessions and other things that
[[Page S7139]]
are important to them, rather than allow the process to work as it was
intended to do through regular order, through the regular
appropriations process.
This also takes power from their very own Members because no Democrat
or Republican can offer any amendment to this which can change it at
all under this closed process. So this really isn't just an affront to
the Members on this side of the aisle; it is an affront to their own
Members who have no opportunity to offer amendments or have meaningful
debate and modify the bill.
Our Democratic colleagues have held these appropriations process
hostage for the past several months. Over what? I think that is an
important question. Well, as it turns out, it was their obsession with
.3 percent of our Nation's budget. That is not how this process should
work, and it is certainly not how to make decisions that are in the
best interest of the country.
As further evidence of the rush to get this done without adequate
consideration or debate or amendment, our House Democrats even had to
violate their own 72-hour posting rule for major legislation just to
get this legislation done before we leave this week.
It is frustrating to see our colleagues across the aisle undermine
what could have been a very productive discussion about our Nation's
spending habits, about deficits and debt and what our priorities should
be, and, instead, chose to move forward with these bills, which fall
short in any number of places.
I must say that the majority leader, the Senator from Kentucky, was
committed to a process of getting these appropriations back on track so
we could give a voice to all Members in these negotiations and take
them up in an orderly fashion so amendments could be offered, and they
could be debated and voted on, all of which has now been swept to the
side.
I am also grateful for the tireless work of the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee in the Senate, the Senator from Alabama, Mr.
Shelby, as well as the other members of the committee who have been
negotiating an agreement to support our national defense and avoid
book-ending the 2019 year with a second shutdown.
As we move closer to a vote on these appropriations bills tomorrow, I
am going to continue to review their text. They are massive pieces of
legislation, and we have only recently gotten access to them. I will be
making my individual decision--as I trust each Member will--on whether
to support these appropriations bills and whether they represent the
best interests of their States and of the American people.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
RELIEF Act
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is hard to believe that in this Nation
of immigrants we have such a broken immigrant system, but it is a fact.
We have addressed so many problems in this system over the years. A
few years ago on the floor of the Senate, we passed a comprehensive
immigration reform bill, which didn't survive in the House of
Representatives. So it is no surprise that, on a regular basis, we face
challenges when it comes to our existing immigration laws.
One of the most serious challenges is the green card backlog in this
country. To try to describe it in just the simplest terms, under the
current law, in my estimation, there are not nearly enough immigrant
visas--also known as green cards--available each year. Each year in
America, there are 226,000 family green cards available and 140,000
employment green cards available. That is 140,000 each year for a
nation of 350 million people. So many of those who are aspiring to get
a green card and ultimately move to a permanent resident status and
citizenship wait and wait and wait for the day to arrive.
Children in many of these families who are from workers currently in
the United States on things like the H-1B visa age out when they reach
the age of 21, and they are no longer protected by their parents'
presence. So they are at risk of being deported, even as they go into
their teenage years. It is a horrible situation. It is really a
heartbreaking situation. I have come to meet and know many of the
families affected by it.
We are trying to deal with this green card backlog with the reality
of current politics in Washington. Under the current political
environment, there are limitations on what we can do.
My response is to increase the number of green cards that are
available each year so we have more than 140,000 available. There are
currently at least 800,000 people waiting for 140,000 green cards to
come up each year. As a consequence, we are in a predicament, where we
don't have nearly enough green cards for the people who are waiting for
them.
I would increase that number, but politically that is not going to
happen. The President doesn't agree with that position, and many
Republicans in the Senate and the House don't agree either.
Senator Lee and I have confronted this issue, coming at it from
different perspectives. Initially, we were at odds on how to approach
it. I objected to a bill he brought to the floor; he objected to a bill
I brought to the floor; and then we sat down to talk.
The bill I brought to the floor, as I mentioned earlier, would
increase the number of green cards, would make sure that the families
would be protected from deportation while they are waiting and would
allow them to travel and to change jobs. That is called the RELIEF Act.
I have introduced it. It has been introduced in the House of
Representatives by Congresswoman Shalala. It is a bill I still support
and would like to see pass. That is my preference.
It is not a bill that would pass in the Senate at this time, so
Senator Lee and I sat down to try to find common ground, if we could,
on an approach that might work to deal with the backlog in a humane
fashion and to protect the families during the course of that.
