Pat Toomey

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, first let me say that I think Senator Cornyn's legislation is very constructive. I fully support it. I think it would result in lower costs for consumers. It is very commendable. I think we should pass it. I am sympathetic with the idea of requiring greater transparency on healthcare costs generally, but I have significant policy concerns and process concerns with the proposal from the Senator from Illinois. The policy concern, broadly, is that what his legislation would do is it would single out one industry and require a mandate that in their direct-to-consumer advertising, they provide systematically misleading information to consumers. It doesn't strike me, obviously, as a good idea to mislead people, including in this context. Why do I say it is misleading? It is because the legislation requires the list price or the wholesale acquisition price of a drug to be the price that is put in the ad, despite the fact that almost no one ever pays either of those prices. There are huge rebates that are built into the system. We can have a good debate about whether it is a good model by which the government has created all of these perversities in our healthcare delivery system, but that is what it is. The truth and the reality is almost no one pays either the list or the wholesale acquisition price. Think about it. If you are on Medicaid, you pay zero. If you are on Medicare, you often pay zero--usually, nearly zero. If you have private insurance, it varies enormously from zero to something significantly different, but almost no one pays the price that the Senator from Illinois would require to be posted in all direct-to-consumer advertising. Think about some of the unintended consequences. The number that would have to be in the ad is way higher than what almost anyone actually pays. Think of what could happen. I can imagine senior citizens sitting there watching an ad. Maybe they see a medicine they actually would benefit from, and then at the end there is some huge number that does not reflect--it doesn't come close to reflecting what the actual cost would be, but it is a big number so that a senior citizen would understandably say: Gosh, I can't afford that. I guess I can't pursue that therapy, even though they might need that. I am sure that is not the intended consequence of this legislation, but I am pretty sure it would happen. It is also peculiar to me that the authors of this legislation choose to single out a small fraction of the healthcare industry to impose this mandate. Prescription drug spending is about 10 percent of healthcare. Hospitals are about 32 percent, but I haven't seen that we are going to impose this. If you look at the rate of price increases in various sectors of healthcare, you see that actually prescription drugs, over the last 20 years--their increase in prices is considerably less than hospital services and considerably less than medical care services. Then, of course, we have other sectors in the economy altogether. Are we going to put mandates on colleges, for instance? The rate of tuition increase in colleges is much greater than the rate of increase of prescription drugs in recent years. I haven't heard a proposal yet, but maybe one is coming that would require this of other industries as well. If I didn't know better, I would think it seems part of a theme to vilify the industry that has developed the therapies that allow us to live longer, healthier, and save lives. Most importantly, maybe it will not lower costs. It is not going to lower costs for consumers. The only way we are going to do that is if we better align the incentives of the consumer and the person paying. In contrast, by the way, the Finance Committee and HELP Committee reported out legislation that actually would lower out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs. We have Senator Cornyn's legislation that I think absolutely would lower the cost of consumer prescription drugs. Yet that is not what is on the floor today from the Senator from Illinois. Now, despite my policy concerns--and they are serious--I actually think we ought to debate these things. We ought to put this kind of legislation on the floor. We ought to have a debate. We ought to have a vote, but this is complicated, and it is fraud. We should not be trying to just pass this by unanimous consent. This legislation has not gone through committee, and contrary to my colleague from Illinois--this actual piece of legislation has never had a vote as a freestanding matter. A version of it that is different from what is being offered today was buried in a larger legislation which passed. That is not the same as scrutinizing this policy, subjecting it to amendments, and deciding on it. That is what I think we ought to do. Unlike my colleagues on the other side who have been consistently preventing us from taking up legislation, such as the approps bills they have not allowed us to get on to or the SECURE Act, on which I offered a unanimous consent process for us to take up and process, I think we ought to consider this legislation, even though I don't think I would support the final product. What I suggest we do is let's move on to the Defense appropriations bill. Arguably, the most fundamental responsibility of Congress is to fund our national defense. Let's make in order as the first amendment after the managers' amendment the amendment of the Senator from Illinois that he has just described. I don't support it, but I support his right to have a debate and have a vote. Let's go on to an appropriations bill and let's make his amendment in order as the first amendment. We can debate it; we can vote it; and we will all live with the consequences. I think that is what we are here for. I think the purpose of the Senate is to take on these issues, put them on the floor, have a debate, and have a vote. I am willing to live with the outcome of that. Mr. President, I ask that the Senator from Illinois modify his request and that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 132, S. 1416. I further ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn and that the Cornyn amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; and finally, that following disposition of S. 1416, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2740, and following the offering of a substitute amendment by Senator Shelby or his designee, the first amendment in order be an amendment offered by Senator Durbin or Senator Grassley, the text of which is identical to S. 1437, as amended, which is at the desk.

Mr. TOOMEY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. TOOMEY. I object.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I rise this afternoon to offer a path forward on the SECURE Act--the way that I think we could actually do some legislating around here and pass a constructive bill. A little brief history, I think, is in order and helpful for context. About 3 years ago, the Senate Finance Committee passed a reasonably similar legislation out of committee unanimously. It was never considered on the Senate floor. The House took up some of these ideas and passed their own legislation. My own view is that most of the substance of this legislation is very constructive. Most of what it does is it makes it easier for middle- class families to save for their retirement. That is constructive. However, the bill that came over from the House is different from the bill that came out of the Senate Finance Committee and was never considered on the Senate floor. The House bill dropped a number of provisions that had bipartisan support. They added some provisions that had never been vetted by anybody on the Senate side, at least not in a procedural way. There is a proper way to resolve these kinds of differences, and that is to put this bill on the Senate floor, open it up for amendments, and allow the Senate to work its will. The Senate will almost certainly pass some version--probably very similar to the House bill--and then we can iron out whatever little differences there are. This is the way we legislate. That is what I am suggesting we do today. To do otherwise would be to treat this body as just a rubberstamp for the House, and that is not the purpose of having two legislative bodies. I should also note that our Democratic colleagues have frequently criticized Republican leadership and the Republican majority for not legislating. Sometimes they have a point. The minority leader has said that the Senate is a legislative graveyard. He has criticized Leader McConnell for not putting bills on the floor and at one point Senator Schumer said: We want to debate these other issues. . . . We are not saying our Republican friends are going to think exactly as we do, but let's have a debate and vote. I couldn't agree more. I think we should have a debate. I think we should have a series of votes. I think we could bang this out in a day, at the end of which we would pass the SECURE Act, preferably after considering amendments from both sides. That is what I am proposing. In fact, we have been proposing this for weeks. We have shared with our Democratic colleagues several amendments that the Republican Senators would like to offer. One is mine. I have other colleagues who would like to offer them. We have been asking our Democratic colleagues for their list of amendments. What things would they like to do? What amendments would they like to consider? We have restricted our amendments to those which affect the Tax Code. We have suggested that they do likewise. Amazingly, to me, we haven't heard a single suggestion yet from our Democratic colleagues. It is amazing because I have heard plenty of criticism about our Tax Code from our Democratic friends, including criticism about the limitation we put on State and local tax deductions. I know there are Democratic colleagues who would like to extend the electric vehicle credit. There are some who have proposed new taxes on wealth. Chairman Wyden has a proposal to put a tax on unrealized market-to-market gains on assets. There is a long list of ideas we have heard from the other side. This is the opportunity to have some votes and find out whether there is support and to what extent there is support for these things. On our side, we are willing to vote. Every Republican Senator is in favor of this proposal that I am going to suggest in a few moments, whereby we would have specific amendments on our side and allow the Democrats to have an equal number on their side. I don't know what could be more reasonable than this approach. Quickly, my amendment fixes a technical drafting error in our tax reform. It is called the QIP. It is the acronym that is used for it. It stands for ``qualified improvement property.'' Here is the problem. Due to a drafting error, businesses are now forced to recognize the cost of improvements over a long period of time rather than to expense them in the years in which the expenses occurred. It was a drafting error. Everybody acknowledges it was a drafting error and was unintended. Thirteen of my Democratic colleagues are cosponsors of my legislation to fix this, and every Republican Senator supports fixing this error. Those are 66 Senators right there. I am not asking for a guaranteed outcome. I am just asking for a vote. Let's have a vote on it. I have other colleagues who would also like to have votes on their amendments. As I said, our proposal is that the Democrats pick an equal number of items that are important to them, and let's have votes on those. It would look a lot like legislating. It would be good to get back to legislating. In a moment, I am going to make a unanimous consent request to do exactly that. Before I do, I yield the floor to my colleague from Texas, Senator Cruz, for his thoughts on this.

Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, in reclaiming my time, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1994, the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019, the SECURE Act, which is at the desk. I further ask that there be a period of general debate on the bill to be limited to 10 hours, equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, and that following the use or yielding back of that time, the only amendments in order on the Republican side be the amendments to be offered by Senators Toomey, Lee, Burr, Braun, and Cruz or their designees, the texts of which are at the desk, and five amendments that propose changes to the Internal Revenue Code to be determined by the Democratic leader, with the concurrence of the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Finance. I further ask that debate on each amendment be limited to 30 minutes, equally divided between proponents and opponents, and that each amendment, unless it would be considered germane postcloture, be subject to an affirmative 60-vote threshold and that following the use or yielding back of time on each amendment, the Senate proceed to a vote on each amendment. Finally, I ask that following the disposition of those specified amendments, the bill, as amended, if amended, be read a third time and that the Senate vote on the passage of the bill, as amended, if amended, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I just will say briefly that this is very disappointing. What we are hearing from our Democratic colleagues is that the Senate is supposed to be a rubberstamp for what the House has done. We are not supposed to consider and deliberate ourselves as a body. We are not supposed to, apparently, entertain amendments--equal numbers from both sides--to attempt to reflect our constituents' interests and get to a legislative solution that would inevitably have broad bipartisan support. I am very disappointed. Of course, I would reiterate, no Republican has ever asked for a guaranteed outcome on any amendment. All we are asking for is a vote, and apparently that is asking too much, according to our Democratic colleagues. I object.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to address the Congressional Review Act measure we will be voting on later today. Let's be very clear. This is a vote the purpose of which is to overturn a very, very important part of the tax reform that we passed in December of 2017 that made the Tax Code much more fair than it was before. Specifically, I am referring to the limitations that we put on the ability of people to deduct State and local taxes. Let's remember what our Tax Code looked like before our tax reform. Wealthy individuals could deduct the full amount of any State and local tax deductions, however high they got. And we use the acronym ``SALT'' to refer to these State and local tax deductions. So why do I say that is unfair? Well, it is unfair because it subsidizes people who choose to live in high-tax jurisdictions. It does that because it lowers the tax bill of somebody who lives in a high-tax jurisdiction, like Manhattan or San Francisco, because they get to deduct the full amount of the outrageously high State and local taxes they choose to pay. The fact that they get to deduct that big number means the rest of us have to pay higher rates on our income than we otherwise would have to pay. Why should my constituents in Blair County or Cambria County or anywhere else in Pennsylvania--constituents with modest incomes who choose local governments that keep a modest level of service and therefore a modest level of taxes--why should those constituents have to pay higher tax rates to subsidize the folks who have multimillion- dollar condos on the Upper West Side of Manhattan? It is totally unfair. They certainly should not have to do that. And have no doubt about it--the huge benefits of this unlimited State and local tax deduction that we used to have always flowed to a handful of States that have chosen to have very, very high taxes. California and New York are two good examples. Under the old regime, about one-third of all the benefits of the State and local tax deductions went to just those two States--just California and New York. They had one-third of all the benefits. Take New Jersey, right next door to my State of Pennsylvania. New Jersey has 4 million fewer people than we have in Pennsylvania, almost one-third fewer people, but they got more of the benefit of the SALT deductions than my entire State. That is because New Jersey is a very high-tax State. Guess what. It is a high-tax State because the people who live there voted for politicians who raise their taxes. That is apparently what they want. They want to have all of the services that go with that. They are happy with very high State income tax and local property taxes. That is their decision. Look, if you want to vote for someone who is going to impose exorbitantly high taxes on you, you should be free to cast that vote. But don't expect my constituents to subsidize them. So that was the regime we had in place. Tax reform came along, and we said: Do you know what we are going to do? We are going to put a limit on the amount of State and local taxes that a tax filer can deduct. The limit is $10,000. It is not trivial. It is a lot of money. But that is the limit. If you pay more than that in State and local taxes, you do not get to deduct it. In response to that, very interestingly, several of these high-tax States have designed a scam to get around the limitation we imposed. The scam is that they create this vehicle, and then they have their taxpayers pay their taxes into that vehicle and call it a charity, call it a charitable contribution. The money then goes out of that vehicle and goes to the government. It is not a charitable contribution at all. It is a transparent, obvious attempt to circumvent the law that we passed in 2017. The IRS came along and said: Well, this is an obvious scam. They developed a rule that shuts down the scam. It says: If you create this scam, this make-believe charity, as a way to circumvent the cap on State and local deductions, we are going to disallow the deduction. So the IRS ruling shuts down the scam and maintains the deduction cap, and what my Democratic colleagues want to do right now is have a vote to invalidate the IRS ruling--in other words, have a vote to keep the scam. That is what the vote is today, to make sure we destroy the IRS ruling and keep this scam in place. One of the ironies of this whole debate is that our Democratic colleagues voted against our tax reform because they said that it was too much of a tax cut for the rich, despite the fact that, in fact, our tax reform shifted the tax burden from lower income taxpayers to higher income taxpayers while saving money for everybody. The relative proportion of taxes paid increased for wealthy people, decreased for low-income people, while everyone had some savings. That was objectionable to my Democratic colleagues. Now they come along, and they want to repeal the rule that shuts down the scam. They want to perpetuate the scam that is a massive giveaway to the wealthiest Americans. It is amazing. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 94 percent of the benefit--if they had their way and prevailed on this vote, 94 percent of the benefit would go to people whose income is over $200,000; 52 percent of the benefit would go to taxpayers with income over $1 million. Not only is it fundamentally unfair to ask people in some low-tax jurisdictions to subsidize the taxes chosen by people in high-tax jurisdictions, the subsidy all flows from low- and middle-income people to very, very wealthy people. That is the deal: Millionaires would receive an average tax cut of $60,000; taxpayers with income between $50,000 and $100,000 would receive an average tax cut of less than $10--not $10,000--$10. What we did when we put a limit on the ability to deduct State and local taxes was a big step in making our Tax Code more fair. The States came along and developed a scam to circumvent it. The IRS, quite rightly, saw through the scam and said: We are not going to allow that scam to continue. Now my Democratic colleagues want to tear up the IRS rule to perpetuate the scam. That is a very bad idea, and I hope we will all vote against the Congressional Review Act effort that is scheduled for a vote later today. I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to mark a very special day for the Sikh religion and the Sikh community across America and especially in Pennsylvania--specifically, the birthday of the founder of Sikhism, Guru Nanak. Guru Nanak was born into a Hindu household in 1469 in what is now modern-day Pakistan. Guru Nanak showed a keen interest in religion from very early on in his life. He had a real aptitude in his youth for philosophizing and writing poetry. He married, had children, and became an accountant like his father. Yet he always believed in the importance of living a spiritual life. Eventually, he underwent a profound personal transformation to become the religious figure and leader for which he is recognized today. Guru Nanak's most famous teachings include that there is only one God, that people need not go through an intermediary, such as a priest, to access the one God, and that all people are created equal. He preached that his followers should meditate and remember God, that they should earn an honest living, and that they should share with those who are less fortunate than themselves. Guru Nanak began teaching the Sikh faith around the year 1500, and with around 30 million adherents, the Sikh faith is the sixth largest religion in the world. Approximately 700,000 Sikhs have chosen to make their homes in the United States. There are several Sikh places of worship, known as gurdwaras, in and around the Philadelphia area, Pittsburgh, Allentown, Erie, and across America. Next month, on November 12, there will be celebrations at gurdwaras across the globe to mark the 550th birthday of Guru Nanak. In addition, Sikh leaders have come to the Capitol today to commemorate the birthday of Guru Nanak. A few minutes ago, a giani, or a Sikh religious official, gave a prayer as the Senate opened for business. I am proud that he hails from my State of Pennsylvania. This evening, leaders from the Sikh community will convene an interfaith event to promote the peaceful values that all of the world's major religions share. This morning, I just wanted to add my voice to wish the Sikh community great luck and great joy with this event and to wish Guru Nanak a happy 550th birthday this year. I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes in this series be 10 minutes in length.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the nomination of Judge Peter Phipps of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to be a U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit. Judge Phipps is highly qualified to serve on the Third Circuit. He has dedicated his legal career to public service, first as a decorated career attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice and now as a Federal trial judge. As both a judge and a lawyer, he has been a faithful adherent to the rule of law. Senator Casey and I supported Judge Phipps' nomination to the district court. He was recommended to us by the bipartisan judicial advisory panel that we use to vet and recommend candidates to fill district court vacancies in the Western District of Pennsylvania. In 2018, the Senate easily confirmed Judge Phipps to the district court by voice vote after the Senate Judiciary Committee reported him to the floor by voice vote. Before joining the bench, Judge Phipps served for 15 years as a career attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Division, where he worked under three Presidential administrations of both parties. He represented the Federal Government in numerous complex cases and received multiple awards for his excellent work. Since 2014, he has served as an adjunct law professor at Duquesne University, where he teaches administrative law. Earlier in his career, he clerked for Chief Judge Guy Cole on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and worked as a commercial litigator in private practice. Judge Phipps is a graduate of the University of Dayton and Stanford Law School. Judge Phipps has an outstanding reputation for intelligence, professionalism, fairness, and integrity, but you do not have to take my word for it. Here are few examples of how others have described him. The American Bar Association has rated him well-qualified on the basis of his integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament. Minority Leader Schumer and Senator Leahy, the former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have called the American Bar Association's rating ``the gold standard by which judicial candidates are judged.'' Senator Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, stated after Judge Phipps' nomination hearing on June 5, 2019 that Judge Phipps ``is one of the most impressive nominees for the U.S. Circuit Courts that has appeared before the Committee. He is incredibly smart and well balanced. Mr. Phipps will be a great addition to the Third Circuit.'' At Judge Phipps' district court investiture on December 18, 2018, Chief Judge Cole of the Sixth Circuit, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, said that Judge Phipps ``has earned a reputation for honesty, trustworthiness, great character, humility and professionalism.'' In addition, Chief Judge Cole stated that Judge Phipps ``has a brilliant mind, endless curiosity, and an even temperament. He will treat all who come before him equally and apply a strong work ethic to each and every matter. In short, Judge Phipps will be fair and just in the truest sense of those words.'' Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense under President Barack Obama, has written to the Senate in support of Judge Phipps' nomination. He worked closely with Judge Phipps on a legal matter when he was Secretary of Defense. His letter states: ``Throughout the many hours we spent with one another I was repeatedly impressed by Peter's legal acumen, dedication, attention to detail, and integrity. I have come to know Peter to be a faithful public servant and an excellent attorney. I am very pleased that he has been nominated to give his time and talents to the bench. I believe Peter will serve with honor and highly recommend his confirmation.'' The Senate has also received enthusiastic letters of support for Judge Phipps' nomination from attorneys who have litigated with and against him, including former colleagues from the U.S. Department of Justice. For instance, one group of attorneys praised Judge Phipps as a ``model jurist'' who has a ``piercing intellect'' and ``deep knowledge of the law.'' Similarly, a group of his former colleagues from the U.S. Department of Justice wrote: ``Judge Phipps' generosity, perspective, commitment to the rule of law, and selflessness--in addition to his intelligence and extensive experience--will make him a superb appellate judge.'' I am confident that Judge Phipps will live up to this high praise on the Third Circuit. He has all the essential qualities needed to excel as a Federal appellate judge: experience, intelligence, integrity, and respect for the limited role of the judiciary in our constitutional system. I am pleased to support this highly qualified nominee and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the very high- stakes political and social crisis that has been unfolding in Hong Kong over the past several weeks. Hong Kong is a very exceptional city. It boasts of a very robust free market economy that has thrived for centuries. It has a very vibrant free press. It has an independent judiciary and a partially democratic election system. Those freedoms, combined with Hongkongers' natural entrepreneurial spirit and appreciation for individual liberty, have made Hong Kong a jewel of the financial and business world, one of the freest places in Asia, and a great place to live--for a time, anyway, as I did back in 1991. Economic and political achievements are particularly impressive when you consider that Hong Kong is, after all, a part of China, which has neither a free economy nor a politically free society. Back in 1997, Great Britain transferred Hong Kong to China on a condition--an explicit written agreement--that Hong Kong's social and economic systems would remain unchanged under a ``one country, two systems'' arrangement that would last for at least 50 years, until 2047. The Chinese Government also made a pledge at the time--a pledge that Hong Kong's legislative and executive leaders would be elected through ``universal suffrage.'' Yet, here we are, 22 years later. Hongkongers still do not enjoy complete universal suffrage, and Hong Kong has faced deep and persistent efforts by the mainland to erode the independence and the authority of Hongkongers. On the surface, this ongoing crisis in Hong Kong was clearly caused by the Hong Kong Government, probably at the behest of the Chinese leadership in Beijing to pass a deeply unpopular extradition bill. This bill would diminish Hong Kong's independent legal system very dramatically, and it would do so by allowing and exposing individuals in Hong Kong--including Hong Kong citizens, foreigners, and even tourists--to being extradited to China. The accused would then face prosecution by an authoritarian government in mainland China that does not uphold the rule of law, nor does it practice the fair and impartial administration of justice. Let's face it. The judicial system in China is politicized and controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. Some people are concerned that if this bill were to become law, it would even pave the way for Chinese state-sponsored kidnapping of dissidents. It certainly would have a chilling effect on freedom in Hong Kong, a chilling effect on the ability of Hong Kong people to live their lives and express their views without the fear of political repercussions. It is simply a fact that mainland China is a legal black hole, and Hong Kong's extradition bill would be a step to exposing Hong Kong residents directly to mainland China's opaque and often blatantly unfair legal system. In response to this threat, the people of Hong Kong have for weeks poured into the streets, calling for a withdrawal of this bill and deeper democratic reforms. Remarkably, last month, one of these protests--one of these demonstrations brought together an estimated 2 million Hongkongers into the streets. It is stunning anywhere in the world that 2 million people would come out to protest anything. But in Hong Kong, it is truly staggering because the total population of Hong Kong is only 7.4 million. That is about one in four Hongkongers who were on the streets protesting. Just today, the Hong Kong Chief Executive said that bill was dead. But it has not been formally withdrawn, as I understand it, and I think the threat remains. It is also important to note that on a deeper level these ongoing protests are really a response to efforts by the Chinese Government to ``mainlandize'' Hong Kong. It is an effort in which political, cultural, and even physical distinctions between Hong Kong and mainland China are meant to be diminished, the differences blurred, and the distinction eroded. The extradition bill is just the latest example of the Hong Kong people's struggle for the freedom, democracy, and respect for human rights that they cherish, that they want to hold on to, and that were promised to them when the handover occurred in 1997. Hongkongers really have a rich history of protest, and I think that history reveals their enduring grassroots desire for the freedoms they have grown to love and cherish and for a democratic form of government that they deserve. Back in 1989, the Tiananmen Square massacre that we all remember--the 30th anniversary was just last month. On the eve of the massacre, once it was clear the Chinese Communist Government would respond to peaceful protesters with bullets and tanks--once that became clear, about 1.5 million Hongkongers marched in the streets of Hong Kong in solidarity with the students in Tiananmen. In 2003, the Hong Kong leadership proposed an anti-subversion bill. Hongkongers rightly saw this bill as an attack on their freedom of speech and freedom of association. The Hong Kong leadership proposed it--again, doing it at the behest of the mainland Chinese Government-- and 500,000 citizens protested and eventually forced the government to withdraw the bill. In 2014, the Hong Kong Government announced a reform to change how Hong Kong's Chief Executive was selected. The proposal was meant to continue what already existed, and that was mainland Chinese Communist control over the election process in Hong Kong. One of the mechanisms they used to achieve this was that only candidates vetted by a committee of mostly pro-Beijing supporters would be allowed to seek the office of Chief Executive. In response to this undemocratic measure, Hong Kong students staged a campaign of civil disobedience and peaceful protest to oppose this effort. Up to a half a million people participated in the movement. Students famously used umbrellas to shield themselves from tear gas and pepper spray that was being launched at them by the police, so much so that the pro-democracy protesters were quickly termed the ``Umbrella Movement.'' All of these protests and acts of civil disobedience make it clear that Hongkongers want more freedom, not less freedom. I think this matters. This matters obviously in Hong Kong, but it matters beyond Hong Kong. It matters to us. It should matter to us. What is happening in Hong Kong is not just important for those residents but for the rest of the world. Today the people of Hong Kong are fighting against an unpopular and unfair extradition bill. They are really fighting for a future in which they can enjoy basic human rights, natural rights that everyone should have, including the right to free speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to be confident that your government will follow the laws of the society in which it exists, and participation in a just and fair representative system of government. If the Chinese officials in Beijing and the Communist Chinese who rule mainland China have their way, they will extinguish these rights for the people of Hong Kong. If the extradition bill were to become law, it would threaten all of those rights because of the chilling effect of the threat of being extradited to the lawlessness of the Chinese judicial system. In some important ways, I think Hong Kong can be seen as a canary in a coal mine for Asia. What happens in Hong Kong will at least set expectations, create a climate that will maybe affect what happens in Taiwan over time, other Asian nations that are struggling for freedom in the shadow of China. The fact is, China itself is controlled by an authoritarian government, interested primarily in its own survival. That is the top priority of Beijing's leadership. They have created a modern-day police state. They use mass surveillance, censorship, internet applications in order to control their own citizens. They have imprisoned over a million of their own citizens, the Muslim Uighur minorities, in concentration camps. China's authoritarianism threatens free and open societies all around the world. A democratic Hong Kong is a direct threat to the Communist regime in Beijing because people across China, naturally, ask the question: Why do Hongkongers get to have more rights and a better life and more freedom than we have? That is the threat the government in Beijing is trying to extinguish. We, of course, recently had the blessing of being able to celebrate our own Independence Day, when Americans reflect on our own struggle against tyranny, against an unjust government, and our successful effort to throw that off and establish this, the world's greatest, most vibrant, and freest democratic society. In many ways, the Hongkongers are fighting for some of the very same values as our Founding Fathers did during the American Revolution. I think it is important that we in the United States not turn a blind eye to the struggle for freedom that is happening outside our borders. I think it is important that Americans continue to stand in support of the voices in Hong Kong calling for freedom, for democracy, and respect for basic human rights. I will do what I can in the Senate to support the people of Hong Kong in their peaceful protests for their own freedom, and I call on my colleagues in this administration to join me. I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to offer an amendment about the opioid addiction crisis that is devastating our Nation. The origins of this epidemic are no doubt complicated, but there is a simple fact within this complicated problem; that is, the introduction of the synthetic opioid fentanyl has made this the deadliest drug epidemic in American history. Fentanyl is 30 to 50 times more powerful than heroin, which is obviously lethal. Just 2 milligrams of this substance--that is equivalent to a few grains of salt--is enough to kill most people. This synthetic opioid has contributed to or caused 30,000 of the 50,000 opioid overdose deaths in the United States since 2017, and it is killing Pennsylvanians at an even higher percentage. As is the case with most illicit drugs, the vast majority of this is not actually coming from within the borders of the United States; the vast majority originates outside our borders. So cooperation with the governments of other countries is essential if we are going to make progress in ending this scourge. There are some countries that are extremely helpful. Canada