vote:

the presiding officer: on is this vote, the yeas are 52, the nays are 40, the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the negotiation to reconsider is considered laid -- considered and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of wendy welcomes berger, of florida, to be united states district judge for the middle district of florida. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that the nomination of wendy welcomes berger, of florida, to be united

states district judge for the middle district of florida? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 55. the nays are 37. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, william williams -- wendy williams berger of florida to be united states district judge for the middle district of florida. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call -- the clerk will

report the motion. the clerk: we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close the nomination of brian c. buescher of nebraska to be united states district judge for the district of nebraska. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of brian c. buescher of nebraska to be united states district judge for the district of nebraska shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: the presiding officer: have all senators voted? any senator wish to change this vote? the yeas are 52. the nays are 39. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: the judiciary, brian c. buescher of nebraska to be united states district judge for the district of nebraska.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: i have 12 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have been approved by the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. cornyn: mr. president, earlier this week the administration and house democrats reached a bipartisan budget deal to deliver on the president's priorities and prevent a funding crisis this fall. as our armed forces continue their global engagements, this agreement importantly secures the funding necessary to maintain readiness and modernize the force. it provides increased defense spending to recover from a depressed military readiness rates of the previous administration and provides our men and women in uniform with the resources, equipment, and

training they need in order to defend our freedoms. i know congress deals with a lot of different topics and all of them by and large are important. but there is nothing more important nor is there anything more quintessentially a federal government responsibility than national security. all other consideration aside, if this bipartisan budget deal did nothing more than fully fund our national security efforts, i would support it. but importantly, it also keeps other important elements of the congressional consensus intact. things like the hyde amendment, which, as the presiding officer knows since the late 1970's has insured that no taxpayer dollars can be used to fund abortions. in addition this agreement

prevents our democratic colleagues from trying to allow president trump from using funds to strengthen border security. secretary mnuchin negotiated a tough deal, one that excludes radical left-wing poison pills, a difficult task in these times to be sure. we know they wanted to use policy riders, nearly 30 of them and counting, to try to implement elements of the green new deal to undo the president's regulatory reforms or to rewrite our immigration laws through the back door. earlier this year their far-left policy riders led to the longest government shutdown in history and almost prevented the enactment of bipartisan border supplemental funding. i saw the devastating impact that shutdown had on dedicated public servants across the country, but especially in texas. this agreement will prevent another senseless shutdown and

ensure that the trains of government run on time. to be sure, no bipartisan agreement is ever perfect. that's the definition of a negotiation. both sides give a little. it's the nature of compromise, which is a necessary part of effective governing. there's no doubt that there are other priorities that i would have liked to have seen included in the deal. i wish we had done something to reform our entitlement programs which will continue to outpace inflation and increase our national deficit. some day we're going to have to deal with our deficits and debt, and i just hope it's not during the time of a national emergency. but as a practical matter, speaker pelosi wasn't going to agree with such far-reaching reforms in the context of this spending deal and debt limit provision.

but thankfully the president was able to secure half of the spending cuts he asked for, roughly equal to next year's nondefense spending -- next year's increase in nondefense spending. above all, this deal carries out the most critical responsibilities of the federal government to support our national defense and fully fund the government's operation. again, i appreciate the president's efforts here, and particularly those in his administration who helped negotiate this bipartisan deal, particularly secretary mnuchin. and i look forward to supporting it. mr. president, on another matter, last week the national center for health statistics released preliminary data showing that drug overdose deaths in america declined by about 5% last year. before anybody begins to applaud, let me point out that drug overdoses killed more than 70,000 americans the year before. so a 5% reduction is welcome but

obviously still very alarming. this 5% decline is the first national drop in three decades, though, and for communities across the country who continue to battle the opioid epidemic, it's a small indication that our efforts here in congress are having an impact. we certainly have a long fight ahead of us, but this is an encouraging sign. if you look closer, the data shows that the decline is due almost entirely to a decrease in prescription opioid-related deaths. those caused by other opioids, particularly fentanyl and heroin remained on thes rise. the cruel reality is that as we step up our efforts to limit prescription opioid diversion, the higher the demand for other illegal drugs, many of which come across our southern border. we can't limit our efforts to what can be done here at home in