We have come up with a proposal which I think moves us in the right
direction. It is an agreement between us--a bipartisan agreement--which
we are now hoping to offer to the Senate for consideration as quickly
as possible.
I will very quickly state a summary of what it tries to achieve.
It protects immigrants and their families who are stuck in the green
card backlog I mentioned. Immigrant workers and their immediate family
members would be eligible for what is called early filing for their
green cards. Immigrant workers would not receive their green cards
early, but while waiting, they would be able to switch jobs and travel
without losing immigration status.
The amendment includes a critical protection from the RELIEF Act that
protects the children of immigrant workers from aging out of green card
eligibility while the family is waiting so they will not face
deportation.
Green card set-asides for immigrant workers stuck in the backlog
overseas are provided. The amendment reserves 4,600 green cards on an
annual basis for immigrant workers stuck in the backlog overseas and
not eligible for early filing. The number is based on the actual or, at
best, approximate number of the actual number of people who applied for
employment green cards from overseas each year.
Third, it addresses abuses in H-1B temporary work visas. The first
thing Senator Lee and I want to make clear is that we are committed,
first and foremost, to American workers getting jobs.
In those circumstances where American workers with certain skills are
not available, we have what is known as the H-1B visa. Working with
Senator Grassley, what we tried to do is to come up with a bipartisan
way of strengthening that system.
Included in the strengthening of this amendment is a 50-50 rule,
which says that the amendment would prohibit a company from hiring
additional H-1B workers if the company's workforce is more than 50
employees and more than 50 percent are actually temporary workers. I
personally believe those companies are suspect, and this bill raises
that question. The 50-50 rule, as I mentioned, is from a bill Senator
Grassley and I introduced. It was part of comprehensive immigration
reform.
The reality is, there is abuse in the H-1B system. We don't try to
solve every aspect of it, but we do address what we consider to be one
of the starting points of the problem we currently face.
Here is where we are. Senator Lee and I have reached a bipartisan
agreement on what we think is a reasonable approach, and we want to
make sure it
[[Page S7140]]
is acceptable to our colleagues to move forward.
I have been working on the Democratic side; Senator Lee has been
working on the Republican side. We don't believe we can get it done at
this very moment, but we are hopeful to get it done very quickly. The
reason is obvious. These families affected by this backlog are really
going through hardships and concerns no family should face. The sooner
we resolve them, the better.
As I have talked to many of these families, they have asked: Why
don't you sit down with Senator Lee to see if you can reach an
agreement? I did. We have. Now I hope we can move forward.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from the Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it has been an honor and privilege to work
with my friend and distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from
Illinois, on this important project.
I have been working on bringing about an end to the arbitrary per
country caps put in place on employment-based green cards for nearly
the entire 9-year period I have been in the U.S. Senate. At no point
has it been an easy process. These are significant and weighty issues,
and they require attention.
Senator Durbin and I have spent the last couple of months negotiating
in good faith with a lot of energy and a lot of time and attention
given to the project not only by the two Members involved, Senator
Durbin and myself, but also by our very dedicated and devoted staffs
who have really put a lot of shoe leather, sweat, blood, and tears into
this effort.
I am grateful to Senator Durbin for being willing to work with me on
this. I have enjoyed working with him over the years on a number of
projects, including the passage just about a year ago--almost exactly a
year ago--of the FIRST STEP Act. This was the result of a project that
Senator Durbin and I had been working on for 8 continuous years up
until that point, culminating in a lot of proposals, including things
like the Smarter Sentencing Act, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections
Act, and, ultimately, the FIRST STEP Act. Like I said, that was passed
almost exactly a year ago.
At no point in that process was there an easy path forward, an easy
path toward victory. Yet he and I remained united in our desire to see
something get passed.
Senator Durbin and I, along with our staffs, have put a lot of energy
and attention into this effort as well to try to bring about a
resolution of the problem created by the arbitrary per country caps
placed on employment-based immigrant visas.
I am very pleased with the outcome of those negotiations. I am very
confident that this is something we can get passed into law. He and I
are going to continue to work together. I am going to make sure we have
the buy-in we need. I want to make sure the cosponsors of the
legislation are comfortable with what we have negotiated and that they
understand it.