and Mexico are, unfortunately, important transit points for drugs into the United States. Their governments work closely with ours and, I think it is fair to say, are doing all they reasonably can and continue to strive to do more to end this devastating influx. But fentanyl is particularly difficult because such tiny quantities are so lethal, and the fact is that not all foreign governments are as cooperative as they could be and they should be. It is well known that the primary source of the fentanyl that is on the streets in Pennsylvania and across America--the source is ultimately China. China has been cooperating in some important ways. China shares advance electronic data on mail parcels, and that is helpful. As of May 1 of this year--a few weeks ago--China agreed to schedule fentanyl as a class that is prohibited in China, and that forgoes the need to schedule every conceivable variant of the chemical. That is a good development. But we can't be sure that China is going to follow through on its commitment--the one I just mentioned is very recent--and they still don't do all they should on pill presses. They also have a history of breaking agreements with the United States. Maybe even more importantly, we don't know what other countries might decide to tolerate fentanyl production within their borders and look the other way when it arrives in the United States. Simply, there have to be consequences for countries that knowingly allow the production of fentanyl in their own land, to then be exported to the United States, and that do not--I am referring to the governments--cooperate with us as fully as they could and should be. That brings me to the bill I introduced. It is called the Blocking Deadly Fentanyl Imports Act. It is a bipartisan bill that I introduced with Doug Jones. I want to offer that as an amendment, to get a vote on this bill we are considering right now. I should point out that since 1983, Congress has utilized the Foreign Assistance Act as a way to deal with this kind of problem. Specifically, this legislation--the Foreign Assistance Act, the existing law--forbids certain categories of U.S. foreign aid from going to countries that don't assist us sufficiently in our effort to control illicit substances. There is a finite number of illicit drugs that are on the list. They include heroin, marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamine and its precursor chemicals. Congress has periodically updated the list and expanded the list as times have changed. In 2005, the House and Senate voted to add methamphetamine and its precursors. Senator Jones and I and a number of our colleagues believe it is past time that we add fentanyl to this list, especially since it is arguably the most lethal drug in the world today. Our bill would do a couple of things. It would add fentanyl to this list on the Foreign Assistance Act, the illicit substance list. That would then require the State Department to identify those countries--at the moment, China--that are the most significant sources of illicit fentanyl and fentanyl analogues. Then we would toughen the requirements in determining whether or not another country is, in fact, sufficiently cooperating with the United States. We only toughen the requirements for those countries that are found to be significant sources of fentanyl, not the other drugs already on the list but those countries determined by our State Department to be significant sources of fentanyl. For that small set of countries, if the President finds that one or more of the following three criteria are not being met, then, those countries would face the risk of having these forms of financial aid withheld. These are the three criteria we want them to meet: No. 1, whether they have in fact scheduled fentanyl and analogues as a controlled substance in their country; No. 2, whether steps are being taken to actually prosecute people who are illegally trafficking in fentanyl; and the final criteria we would add is whether or not they require the registration of pill presses, because we know that unregulated pill presses have been found to be used for production of counterfeit pills that actually contain fentanyl. That is the criteria that would get a country crosswise with us as a consequence of this legislation. What would the consequences be? The legislation contemplates that if a country is not doing enough with respect to the existing list of illicit narcotics, then, they would stand to lose various forms of foreign aid from the United States, specifically, economic development grants, development finance aid, health aid, agricultural aid, and military aid. It is important to note there are other categories of aid that we provide to foreign countries and more precisely to entities within those countries that would not be affected by this. They are not affected under current law, and they would not be affected under our bill--aid such as products-related assistance, disaster relief, food aid, medical aid, and aid to refugees. Existing law doesn't interrupt those forms of aid even with bad-acting governments, and our bill wouldn't either. In addition, even the categories of foreign aid that could be shut off and that would be shut off are subject to a Presidential waiver. If, for whatever reason, the President believes it is more important that we continue even those forms of aid, then, under our amendment, the President could do so. Again, to just sum up, the simple thing here is that a country that knowingly tolerates the production and export of fentanyl and is not as cooperative with our government as they could be in stopping it shouldn't be getting all kinds of U.S. foreign aid. That is all. That is what our amendment would do. The majority on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee supports this. The State Department made some suggestions that we accepted. Some of the suggestions included that we drop the reference to precursor chemicals because that might capture too many countries that shouldn't be captured because they are not the precursor chemicals used for the purpose of producing illicit fentanyl. We acknowledged that, and we changed it. I would again stress that the waivers are available to the President in the event the country ought to get those waivers. So let me remind my colleagues that this is the worst drug crisis in American history. Fentanyl is at the heart of it. We should hold accountable countries that are not doing enough to stop this poison from leaving their country and coming into ours. I am not asking for passage here and now, but I am asking for a vote. Let's have an up-or-down vote. I would be happy to set the vote at a 60-vote threshold. Let's send a message to any country in the world that there will be consequences for them if they choose to go down this road. With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside amendment No. 862 and call up my amendment No. 900.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, very briefly, I hope the Senator from New Jersey will continue to engage with us. There is a possibility that we are not as far apart as it may appear. Let me be very clear. It is an absolute fact that every country in the world would not be affected by this legislation at all. Whoever at the State Department suggested that chose not to read the language or chose not to understand it. Our legislation would affect a very narrow category of countries that are determined by our State Department to be major sources of fentanyl. At the moment, there is a grand total of one that I am aware of that would qualify for that designation. Nothing else flows from this. There are no consequences unless you first meet that criteria. So that alone makes it obvious that it couldn't possibly apply to every country in the world. I would also underscore the categories of aid that would be subject to being withheld in the event that a country is, in fact, a source of fentanyl and is not cooperating with us--our economic development grants, development finance aid, health aid, agricultural aid and military aid are all forms of aid that I think are entirely reasonable to withhold. The categories that I think the Senator from New Jersey is concerned about we exclude from the risk of being withheld, because I acknowledged the Senator's point. There are categories of foreign aid that don't go to foreign governments. They go to NGOs. They go to folks on the ground who are actually advancing a cause we believe in. For instance, there is the democracy development fund. We wouldn't affect that even if a country is a major source of illicit fentanyl and not cooperating with us fully. We recognize that this category of funding doesn't help that government. It helps us with the hope that we could change that government. I am not convinced that we are as far apart as it may appear to be. I would remind everyone that I am only seeking a vote. I am not asking for unanimous consent for the amendment itself. I hope we can get back to the business of actually debating substance and voting in this body. Sometimes the minority leader has suggested that we have become a graveyard of legislation. Well, I am just proposing that we have a debate and have a vote. I hope we can get to that.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, later today I believe the Senate will be considering nominations of three Board members for the Export-Import Bank, and this is a very important and, I think, unfortunate development. Since 2015, the Ex-Im Bank Board has not had a quorum. The confirmation of these three nominees will change that and give them a quorum, and that matters for a number of reasons. Perhaps the principle reason is that in the absence of a quorum, such as the way we have been operating for these last 4\1/2\ years, the Ex-Im Board cannot approve transactions without a quorum, and it requires Ex-Im Board approval to do a deal over $10 million. So for these last 4\1/2\ years, the Export- Import Bank has been in existence and operating, but at a very much smaller level than what it had done previously, and what, I am afraid, it will again resume. Let me explain why I oppose confirming this quorum to the Board of the Export-Import Bank. First of all, as I will explain, I think that with a quorum there is a very real risk that the Ex-Im Bank returns to business as usual, which is a form of crony capitalism and taxpayer subsidy of companies far and wide. Historically, the fact is the Ex-Im Bank has used the American taxpayer to subsidize some of the largest and best connected companies in the world, including governments that are very unfriendly to the United States. So I want to describe my policy objections to the Ex-Im. I want to rebut some of the arguments that proponents of the Ex-Im Bank make. I want to walk through a little history to remind my colleagues about the folks who have blocked what I think are very commonsense efforts to make some meaningful reforms. Then, finally, I do want to discuss a path forward. So let me walk through my concerns, my objections to the way Ex-Im Bank has operated in the past when it is in full-blown operation mode and with a quorum on the Board. First of all, it has been a series of risky bets for taxpayers. The Ex-Im has sometimes claimed it only takes risks that private lenders are unable or unwilling to take. Well, we should stop right there and ask ourselves, if private lenders are unwilling or unable to take a risk, why should taxpayers be forced to take that risk? Yet, at the same time, the Ex-Im Bank also claims it only makes safe bets. Well, it is impossible to do both. The Bank cannot take only those transactions so risky that no one else will do it and at the same time be doing only safe transactions. It is pretty obvious. The fact is, Ex-Im Bank wins business by systemically underpricing the risk. That is why borrowers go to the Ex-Im Bank, instead of any number of private lenders that would not offer deals on the same terms as the Ex-Im Bank. No, because they have shareholders to answer to--Ex-Im Bank, not so much. Proponents of the Ex-Im Bank point out that the Bank isn't drawing any money from the U.S. Treasury so everything must be OK--not so clear. First of all, right now we have the best economy in decades. My goodness. I would hope they would not be drawing on Treasury with an economy booming the way it is. As recently as 2014, the last year in which the Ex-Im Bank was fully operational, the CBO report suggested that the Ex-Im portfolio, their loans and guarantees on their books, were underwater by $2 billion. Remember, we have heard this before. Remember, Fannie and Freddie, two other inventions of the Federal Government. They were very profitable until they weren't. Then they ended up costing the taxpayers $200 billion. Another objection I have is the fact that Ex-Im Bank necessarily picks winners and losers in our economy. I don't think any entity of the Federal Government ought to be doing it. It is a great deal for businesses that get the support of Ex-Im Bank, but it provides an unfair advantage to beneficiaries over companies that do not get that support. In the process, it can destroy jobs. This isn't just hypothetical; this is real. This has happened, and we know it because we have heard testimony. We have seen examples. One famous such example is a case where Air India, the national airline of the country of India, used Ex-Im Bank financing to subsidize its purchase of Boeing jets. That is very nice for Air India because they get lower cost financing on their biggest ticket item, the jets they fly. They were able to lower the fares they charge on flights from New York to Mumbai. That is great if you are Air India. It is not so great if you are Delta Airlines, an American company that employs Americans and happens to compete on that exact same route, but Delta could not get access to Ex- Im financing to buy its Boeing jets. Why would we do a thing like that, have taxpayers subsidizing a foreign airline that is competing directly against a U.S. airline? That is the kind of thing Ex-Im does. There is also a history of waste, fraud, and abuse. Ex-Im Bank has not been very well run for a long period of time. Over many years, there have been a number of issues raised by the Office of the Inspector General. Ironically enough, supporters of Ex-Im Bank have blocked my efforts to get a new inspector general confirmed. Makes you wonder, why do these proponents not want an inspector general on the job inspecting the practices of the Ex-Im Bank? In 2015, an employee pled guilty to accepting bribes to push unqualified loan applications. Maybe one of the most fundamental reasons I object to the Ex-Im Bank is our economy doesn't need the Ex-Im Bank. Now, some Ex-Im supporters would have you believe that without the Ex-Im Bank, U.S. exports would just collapse. Well, the reality is, U.S. exports are higher today than they were in 2014, certainly, the last year when the Ex-Im Bank was fully functional. As a matter of fact, now, you know, 4\1/2\ years since the Ex-Im Bank was fully functional, we have the strongest economy of our lifetime, despite the fact that the Ex-Im can only do tiny transactions. This is no surprise because, even in its heyday, Ex-Im financed a very tiny percentage of all U.S. exports. Typically, it is less than 2 percent. So 98-point- something percent of all U.S. exports managed to get sold without Ex-Im financing, but yet we are to believe that without Ex-Im financing we cannot have exports? Interestingly, even the companies that benefited the most from Ex-Im Bank haven't apparently suffered since it has been virtually closed. Consider the case of Boeing. According to a Mercatus study, Boeing was the biggest seller of exports financed with Ex-Im subsidies in 2014, the last year in which Ex-Im was fully functional, and nearly 40 percent of all Ex-Im deals by dollar value were used to finance Boeing aircraft. Now, the Ex-Im proponents often argued that companies like Boeing would take a huge hit without a fully functioning Ex-Im. Instead, Boeing has consistently had record deliveries and multiyear back orders since Ex-Im stopped doing deals that would finance Boeing aircraft. In fact, during the years that Ex-Im Bank has been virtually closed, Boeing has recorded record sales. In late 2018, prior to the recent problems they have had with one category of aircraft, the Wall Street Journal reported that Boeing suppliers could not keep up with the huge demand for Boeing aircraft, despite the fact that nobody could finance an aircraft from Boeing through the Ex-Im Bank. Now, why? Why is that? How could that be? It is because Boeing was making great products; demand was strong; and there is plenty of private capital available to finance great products being used for very productive purposes. I think Boeing is proof that the Ex-Im Bank wasn't acting as the lender of last resort, filling in where private markets could not or would not. Ex-Im Bank was acting as the lender of first resort, crowding out the private sector lenders. As soon as the Ex-Im Bank's funding was constrained so it would not fund aircraft, well, private money came flooding into the market. Yet we still have proponents argue that Ex-Im Bank is the lender of last resort, steps in when private financing is unavailable, but, again, no matter how you look at it, this just doesn't add up. It doesn't add up in the example of Boeing, when we look at an American manufacturer that sells its products, and, in the past, some of those purchases were funded through the Ex-Im Bank, but it also doesn't hold up if you look at it the other way around. Look at who, in 2014--again, the last year in which the Ex-Im Bank was fully functional--were the top recipients of the Ex-Im taxpayer subsidies, who was it that was borrowing the money so they could make these purchases? Well, it was all entities that have easy access to private money but some pretty surprising entities, nevertheless. The No. 1 borrower, the No. 1 consumer of U.S. taxpayer subsidies through Ex-Im Bank was Petroleos Mexicanos, a state-owned oil company in Mexico. It is a huge company from a really large country that can easily access private markets. Do you know who is No. 2? Kenya Airways. Kenya Airways, owned by the Government of, you guessed it, Kenya. Do you know who is No. 3? Air China, of all places, a totally state- owned airline of a country that last time I checked is not terribly friendly to us, but it gets worse. Do you know who ranks No. 4? No. 4 in terms of accessing Ex-Im financing in 2014--the last year in which they were fully operational-- according to a study by the Mercatus Institute, the VNE Bank, state owned by the Russian Government, by the way, under sanctions now for bad behavior they have engaged in. So all four of these are state owned in States that have easy access to plenty of private lending, but, of course, they go to Ex-Im because Ex-Im will offer them a better deal, a subsidized deal. No. 5 is a good one too. No. 5 is not a state-owned company. No. 5 is Roy Hill mining. Royal Hill Holdings owns mining. It is not state owned. Instead, it is owned by the richest woman in Australia, a multibillionaire. Are we to really presume that she cannot arrange for financing for part of her enormous conglomerate? Really, the richest woman in Australia? She is probably a really lovely woman. This is not a criticism of her; it is a criticism of us. We are going to allow U.S. taxpayers to take more risks underpricing and funding acquisitions by some of the richest people in the world and countries that are downright hostile to us. Of course, all of these governments and all of these companies can finance their acquisitions privately, but who would not take a U.S. taxpayer subsidy if it is offered to you? The question is, Why are we OK with that? How can it be OK to force American taxpayers to take a financial risk for these entities, state-owned companies, including those owned by China and Russia? It is unbelievable. My concern is, if we restore a quorum later today, we are going to go right back to this because we haven't enacted any reforms. We haven't insisted on any reforms as a condition of reestablishing this quorum. We hear sometimes from the proponents that we just have to have Ex- Im funding because it has to level the playing field. China has an export subsidy bank. They have used that aggressively, and so we ought to emulate the Chinese so we will have a level playing field. Well, among the unbelievable ironies in this whole story, guess who is a big recipient of U.S. Ex-Im subsidies? It is the Chinese export bank. You cannot make this stuff up. That is a fact. It is not just Air China. It is not just the state-owned airline. In 2014--again, the last year in which Ex-Im was fully operational, which apparently they are going to return to--there were 17 transactions where the primary borrower is the Export-Import Bank of China. So here we are, we are funding the Chinese export bank, which we cite as the reason we need an export bank. It is unbelievable. In 2014, the Ex-Im Bank also funded a deal with Huawei, which we have all come to appreciate is a very significant national security threat to the entire Western world, especially the United States. Of course, what more can you say about subsidizing Russian- or state-owned businesses? There were multiple deals back in 2014 where the Ex-Im Bank funded Russia. I already mentioned VNE Bank, now sanctioned, and two deals with Spur Bank, also sanctioned. In any case, I think this whole argument, that if some other country is engaged in this behavior, therefore, we have to--I think that is a really weak argument. Think of all the things the Chinese Government does, intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer, bribery, and corruption. As a matter of fact, in Malaysia, the previous corrupt Government of Malaysia stole billions of money from an investment fund, and China offered to use their Ex-Im Bank to help cover up the graft, which indirectly we were facilitating by doing transactions with that Chinese Ex-Im Bank. I trust that supporters of the Bank do not want the U.S. to emulate all of these kinds of nefarious activities. I am sure they do not, but the same argument could apply. So with all of these concerns in mind, I have been advocating for reform of the Ex-Im Bank since joining the Senate. Let me be clear. I would rather not have an Ex-Im Bank, but if we are going to have one, and if we are going to reconstitute a Board and allow them to do large- scale business, I think, at a minimum, we ought to make some sensible reforms. Unfortunately, proponents of Ex-Im Bank in this body and in the other body have blocked almost every effort to do so. One small reform that many of us have been clamoring for, for years, would be to have the administration, whatever administration, work to pursue a mutual disarmament. The argument that we hear most frequently is we need Ex-Im Bank because other countries have export-subsidizing banks. Well, OK, how about having a mutual negotiation to phase these out, right? Well, the Obama administration did absolutely nothing about it, and we have a lot of trade talks going on right now under this administration. I have not heard one word about encouraging a wind down of everybody's mutually unfortunate export subsidy vehicles. That brings me to the history of the nomination. A while back, President Trump nominated Scott Garrett, a very well qualified, bright, and capable guy, and an avowed reformist. He was a skeptic about Ex-Im Bank but was committed to executing his responsibilities as President under the charter and under the law but was going to insist on reforms. By the way, had Scott Garrett been confirmed, Ex-Im would probably be up and running now. But the proponents of the Bank didn't want the reforms, apparently, so they scratched Scott Garrett's nomination. Despite that, I continued to try to find a reasonable way forward. One of the things I proposed was confirming Kim Reed as President. Let me say a word about Kim. I think she is a very capable person. She is very intelligent, very knowledgeable, and has a terrific reputation and great integrity. My proposal was to confirm Kim Reed because she has committed to the kinds of meaningful reforms the Bank needs. She and I and my staff walked through six very specific categories of reform. We did that privately in my office. We did that publicly at the Banking hearing. We talked about adding transparency to how the Ex-Im Bank operates. We talked about taxpayer protections that would be implemented to reduce the risks taxpayers currently take. We agreed that we should move in the direction of protecting domestic companies, such as the example I gave where Delta was put at a competitive disadvantage against Air India. We agreed we should encourage private financing to be first in line rather than the Ex-Im Bank. We agreed that we should be cracking down on any bad actors. We also agreed that there should be a mutual reduction in reliance on credit export agencies globally. On that basis, I was willing to confirm Kim Reed and