order for our work to be successful, in order for us to save more lives, we have to stop this poison from entering our country in the first place. i have the honor of cochairing the senate caucus on international narcotics with senator dianne feinstein of california where we're working on ways to do exactly that, to slow down the poison from coming across our borders. if you look at many of the challenges we face here at home, whether it's the opioid epidemic, the humanitarian crisis at the border, the criminal gangs on our streets, much of that being directly traced to the violence that exists in central america and mexico. this morning i had the pleasure of speaking at the hudson institute about my proposal to attack this crisis from every angle, an all-government

approach, something we call the new america's recommitment to counter narcotics operations and strategy. as the presiding officer knows, we love a good acronym here in washington,d.c., so we can simply refer to this initiative as the narcos initiative. first it takes aim at the dangerous substances that are crossing our southern border. customs border and patrol protection officers are well trained to find illegal drugs and seize an average of 5,800 pounds of narcotics each day. 5,800 pounds of narcotics each day. by the way, mr. president, on june 16, customs and border protection seized 20 tons of cocaine, which is the largest seizure in the 230-year history of customs and border protection, with an estimated street value of $1.3 billion. so good for them. they are extremely professional

and well-trained law enforcement officers. but as we know, many of the drugs that manage to make their way -- many of these drugs manage to make their way into the interior of our country and into our local communities causing untold misery and grief. stopping their production and movement is not a fight we can win alone. it will take a bipartisan long-term commitment from the federal government as well as our foreign partners. an important step is to strengthen law enforcement cooperation by improving intelligence sharing and providing training for some of our foreign partners. it's an important force multiplier and a necessary component to our counter narcotics effort. in addition to attacking the drugs themselves, the narco's initiative goes after the

cartels and transnational criminal organizations that profit from these business. these groups are what i call commodity agnostic. they really don't care who they hurt or what they apply because the only thing they care about is making money. it's not just narcotics. it's human trafficking, migrant smuggling, money laundering, counter fit goods, public corruption. the list of crimes is long indeed, and they do all of it. these transnational criminal organizations turn an enormous profit from their corrupt dealings and then they have to launder the money that they use to finance their operation. we know that one of the most effective ways to suffocate criminal networks is to cut off the money, so that's precisely where we should aim. the senate judiciary committee recently passed legislation to combat money laundering and other illicit financing which includes a provision which i offered. it has to do with the role of

remittances. according to the united nations, over $300 billion in illicit transnational crimes proceeds likely flow to the u.s. financial system. $300 billion in i illicit proceeds. the provision included in remittances requires the treasury to submit an analysis of the use of remittances by drug kingpins and crime syndicates and develop a strategy to be able to prevent them from using that remittance system in order to launder proceeds from criminal enterprises. it's also time for us to reevaluate our current strategy and determine how to update the bank secrecy act which was enacted more than 50 years ago and is the primary money laundering law regulating financial institutions. in addition to fueling violence and instability, the conditions in central america serve as a push factor.

we all, as human beings, understand people fleeing violence and poverty. so encouraging those countries to provide safety and stability for their own people so people can stay in their homes and live their life ought to be one of the things that we do. otherwise these push factors encourage migrants to take the same routes used by cartels and criminal organizations to reach the united states. and as we know, some of them simply don't make it. they die in the process. young girls and women are routinely sexually assaulted. it's a miserable, miserable alternative to staying at home and living in safety and security. of course we know all this has contributed to the humanitarian crisis at our southern border, and we all know but have not yet had the political will to do, which is to reform our broken

laws and prevent these smugglers and criminal organizations from gaming our immigration system. i know the presiding officer was at the border earlier this week. i've tried to figure out how do we crack this nut, how do we take this polarized environment and provide the tools necessary to begin to staunch the flow of humanity coming across our border being tracted both by the easy access to the united states through our broken laws, but also the push factors like violence and poverty coming from their countries. well, i'm working with a democratic colleague of mine from laredo, texas, henry cuellar and introduced the humane act to fix the broken asylum system in a way that would give legitimate as see lies an opportunity to see their