To that end, I thank the Senator from Illinois and his staff and also
my own staff for working on this. I have every hope, expectation, and
confidence that this is going to result in something that can pass--
something I believe that can--and will soon pass with the unanimous
support of the Members of this body.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
SECURE Act
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, several times on the floor of the Senate I
have talked about the issue of retirement security. It has been a
priority for me during my entire career in the U.S. Congress.
When the United States has led the world in just about every economic
indicator, there is always one in which the United States is not doing
well; that is international savings, particularly retirement savings.
When we take a look at recent figures, we find that 48 percent of
those who are near retirement--over 55 years of age--have zero amounts
in retirement funds. Almost half of our near elderly have no retirement
funds and pensions at all. Twenty-nine percent have zero savings. So we
need to do a lot better.
The issue is very much compromised because we have seen a major trend
in the employment world from defined benefit plans to defined
contribution plans.
In the defined benefit world, the employer guarantees certain
benefits to their employees who take the risks of the market. In a
defined contribution plan, it requires the employee to put his or her
own money aside and be disciplined in order to do that. As a result, we
find less retirement security for many wage earners today. This puts
pressure on our Social Security system.
Social Security is a very, very important program, but it is only
supposed to be one leg of a three-legged stool of retirement security,
including private retirement and private savings.
We have responded in the past, and we have taken action. I am very
proud of the work I first started doing in the House of Representatives
with then-Congressman Rob Portman. The two of us worked on pension
legislation. We were able to get it enacted, and it made a big
difference.
I hope we will be voting on these Omnibus appropriations bills
tomorrow. We are going to have a chance to take a major step forward on
retirement security with the passage the SECURE Act.
The SECURE Act, Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement
Act, is a bill that was first acted upon by the Senate Finance
Committee back in 2016, so this has been a long time in coming. It
passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 417 to 3, so you see
that there is very strong bipartisan support for this next chapter in
retirement security. It expands opportunities for Americans to increase
their retirement savings and improve the portability of lifetime income
options.
Many provisions are included in the SECURE Act. I want to talk about
just a few, several of which I was very proud to be part of working to
include within the SECURE Act.
First, for the first time in many years, we do something about the
required minimum distribution. Under current law, once you reach 70\1/
2\ years of age, you are required to take out a certain amount of your
retirement income. The problem with that is, people are living longer
and longer and longer, and their retirement income becomes inadequate
the longer they live. They may have planned to live to be 80, 85, or 90
but find they still have an active lifestyle well beyond that. The
required minimum distribution works against them being able to maintain
an adequate amount of retirement funds for later in life.
This bill takes a step forward in increasing the date in which you
are required to take out a minimum distribution to 72 years of age.
We are now also providing retirement opportunities for part-time
workers. This is a major improvement on our retirement programs. I
might tell my colleagues that part-time work affects women much more
than men. This is something that was long overdue, and I am very
pleased that this is also included in this legislation.
Part of the legislation that Senator Portman and I have worked on
deals with the fact that we have defined benefit plans that are
available today, but in some cases employers have found it impossible
to continue these plans for new employees. These are called ``closed
plans.''
Well, these defined benefit plans are still there to protect those
who were enrolled in the plan before they became closed. Here is the
problem. As more and more people are employed by the company who are
not in this plan and more of the people who were in the defined benefit
plans are no longer around, the nondiscrimination rule test is much
harder to be met, and, as a result, these plans may have to be frozen
or canceled, and that would be to the detriment of those who are
currently protected under these closed plans. I have been told that as
many as 400,000 workers would risk losing benefits by the end of this
year if we do not take action to change the nondiscrimination rules in
regards to these closed plans. The SECURE Act includes the provision to
do this. I was very happy to work with Senator Portman in getting that
done. That is included
[[Page S7141]]
in this legislation, and it is very important that we enact it before
the end of December.
There is a provision in here that I worked on with Senator Roberts, a
bipartisan proposal to deal with church pension plans. We have had a
church pension plan on the books for many years, but we have gotten
inconsistent IRS regulations as it relates to the management of these
pension plans, particularly when you are dealing with church-affiliated
institutions, such as daycare centers or nursing homes. This
legislation will clarify that so that these church plans can continue.
It affects thousands of workers, and it makes a positive difference on
retirement security.
The SECURE Act also includes a provision that will exempt State and
local firefighters and emergency responders from income tax liability
that was never intended on some pension plans. All of that is included
in the SECURE Act, and it will help a great deal in dealing with the
issue I raised at the beginning of my remarks, retirement security for
individuals.