give her a chance to implement some of these reforms and prove they are actually being implemented, at which point I would support restoring a quorum so that a reformed Ex-Im would be back in business. But that deal was blocked by proponents of the Ex-Im Bank here in this body. It is very hard to conclude anything other than that those folks never want these reforms to take place. I am still open to working with the new President when she is confirmed, and the new Board. We have a reauthorization that is presumably on the agenda for later this year. But I am going to oppose all the nominees today because we are going ahead and putting the cart before the horse. We are reopening Ex-Im Bank on a full scale without first implementing the reforms, and that is backward. I appreciate the conversations I have had with Kim Reed, and I trust that she actually sincerely does want to implement some of these reforms. I hope she can. I look forward to working with her to make sure that if we do, in fact, go through a reauthorization process, it codifies the reforms that require codification. But I feel very strongly that we are doing this backward. That is the reason I am going to vote against all the nominees today. The Ex-Im Bank, unreformed, is an example of crony capitalism that puts U.S. taxpayers at risk and subsidizes some pretty unsavory characters. I am pretty disappointed that we are moving ahead with this today. I hope that at least we will be able to codify the necessary reforms in the reauthorization. I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, earlier today, the Senate invoked cloture on the nomination for the next Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The nominee is named Mark Calabria, and I just want to say he is an extraordinarily qualified and capable man. I hope this body will overwhelmingly confirm him. He is a Ph.D. economist. He has tremendous work experience in the field of housing finance, which of course is the domain of the Federal Housing Agency. He has worked at HUD, the Banking Committee, and now he is the chief economist to Vice President Pence. I am certainly looking forward to working with Dr. Calabria on housing finance reform, the great unfinished work of the financial crisis, and I urge my colleagues to vote to confirm him later today. Unrealized Gain Proposal Mr. President, I also wanted to say a few words about an idea that has been floated by one of our colleagues. The idea has been floated by my friend--he is my friend, and he is a good man--Senator Wyden from Oregon. He is the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, and he is a very good man with a very bad idea, and I want to explain why I believe the idea that he has floated is so mistaken. Fundamentally, his proposal is that we change our Tax Code so that we would impose taxes on unrealized investment gains every year. Currently, we impose taxes on investments only when the asset is sold. If an asset is purchased, it is later sold at a higher price. The difference is the gain, and we impose what we call a capital gains tax on that gain--but only when the gain is actually realized. Under Senator Wyden's proposal, if an asset goes up in value, even though it hasn't been sold, the fact that it has gone up in value would require that increase in value to be taxed. The investor would have to pay a tax. There is another element of his proposal, which is that these taxes that he wants to impose on these phantom gains would not be at the capital gains tax rate that is currently enforced but rather at personal income tax rates instead. The current capital gains rate is 23.8 percent. That is the top. That is the highest capital gains rate that is paid. The highest personal income tax rate in our Tax Code is 37 percent. So in some circumstances, this would be a huge tax increase. Let me explain why I think both of these are very bad ideas--taxing unrealized gains and taxing all gains at ordinary income rates. First of all, let's take the idea of taxes on unrealized gains. These are the paper gains. This is a market-to-market appreciation that is unrealized if the investor doesn't actually sell the asset. Well, there is a good reason that our system has never imposed taxes on unrealized gains; there are several, but one is the value of the asset could go back down. One very widely held asset in America is stocks--stocks that you can buy on an exchange, a share of a company--and stocks famously go up and down. So I think it strikes most people as unreasonable to force people to pay a tax on this notional gain on a stock without having sold it when that stock could go back down. The gain could be completely lost, but you would still pay the tax. There is another problem with this; that is, the tax would be imposed without a liquidity event for the investor. In other words, the investor hasn't sold the asset, doesn't have the cash. What if the investor doesn't have enough cash to pay the tax bill on it? This risk alone would have a chilling effect on investment. It would discourage people from making the investment in the first place because they would have to wonder and worry about what kind of tax bill they will incur even if they don't sell the asset. Yet another problem with this is the complexity and difficulty of actually implementing this. It is pretty easy to determine the value of a stock, but there are other categories of investment that are much more difficult to value, like real estate or a small business. So imagine an entrepreneur buys a small building and builds it out and creates a restaurant, and that is his business. He is operating a restaurant. It may be profitable; it may not be. But what if real estate values in that neighborhood happen to go up? Well, here you might have a struggling entrepreneur trying to make ends meet in his restaurant, and the IRS is going to come along and say: Oh, you owe us a whole lot of money because we think the land on which you are operating has gone up in value. What good does that do for the restaurant operator or the people working for him, the jobs being created? It is not a good idea at all. There is another aspect to Senator Wyden's proposal, and that is that he would use a higher rate. He would like the top rate of 37 percent to be imposed, at least in some cases, on these capital gains, whether or not realized. So the question is, Why do we have a lower tax rate on capital gains than we have on ordinary income, other sources of incomes? Well, there are several reasons for that, as well--good reasons. One is we don't exclude from our calculation of an investor's gain the component of that gain that is attributable only to inflation. Think about it. If you make an investment in something and the inflation rate is just 2 percent a year, well, 10 years later, that is going to nominally be worth like 25 percent more than it was when you bought it, but you don't have any real gain; that is just a reflection of the fact that dollars are worth less. So as a sort of rough justice for the fact that you nevertheless get taxed on the full gain, even the nominal gain, the gain that is not real, the gain that is just inflation, at least it is taxed at a lower rate to make up for that. There is another factor, and that is most investments are in an asset that itself generates income, and that income is taxed. So, for instance, a stock--a stock is a share of a company; a company has to pay tax. So imagine an investor who invests in a company and that company makes $100 of income. That is the profit for the business. Well, the first thing that business has to do is pay 21 percent of that to Uncle Sam. That is the tax on corporate income. Well, that leaves $79 left over for the investors, and the investor has to pay 23.8 percent on that. That works out to about $19. So at the end of the day, on a $100 hundred gain, the investor is able to go home with only $60. That is a 40-percent effective tax rate to the investor, despite the fact that the nominal rate applied on the investor's gain is only 23.8 percent. The combination--and that is what you really have to look at-- is more like 40 percent. That is higher than any individual income tax rate that we have in our entire code. Of course, a gain on such an asset occurs only when investors generally believe that the after-tax value has gone up. So I think it would be a big mistake to go down this road. I think it would be a big mistake to tax unrealized gains. As it is now, gains are taxed. They are taxed at the time in which they are actually earned-- they are actually realized--and it would be a mistake to raise the tax on this. Both of these ideas, and certainly in combination, would absolutely, certainly have a chilling effect on investment. They would diminish the willingness of people to invest in new businesses, in growing business, in startup business, and a chilling effect on investment means a chilling effect on economic growth. So this proposal, I think, is misguided. It comes at a time when the tax reform that we have recently passed, which actually encourages investment, is clearly working. Our tax reform has generated a tremendous surge in investment in equipment, in technology, in new business. We have seen tremendous growth in our overall economy as a result. In 2018, our economy grew at 3 percent--the best since 2005. With a strong, growing economy, we have seen terrific results for the people we all represent. Unemployment is at its lowest rate in 50 years. African-American unemployment is the lowest that has ever been recorded; Hispanic unemployment, the lowest ever recorded; youth unemployment, the lowest rate in many decades. Wages are now growing more rapidly than they have in over 10 years, and they are accelerating, and the wage growth is strongest among lower income workers. Clearly, the reforms we implemented have been an incentive for more investment, and that has led to more growth. I sure wouldn't want to see us do anything that would disrupt the fact that we have created an environment where there is now so much opportunity and where work is paying so much more than it has before. As I said, Senator Wyden is a good man, but this is a bad idea. I certainly hope we don't move in this direction. I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise today to mark a very special day for the Sikh religion and the Sikh community across America and in Pennsylvania--and this is the holiday of Vaisakhi. Although the youngest among the major religions of the world, Sikhism has emerged as a distinct socio-religious community. By the numbers, it is, I believe, the sixth largest religion in the world, with 30 million adherents worldwide, and approximately 700,000 Sikhs have chosen to make their home in the United States. A large number of those Sikhs live in my State of Pennsylvania. In fact, there are several Sikh places of worship across Pennsylvania. They are known as a Gurdwara, and they are located in and around Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Allentown, and Erie. Sikhism itself was founded in the 15th century in South Asia on the principles of equality, justice, and respect for all human beings. Sikhs pray twice a day--in the morning and in the evening--and they pray for the welfare of mankind. Over a period of 239 years, Sikhism was established by 10 gurus. The first among them was Guru Nanak. These gurus were learned, spiritual guides devoted to improving the moral well-being of their followers and the communities in which they lived. In 1699, the 10th and final guru--Gobind Singh--founded a fellowship of soldier saints called the Khalsa Panth. Today, Sikhs celebrate this occasion with the holiday that they call Vaisakhi. This year, Sikhs across the United States and around the world will celebrate Vaisakhi on April 14. For Sikhs, Vaisakhi is a very special time. It is a special time to celebrate and share their faith with their friends and their neighbors. The occasion is marked by dancing and parades. Everyone is welcome to attend these celebrations, and they attract Americans from all religious, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds. Vaisakhi celebrations are a really vibrant affair, and members of the Sikh community wear bright orange or yellow festive clothes to mark the occasion. These colors represent the spirit and the joy of the celebration. It is interesting to note that when Vaisakhi is celebrated in the Sikh homeland of Punjab, the gold and yellow wheat fields are ready to be harvested. This year, the Sikh Coordination Committee East Coast has organized a parade in Washington, DC, on April 6 to commemorate Vaisakhi as National Sikh Day. The theme of the parade is Sikh identity, Sikh culture, and the Sikh way of life. Thousands of Sikhs from all over the United States will be here participating and celebrating. I came here this morning because I want to add my voice as one wishing the Sikh community great luck and great joy at this parade and in the very joyous celebration of Vaisakhi. I yield the floor.