case on a timely basis in front of an immigration judge but it would also make sure the conditions of their custody while they're here in the united states is something we can be proud of. specifically what this bill does is it closes a loophole in the law known as the flores settlement, which is often used by smugglers to gain entry into the united states. it would streamline the processing of migrants and improve standard of care for individuals in custody, as i said. if we want to restore law and order and make it sustainable, we need to look at ways to invest in economic development to help these countries build stronger economies. but i share some of the concerns expressed by the president and others. we need some metrics. we need a strategy. we need reliable foreign partners that can work with us. the one effort i can think of where we actually were successful working with foreign partners and strong leaders to really affect a dramatic change is the nation of colombia,

so-called plan colombia. but obviously mexico and the region is much more complex and plan colombia doesn't easily fit on top of that region. but the concept, i think, is a sound one, where we come together in a bipartisan basis, develop a strategy, help train our foreign partners and seek out strong leaders that can help us work through these challenges because there's a multiplicity of challenges, as i indicated. one of the things that would help is to ratify the new and improved nafta, known as the north american free trade agreement, or the usmca. obviously a strong economy in mexico means people don't have to come to the united states in order to provide for their family. the international trade commission analysis of the agreement shows positive

indicators for north american workers, farmers, ranchers and businesses, many jobs depend on trade with mexico. that's an indication of how important this is. we can strengthen private-public partnerships in other ways to help add to the effort to provide for investment and a clean environment and a positive relationship with our -- our colleagues in mexico. one example is the north american development bank. for every one nad -- n.a.d. bank dollar, it uses $20 in infrastructure investment. i've introduced legislation with senator feinstein of california that would authorize the treasury department to increase n.a.d. cappal specifically

related to port infrastructure. we know the ports of entry are not only avenues of commercial trade and traffic but a lot of the high end or expensive or illegal drugs come through the smuggled ports of entry. we need to modernize those ports of entry, we need to expand the infrastructure and make sure they are adequately staffed not only to facility the flow of legitimate trade and travel but also to stop these drugs that come through the ports of entry. so, mr. president, i just wanted to say a few words about this narcos initiative. i believe that we do need an all of government approach that would address the broad range of problems across central america and mexico, including the transnational criminal organizations themselves and the products and services they provide as well as the corruption they fuel and the means to which they stay in business. but we're going to need responsible partners in this effort. as our own experience with

nation building in the middle east has demonstrated, we can't want something for them that they don't want for themselves. and so that's why it's so important to have a clear understanding about what the strategy, what the goals are, and have strong, reliable leaders in those countries who will work with us in a bipartisan way to accomplish our collective goal. we have both the responsibility and opportunity to make meaningful changes to stabilize the region and i believe the time to act was yesterday. i hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation to support a secure and prosperous western hemisphere. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: mr. president, i ask consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: and also ask consent because i have three separate topics to discuss, that each of those topics are placed in the

appropriate part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to celebrate one of the seminole moments in american civil rights history. this week marks the 29th anniversary of the signing of the americans with disabilities act. on july 26, 1990, president george h.w. bush signed a sweeping bipartisan bill that acknowledged and affirmed the rights of people with disabilities. the passage of the so-called a.d.a. promised that people with disabilities are included in the guarantee of fundamental rights. just by way of example, the right to petition the court when discriminated against, the right to apply for and be considered for a josh, the right and the access to vote, the right to economic security, the right to live where you want to live. 29 years later, our country is

better because we agreed to make the opportunities of our country accessible to all. the a.d.a. changed the lives of 61 million americans with disabilities and has made our nation more accessible. the a.d.a. proclaimed that americans americans with disabilitieses must have the right and the means to fully participate in their communities. the a.d.a. offers a path towards a truly accessible nation and elevates the voices of millions of individuals. one of those voices belongs to gene surrell, from the commonwealth of pennsylvania. jean works at disability rights pennsylvania where she protects the rights of people with disabilities so they may live the lives they choose free from abuse, neglect, discrimination

and segregation. as a child and a young adult, jean was forced -- forced to live in an institution. in that institution she faced many indignities, the worst may have been having her infant child taken from her without her consent. simply because jean lives with a disability, it often was assumed that she was not capable of making her own decisions, but she worked hard to find a way out of that institution. when she finally succeeded, she chose to live independently in her community and has found a fulfilling career in harrisburg. the rights affirmed by the a.d.a. and the services supports medicaid and other programs have provided have made it possible for jean to be a full citizen of the commonwealth of pennsylvania and, yes, even the united states of america.