Now, we will get that done, I hope, this week. We expect to vote on
the bill, hopefully, within the next day. That will be a major step
forward for retirement security, but it is not the end. We have to do a
lot more, and that is why Senator Portman and I have filed the
Retirement Security and Savings Act. That is a bill that contains
almost 50 different provisions. Some are included in the SECURE Act,
and we are grateful for that, but most are not. What is included in the
Retirement Security and Savings Act builds on the SECURE Act to provide
greater opportunities for retirement security.
Let me just give you a couple of examples. It improves the
requirement for distribution, allowing individuals to be able to
reserve more for the later years of their life. It also provides
tremendous incentives for lifetime income.
Here is the problem. People may have retirement savings, and they
say: Look, I guess I will live another 15 years. So they take their
money out over 15 years, and, guess what, after 15 years, they are
still healthy, but they have no money. Lifetime income guarantees that
you will have income throughout your entire life. We provide incentives
in our legislation on lifetime income options for retirement options
when you retire.
We also make it easier for those who have student loans to be able to
participate in retirement security. A lot of times, people would like
to contribute to a pension plan but they have to pay off student loans.
Well, we allow the paying off of student loans to act as a match for an
employer's contribution--again, offering additional opportunities for
people to participate in retirement savings.
We have provisions in here that particularly help low-wage workers.
The bottom line is that low-wage workers are the most challenged in
order to participate in retirement security plans early in life. If you
start a savings for retirement when you are young, it will produce the
type of savings you need when you retire. Younger people have lots of
obligations, including starting a family, paying off student loans, and
all the things that we know about. So they need incentive. We have
found that just the tax incentives alone will not be enough to get
younger workers to participate in retirement.
We have the Thrift Savings Plan here for Federal workers, which is
wonderful, because the Federal Government matches some of those
contributions. What we are suggesting in the bill that we filed is
expanding the tax credit program for savings, making it refundable
directly into retirement accounts so that younger, lower wage workers
will participate in retirement savings.
We provide provisions in this bill that help small businesses so
small businesses can start retirement savings plans. All of that is
included in the next step.
So, yes, let's approve the SECURE Act in the budget agreement, an
important step forward, but let's recognize that we need to do a lot
more. Let's work in a bipartisan manner in 2020 to build on the success
of the SECURE Act to help Americans save for their retirement.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Nomination of Stephanie Dawkins Davis
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today because I am very glad to
see the Senate moving forward in taking up the nomination of Stephanie
Davis to be the district court judge for the Eastern District of
Michigan.
Judge Davis was nominated by President Trump back in March to be a
U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Michigan. Our
bipartisan Eastern District Judicial Nominations Advisory Committee
strongly supported her. She was reported out of committee by a voice
vote on May 22, and no one has expressed any concerns about her record,
nor would they have a reason to express a concern. She is exceedingly
qualified.
Judge Davis has been working in the U.S. Attorney's Office in the
Eastern District of Michigan since 1997. During her time there, she has
served in both the civil and criminal divisions. She has prosecuted
fraud, bank robbery, embezzlement, violent crime, public corruption,
and criminal conspiracies involving drug trafficking and money
laundering. We are very lucky to have someone of her experience
stepping forward and wanting to serve in this position. She has also
overseen community and law enforcement initiatives and led the office's
diversity efforts.
I have had the opportunity to meet with Judge Davis. I came away from
my very first meeting, as well as subsequent conversations, being very
impressed with her background and her commitment to public service. She
will be an excellent addition to the Federal judiciary, and I urge my
colleagues to support her nomination.
I yield the floor.
Nomination of anuraag singhal
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, Judge Anuraag Singhal has
honorably served the State of Florida for several years, and I proudly
support his confirmation as a district judge for the Southern District
of Florida today. He has built a distinguished legal career, serving as
a criminal prosecutor for Florida's Seventeenth Judicial Circuit and
later opening a private practice focused on criminal defense and
appellate work. Throughout his career, he has demonstrated a firm
commitment to the rule of law, and as Governor of Florida, I had the
distinct honor to appoint Judge Singhal to Florida's Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit court in 2011. I am equally honored to support his
confirmation to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida today and know he will continue to serve our State
and Nation well.
Ms. STABENOW. 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. BRAUN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________