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss two economic issues this evening. The first is a reaction to a proposal that comes to us from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Let me preface this with the observation that I am pretty sure we are living through the strongest economy in the United States in my adult lifetime. It has been fantastic for the people I represent. Our unemployment rate is pretty much at a 50-year low. African- American and Hispanic unemployment is the lowest that has ever been recorded. The youth unemployment rate is extremely low. It is at historically low levels. Our economy has accelerated, and wages are growing exactly as we said they would. It is very simple. The demand for workers has grown so much that employers are being forced to bid ever higher for the services of the workers. Now we are in a tremendously enviable position of having more job openings in America than there are people looking for work in America. It is fantastic. This is exactly what we want to have happen. Last week, the President was right when he said that our economy is the envy of the world. It is totally true. So what do our colleagues on the other side of the aisle propose to do in light of the fact that we have this fantastic economy? Well, Senator Sanders and Senator Schumer joined up and made a proposal that we adopt legislation that would severely restrict the ability of American companies to buy back their own stock. This is just the latest iteration of a socialist tendency that seems to be growing on the far left. This is a horrendous idea. I suppose we shouldn't be surprised when we hear a Socialist-leaning idea coming from a self-described Democratic Socialist or a Socialist Democrat--whatever the description is--but I am surprised to hear this coming from the Senate minority leader. Let's talk about this a little bit. First of all, what is a stock buyback? It is not that complicated. It is when the owners of a company take some or all of their money out of the company. Let's think about it this way. A business is owned by its shareholders, and the shareholders hire a management team to take their money and invest it in a way that will generate a return for the investor, for the shareholder. That is the role of the management team. So why would they buy back their own stock? The reason they would buy back their own stock is that sometimes it happens that the management team of a company is just not able to deploy any more capital in a way that would generate a better return than what is generally available in the marketplace. What sometimes happens is companies might make huge investments; they may be investing tremendous amounts--record amounts-- in expanding their capabilities, expanding their production, more R&D, and expanding their staff, but they can reach a limit as to how much they can expand and how much they productively invest at any given point. If they have more money--more cash--than they can productively deploy, they have an obligation to return that to the people who actually own it; that is, the shareholders, the investors. That is their obligation. Shockingly, Senators Sanders and Schumer are suggesting that companies be forbidden from being able to return some portion of their excess capital to their shareholders unless the company first complies with a list of political demands that Senators Schumer and Sanders are advocating. Let me tell you why this is such a bad idea. I will give you three reasons. No. 1, it is a disturbing and profound attack on freedom. No. 2, it would be terrible for the economy. And, No. 3, it would hurt the very people they presumably intend to help. Let me go through them in order. First of all, as far as freedom goes, whose company is it? To whom does a given company in America belong? I have always thought they belonged to the shareholders of those companies--the people who saved up and invested in them, the people who have launched those companies, and the people whose capital made it possible. So, of course, it should be within the rights of the people who own a company to decide what to do with the profits after all expenses have been covered and taxes have been paid. That is what we are talking about here. I have a question for my colleagues. The question is, What principle confers on politicians the right to control whether and when and under what circumstances an investor can withdraw his own money from a business in which he invested? I don't know what that principle is. I will say, to me, it seems exactly equivalent to confiscating the property of somebody--in this case, their ownership in a business--and redistributing that confiscated asset to whomever they choose. That strikes me as pretty close to the definition of socialism. It clearly is an attack on the economic freedom that underpins our entire economy, an entire market economy. My second point, and related, is this would be terrible for the economy. It would do great harm to an economy that is doing quite well right now. The main way it would be so damaging is it would scare away capital. Just stop and think about it. Our economy thrives when people are willing to invest in existing businesses, in new businesses, and in startup businesses, but that investment is an absolutely essential part of a thriving economy. Well, people are much less likely to make an investment if Congress makes it harder to take that investment out. So what we would do is we would dry up sources of capital for companies that need that capital because investors would understandably say: Well, we are heading down the road of putting all kinds of limits on my ability to ever get my money out. I think it may be good to just park it and not invest it. That would be a very bad development. The proponents of this idea of restricting companies this way say they want to ``incentivize productive investment.'' I have to laugh because I have a secret for our colleagues. You see, the free enterprise system already provides an incentive for productive investment. It is called the profit. That is the whole idea. So we don't need to punish people for making an investment as a way to incentivize productive investment. In fact, it will not work at all. I think some of what they have argued displays a little bit of confusion about how this works. In their argument about why something has to be done, they say that 90 percent of profits go to buybacks and dividends. What else would you use it for? I mean, you first have to cover all of your expenses before you have a profit. So you could have record amounts of research and development, record amounts of expansion, records amounts of employment, and growth in employment, but after all of that is covered, only then do you have the profit. That is what is left over. And after you have covered all of those things, why wouldn't you have buybacks and a distribution to the investors? That raises this question: Exactly what problem is it that our colleagues think they are solving here? We are running at record high levels of investment in our economy. Capital expenditures have gone through the roof in response partly--largely--due to the change in the tax law that we made. The buybacks that have been occurring have coincided with record levels of investment. What is the problem here? By the way, as I pointed out earlier, wage growth has accelerated at the highest rate we have seen in many, many years. I really don't understand what problem they think we are solving. By the way, there is an alternative to distributing excess capital to shareholders. The alternative is keeping the capital trapped in the company where it is not being put to its most productive use. You see, one of the great dynamics of a market economy is that by returning excess capital to shareholders, the shareholders get to decide what new idea deserves to be funded by recycling this capital. Whether it is in the form of dividends or stock buybacks, we encourage this capital to find a new home--a new startup, a new idea, or an expansion of an existing business. The capital is constantly being redirected to the best ideas, as long as you allow it to happen. Finally, this idea would be very harmful to the people it is, presumably, meant to help. About 40 percent of all equities in the United States are held in pension and retirement accounts. These are the accounts of teachers and cabdrivers and truckdrivers and folks who work at factories and do every other job that our economy depends on, who put a little money away. It may be in a 401(k) plan, in an IRA, or in an employer-sponsored pension plan; these folks own an awful lot of the stock in America. Well, buybacks are good for their investment because, in some cases, it returns cash that can then be redeployed. In other cases, it provides a bid; it provides upward pressure on the stock price, which is good for the value of their savings. Over time, if the stock gets retired, then the diminished supply gets that much greater a share of all of the future earnings. This is completely a win-win for savers and investors. Let me just conclude by saying it is a very, very bad idea for America to take any steps down the road toward socialism. This is very much an idea of that ilk. In fact, it is a big step in the direction of a collectivist socialist economy, and we should reject this out of hand. U.S. Trade Mr. President, I also want to touch on an unrelated topic, but it is an important one; that is, the ongoing discussion we are having in this Congress and across the country with respect to trade. I think most of us in this Chamber agree that international trade is very good for the United States. I know it is very good for Pennsylvania. I think we all understand that if we impose tariffs on imported goods, that is a tax that American consumers have to pay on a product or a service just because it originates somewhere else. If you add up the impact of the tariffs that this administration has already applied, according to the Congressional Budget Office, that is already going to take one-tenth of a percent off of our GDP, off of our economic growth. That is assuming no further tariffs occur, which is unknown at this point. In particular, I want to address a category of tariffs that are known as section 232 tariffs because that is the part of the trade law which justifies these tariffs. This is an old law. It is a Cold War-era trade law that is designed to allow a President to impose tariffs when he believes there is a national security threat that requires these tariffs, these taxes on some foreign product for some reason that affects our national security. In my view, the recent imposition of these 232 tariffs on aluminum and steel were not really about national security. They had other motives and other purposes, and, in my view, they have done much more harm than good. If you look at tariffs on imported steel, you might believe that it is helpful to the people who are in the steel industry. We have about 140,000 Americans employed at steel mills. It is possible that the tariffs are helpful to those companies and those employees at some level. The problem is, we have 6.5 million people in companies that use many, many multiples, and everybody who works in that sector of our economy across a wide range of industries is put at a competitive disadvantage when they have to pay that tax on imported steel and aluminum. Some examples come to mind. Allegheny Technologies is a company in western Pennsylvania that last year had to pay $16 million in taxes on the steel they imported. They had no choice but to import it because of the unique nature of that steel. It is threatening one of their production facilities. American Keg is the only steel keg maker in the United States and makes beer kegs in Pennsylvania. They had to lay off one-third of their workers in March of last year because they are not as competitive as they need to be. Colonial Metal Products is a small manufacturer. They use steel in fabrication. Their entire workforce is at risk. The list goes on and on because fundamentally these taxes make many