jean has dedicated her life to protecting the rights of people with disabilities. during this a.d.a. anniversary week, it is also fitting that today is jean's birthday. so, jean, looking at her picture on my left, i want to say happy birthday and i know many here would wish the same if she were here on the floor with us in person. but i'm honored to celebrate her birthday by sharing a part of her story. let me pause here today that also almost 30 years ago -- or i should say almost 30 years after, her infant, as i referred to earlier, her infant was taken from her. jean recently had the opportunity to meet him for the first time. jean often says that to make the world a better place, we need to spend more time listening to people with disabilities and learning from the disability community.

well said, jean. when i listen, i hear about the greatness of the a.d.a. and, at the -- and at the same time there is much more to be done. one of those things is to protect what we have. that includes access to health care, preventing the repeal of the affordable care act and ensuring that medicaid remains in in tact. -- remains in tact. we need to combat threats to people with disabilities. over the past three years we have seen a concerted effort to sabotage support for people and participation for people with disabilities. what this legislation has failed to do sl what they -- is what they are trying to do accomplish through court cases. cutting medicaid is contrary to the goals of the a.d.a. and it

makes it difficult or even potentially impossible for people with disabilities to work, to go to school, or to be engaged in their community. so while we protect the hard-fought rights the disability community has earned, we can also build upon the promises of the a.d.a. as we celebrate the 29th anniversary of the a.d.a., we can do at least three things out of the great advancements that have been made because of the a.d.a. remain vigilant to attacks on those civil rights, and, third, work to ensure that the goals of the a.d.a. are realized for all people -- all people with disabilities. i believe jean's own words make the words clearer than i can. here's what she said, quote, we must never go back, we must never forget that the struggle that people with disabilities have gone through -- they are

still going through today. we must never go back, as jean said. so as we celebrate the 020th -- the 20th anniversary of the a.d.a., i promise, and i know it's the promise of many members of congress, to never forget that struggle, to stand side by side with the disability community, to accomplish -- to fully accomplish the goals of the a.d.a. a senator: will the senator from pennsylvania yield for a moment? the presiding officer: yes, mr. president. the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i appreciate senator casey's advocacy for americans with disabilities. i want to make a brief comment on his support for medicaid and the efforts that we've done together in the finance committee and fighting against president trump's attacks on medicaid and the affordable care act, and i know in my state expansion of medicare in what

came out of that meant 900,000 more people had insurance, including a whole lot of people that were disabled, and i know that pennsylvania is the same way and i wanted to thank senator casey. mr. casey: i thank the senator from ohio, the senior senator, who makes the points of medicaid, broadly in the context of health care, but especially with regard to americans with -- americans with disabilities, and i thank him for his comments but also thank him for his advocacy. mr. president, i'm going to move to a second topic, and this involves a visit that i made just a week ago -- i guess it will be a week ago friday to mcallen, texas, with a delegation of senators. i guess there were 13 of us in total. during that visit, throughout the course of a day, we toured d.h.s. detention facilities,

department of homeland security detention facilities, including the border facility in mcallen, texas, and facilities in donna and ursala, texas. i saw overcrowding and adults in glass-enclosed rooms. i saw the need for hygiene products and better access to showers. we also saw at the same time catholic charities run by sister norma pimentel, known as sister norma, to many, where migrants were cared for and migrants were treated with compassion. i believe the white house's policies take the opposite approach, not william welcoming -- not welcoming

migrants, but pushing them away. i think those policies make it not only bad for the migrants and immigrants but make it bad for d.h.s. personnel who have to do the work every day and bad for the security of our nation. i know our delegation last friday met a number of dedicated personnel who work hard and care about the families but not all -- not that i can say about that all of those working. so when there is mistreatment or when there is abuse, we need to make sure there is accountability -- full accountability, but i know at the same time there are folks who work in our government who may not agree with the white house policy on migration or asylum but have difficult work to do. and those who are doing good work and showing compassion and respect, i commend them for

that. but instead of closing the door on asylum seekers who are fleeing terrible violence and persecution, we should adopt policies that are more humane and will help alleviate instead of exacerbate the humanitarian crisis. we should utilize effective alternatives to detention like the family case management program, a pilot program started in the last administration and pretty much ended in this administration which had a 99% attendance rate -- or success rate. the family case management program also had a 99% compliance with i.c.e. monitoring requirements many we should ensure -- requirements. we should ensure that migrant children are cared for by welfare workers and have their medical needs fully met. we should also work to address the violence, poafort and --

poverty and persecution causing so many to flee. i'm a cosponsor of the central american reform and enhancement act, legislation that would address the root causes of migration, creating new options for refugees to apply for entry to mexico and central america and increasing the number of immigration judges to reduce court backlogs and creating a -- creating new criminal penalties for smuggling and defrauding of immigrants. we know some of the dollars preentsly -- recently appropriated will help but we need to make sure the dollars are spent wisely and appropriately and in full compliance with the law. we are indeed a nation of laws and also a nation of immigrants. these two principles are intertwined in our values, and they are not -- they are not competing values. we should be trying over and over again, both parties, both

houses, and the administration to pass something comparable to the comprehensive immigration reform bill that this body passed in 2013 that did not get a vote in the house. let me conclude this part of my remarks with this. the problem is not that we must choose it principles like being a rule of law country and being a nation of immigrants. the problem is that our immigration system is badly broken. and if there are suggestions to be made to improve the asylum process, we should be open to that but pushing immigrants away and ending or short circuiting or undermining the asylum process is not in the interest of the country. it's entirely possible to have an immigration system that both respects the rule of law and treats all individuals with human dignity. so i'll continue to press the administration and the house and the senate toe work on bipartisan -- to work on bipartisan solutions so our

immigration system again reflects those american values. mr. president, i will conclude my remarks by raising the third topic. and it's timely for today. just wanted to do two things -- two things with regard to the service and the work of special -- now former counsel, special counsel robert mueller but also talk about the report that he -- that he issued. there is a reference in a narrative about robert mueller's service in vietnam that i won't add to the record because it's very long, but i'll quote from it just for a couple of minutes. this is an account by the publication wired and it is a brief -- a long account but i'll just read briefly the beginning of it about his service. just imagine this. someone who grew up with probably not too many concerns

about economic security, someone who had the benefit of great education, then volunteered to serve in vietnam. this particular vignette talks about ever serving nine months at war he was finally due, he meaning robert mueller, finally due for a few short days of r&r outside the battle zone. mueller had seen intense combat since he had last said goodbye to his wife. he received the bronze star -- he had received the bronze star with distinction for valor for his actions in one battle and had been airlifted out of the jungle during another firefight after being shot in the thigh. robert mueller and his wife anne had spoken only twice since he had left for vietnam. then it goes on to say why he wanted to keep serving in the marine corps. quote, i didn't relish the u.s.

marine corps absent combat, unquote. so said robert mueller. then it goes on to talk about his decision to go to law school after being in vietnam. and with the goal of serving his country as a prosecutor. he went on to lead the criminal division of the justice department and to prosecute a lot of bad guys, my words, not words from the publication. then became director of the f.b.i. one week before september 11, 2001. and stayed on to become the bureau's longest-serving director since j. edgar hoover. yet throughout his five-decade career, that year of combat experience with the marines has loomed large in mueller's mind. and i'm quoting. i -- i'm most proud the marine corps deemed me worthy of leading other marines, unquote, he said in 2009. so that's his background, just some of his background.

service to his country in vietnam, service as a federal prosecutor for many, many years. then called upon to serve his country again. he is the embodiment of public service. he gives integrity and meaning and value to what president kennedy called us all to do, to not ask what our country can do for us but what recan do for our country -- but what we can do for our country. robert mueller has answered that call over and over again. he's a person of integrity and ability. so just for a few minutes, mr. president, before i yield the floor, i wanted to talk about some of his work. one of the points that then-special counsel mueller made in a statement i guess back in may was he first of all outlined how the russian federation interfered with our election and pointed to the serious consequences of that.