companies that use steel and aluminum less competitive. That is not the only problem. As we all know, many American exporters are subject to retaliation by companies that experience these tariffs. So there are a lot of problems. I have introduced legislation that is meant to address this. One aspect of this that I think is very important is that the Constitution unambiguously assigns to Congress the responsibility for managing our economic relations--our competing trade relations with other countries. In the Constitution, that explicitly includes the responsibility for deciding whether and to what extent we should impose tariffs on the products of other countries. Yet for years Congress has just let administration after administration take this responsibility that the Constitution gives to us. So what my legislation does is pretty simple. It says, let's restore to Congress the responsibility that the Constitution gives to Congress. Let's make sure that national security-related tariffs are only imposed when Congress says they should be imposed. The legislation has 11 original cosponsors, roughly even between Republicans and Democrats. Senator Warner is the lead Democrat on this bill, and Senators Sasse and Hassan are also original cosponsors. Four of the cosponsors are from the Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over this issue. There is the House companion, which is also bipartisan. There are 61 organizations, business groups and others, that have endorsed this from the outside. It is important to make the point that our legislation, while it is designed to restore to Congress this important responsibility, doesn't eliminate the ability of a President to invoke section 232 and impose tariffs if there is a genuine threat to American security. What the President needs to do is explain the threat, make the case to the Congress, and under our legislation, there is a mechanism that requires expedited consideration of the President's request. It can't be filibustered. It doesn't take 60 votes. There is a strict timeline. So this can't languish on a shelf somewhere; Congress has to respond. One other feature that is important in this bill is that the executive branch determination of whether there is a threat to national security would no longer be conducted by the Commerce Department, as it is now; it would move to the Department of Defense. My view on that is very simple. The Department of Defense is the entity within our executive branch that is best qualified to determined threats to our national security. I am hopeful that we will grow our support and be able to get a vote on this legislation. I should point out that there are other legislative approaches. There are other ideas on 232. There is one bill that, like mine, would shift the responsibility for evaluating the threat from the Commerce Department to the Defense Department, but the difference with some of these other pieces of legislation is they contemplate a disapproval resolution. They simply observe that Congress can pass a law to prevent or rescind a 232 designation, but these alternative bills would do nothing to restore that responsibility to Congress today. We could pass a law if we had the votes, and we could override a Presidential veto. We could pass a law to rescind any kind of tariff. The alternative legislation doesn't change that fact. What my legislation does is it would require the affirmative consent of Congress before the tariffs can go into place. That is a fundamental difference. So I think, for the sake of expanding trade, but importantly, in my mind, for the sake of restoring the constitutional responsibility that is assigned to Congress, we ought to pass this legislation. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Tuesday, February 12; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of S. 47 and that the Senate recess from 12 noon until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings; finally, that all time during recess, adjournment, morning business, and leader remarks count postcloture on S. 47.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. Thereupon, the Senate, at 7:24 p.m., adjourned until Tuesday, February 12, 2019, at 10 a.m.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the FIRST STEP Act. I think this is a very important bill and important legislation. A lot of people have worked very hard on it, and there are only good intentions behind this legislation. I know it is an attempt to improve our criminal justice system generally, to reduce recidivism among offenders, and to increase public safety. Those are the goals. I am sympathetic to all of those goals, and I am seriously considering supporting this act. I want to see how this amendment process plays out, but I recognize that a lot of good work has been done here. I want to begin by saying that I am also sympathetic to the legitimate concerns that have been raised about this legislation by law enforcement officers. I have spoken with people across Pennsylvania who protect us every day who have some concerns about this. I am glad to see there were changes made along the way--changes that address some of the serious concerns I and others have raised. I think there is still room for more improvement. That is why I support the three modest amendments Senators Cotton and Kennedy have proposed. One of the amendments will simply ensure that all violent felons-- such as carjackers and criminals who assault law enforcement officers and sex offenders--will not be eligible for the earned time credit. That is a good amendment, in my view. A further feature is to notify victims of crimes before the prisoner who committed the crime is released. I think that is a reasonable provision for victims, to give them a chance to have their voice heard before the perpetrator is released. Finally, another feature is to simply require the Department of Justice to track the outcomes. Let's make sure we know a few years from now, if this passes and is signed into law, whether we have reduced the recidivism rate. We should have that information. These are commonsense amendments. I support them and urge my colleagues to do likewise. My real purpose is to highlight one of the amendments I have filed and hope I am going to be able to get a vote on. My amendment concerns especially victims of crime but specifically victims of child abuse, sexual assault, domestic violence, and other violent crimes, and the need to end Congress's longstanding injustice to these victims. The FIRST STEP Act does a lot, especially for people who have committed crimes. Unfortunately, it doesn't do anything that I am aware of for the victims of crimes. These two things are not mutually exclusive. We have an opportunity here with this amendment to address something very substantive we can do for crime victims. Specifically, Congress should stop what I think is an unconscionable annual raid on the Crime Victims Fund. Since fiscal year 2000, Congress has diverted literally billions of dollars from the Crime Victims Fund by using a budget gimmick to withhold money from victims and the organizations that help victims. Here is how it works: Every year, the Crime Victims Fund collects money from Federal criminal fines and penalties. There is no taxpayer money involved. These are criminal fines that result from convictions. The fund was created in 1984 with a very simple principle in mind; that is, the money the Federal Government collects from those convicted of a crime ought to be used to help those who are victimized by the crime. Under the Federal statutes, the money collected in 1 year is supposed to be disbursed to victims of crime the next year. Unfortunately, starting in 1999, Congress began to systematically withhold some of the money that is supposed to go to the victims, effectively shortchanging the victims--people who, through no fault of their own, were victims of a crime. You might ask, why would people do a thing like that? The reason it is done is because the Federal Government has bizarre and ridiculous budgetary rules. One of them holds that when you shortchange victims of crime this way, when you refuse to allocate the criminal penalties to victims as you are supposed to, you get to pretend for budgetary purposes that you are saving taxpayer money. It is totally untrue. It is not factually saving taxpayer money at all, but you get to pretend that it is. So in pretending that those savings have been achieved, it allows you to spend more money elsewhere, and there are few things Congress likes better than spending money. So this money, which is supposed to go to victims of crime, is instead spent on completely unrelated discretionary items in appropriations bills year after year. How much, you might ask, does this matter? Does this actually add up to anything meaningful? Astoundingly, over the last two decades of this practice, Congress has used this gimmick to add $82 billion in unrelated Federal spending that has all gone to increase our deficit and our debt, all because every year they withheld money that was supposed to go to victims of crime. Where did it go? The money could go to anything that Congress decides to spend it on, anything in the Commerce-Justice-Science approps bill. I will give one example. In 2014, Congress gave victims less than 6 percent of the money they were supposed to give to victims of crime-- again, not taxpayer money; criminal penalty money. It used the remaining $11.8 billion for other spending. That year, the CJS bill funded $360,000 for a NASA study that paid individuals $18,000 to lie in bed for 70 days, $1.75 million for a PBS documentary to promote a New York Times bestselling book, and $150,000 so that a game designer could develop a zombie-fighting web game. These are just a few examples. This is beyond egregious. Because of this disgraceful behavior on the part of Congress, it has been much more difficult for victims of crime to receive the services they are supposed to get. A lot of the Crime Victim Fund goes to people who are helping some of the most vulnerable in our society. Now, in part because this money is not fully allocated as it should be, abused children sometimes have to wait weeks before they can receive the full medical and emotional services and care they need. There are rape victims who are not able to obtain the prophylactic medications they need to prevent them from contracting HIV/AIDS. Victims fleeing domestic violence are often unable to find a bed for themselves and their children. This is all because Congress refuses to allocate the money it is supposed to allocate to these victims. We can fix this. We can fix it. We can fix it this afternoon. In fairness, in the past few years, the extent of this gimmickry, this terrible practice, has diminished, and I give a lot of credit to Senator Shelby. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee has decided to increase the appropriations in recent years to something approximating where it should be. But still there are billions that have not been allocated to victims, and there is no guarantee whatsoever that the next year, the year after, or at any point in time, Congress won't resume massively shortchanging victims as it has in the past. What I think we need is a permanent solution to this, and my amendment will provide the fix we need. It is identical to a bill I have already introduced, which is called the Fairness for Crime Victims Act of 2018. This bill is endorsed by many, many victim advocacy groups. Last year, virtually identical legislation was unanimously passed out of the Budget Committee. Let me say that again. Not a single Republican, not a single Democrat opposed my legislation in the Budget Committee. All it does is returns honesty to the Crime Victims Fund by ensuring a steady stream of funds--the very funds from criminals that are supposed to go to victims and their advocates. It would simply ensure that they get what they are supposed to get. As the Senate considers the FIRST STEP Act, I think we should take this opportunity to end this unconscionable raid on the Crime Victims Fund. If we are going to do something to help criminals, we should also do something to help victims. All I am asking for is that we have a vote on this. If people disagree with me and they think we should continue this practice, OK, vote no, but let's have a vote. At a moment when we are doing so much for criminals, I think it is reasonable to do something for victims. Unanimous Consent Request--Amendment No. 4120 Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 4120.