but then he also talked about how when the second volume of the report deals with obstruction, he reminded us in that statement, at least i took from it, my impression of his statement was not just the seriousness of what russia did but the seriousness and the gravity of obstructing that kind of investigation. so if someone wanted to read just a portion of this report, the almost 500 pages, if you wanted to just zero in on some key parts of the volume two about obstruction, you could start on page 77. that's a section entitled the president's efforts to remove the special counsel. then there are other instances, several instances of obstructi obstruction, alleged obstruction there. so if you read between pages 77 and 120 of volume to, you're going to learn -- two, you're going to learn a lot about

obstruction. let me read a couple of the lines that the report sets fort. -- sets forth. when the special counsel walks through the factual predicate of what happened in the first instance where the president calls the white house counsel mr. mcgahn and says some things that the special counsel concluded was a directive to fire or have fired the special counsel, they say in the report on page -- this is volume two, page 88, quoting, substantial evidence, however, supports the conclusion that the president went further and in fact directed mcgahn to call rosenstein to have the special counsel removed. page 89, substantial evidence indicates by june 17, 2017, the president knew his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present

evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury. it goes on from there. in the intent section where the special counsel has to lay out the evidence to prove intent because if you can't prove intent, you can't go much further. substantial evidence indicates that the president's attempts to remove the special counsel were linked to the special counsel's oversight of investigations that involved the president's conduct and most immediately to reports that the president was being investigated for potential obstruction of justice, unquote. so those are three vignettes from pages 83 and 89. operative words being substantial evidence. in other parts of the report, evidence is laid out. sometimes they say there's not enough evidence but substantial evidence i think is a compelling -- compelling part of what we saw. let me just quickly because i know i'm over time. i will now move to page 113. now this is a separate section.

this section is entitled the president orders mcgahn -- again, white house counsel mcgahn -- to deny the president tried to fire the special counsel. so referring back to the earlie section. and then when they -- when they go through the evidence, they again get back to the consideration or the weighing of the evidence. volume two, page 118, again those words, substantial evidence supports mcgahn's account that the president had directed him to have the special counsel removed including the timing and context of the president's directive, the manner in which mcgahn reacted, the fact the president had been told conflicts were insubstantial, were being considered by the justice department, and should be raised with the president's counsel rather than brought to mcgahn. unquote. so you get the message i'm sending and this, the last one is on page 120, substantial evidence indicates the following

fact. i raise all that, mr. president, because there's a lot of discussion about volume two and what might have been -- what the conclusion might have been. the reason i refer to those areas of substantial evidence is that in may of this year, there is a statement by former federal prosecutors were told that as many as a thousand bipartisan -- prosecutors from both parties signed a letter and i'll just read one sentence from the letter. quote, each of us, meaning these republican and democratic former prosecutors, each of us believes that the conduct of president trump described in special counsel robert mueller's report would in the case of any other person not covered by the office of legal counsel's policy against indicting a sitting president result in multiple felony charges for obstruction

of justice. end quote. i think those prosecutors -- i believe those prosecutors are arresting that determination that they've made each individually on those areas of the report that begin with the words substantial evidence indicates. mr. president, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i come to the senate floor to advise my colleagues about a new rule that the department of homeland security published in the federal register this very day. definely -- to finally bring some needed reform to the eb5 green card program. as i mentioned in my remarks on this topic last week, this rule was first proposed in january

2017. those of us who want to reform the eb5 program have been waiting two and a half years for this rule to become final. and we've been waiting much, much longer than that for some meaningful reforms to this fraudulently laden program that we tried to get enacted into law in previous congresses and couldn't get done because of being up against these very powerful moneyed interests. i think the president and his team deserves a lot of credit for pushing these reforms across the finish line and getting a big win for rural america. as i have said on niewb rouse occasions, -- numerous occasions, congress intended for the eb-5 program to help spur investment in rural and high unemployment areas when this program was established in 1990.

unfortunately, over the last 30 years big moneyed interests have been able to gerrymander eb-5 targeted employment areas in a way that redirected investment away from our rural and economically deprived communities and towards major development projects in manhattan and other big cities. therefore, instead of providing much needed investment for rural america as originally intended, eb-5 has become a source of cheap foreign capital for development projects in already prosperous areas of america. for the first time this rule will bring very needed change so that condition cannot continue.

under the rule states will no longer be allowed to game and gerrymander targeted employment areas. instead the department of homeland security will make targeted employment area designations directly based on revised requirements that will help to ensure rural and high unemployment areas get more of the investment that they've been deprived of for far too long under this program as it has been misdirected. again this is a major win for rural america and high unemployment areas. and i want to sincerely thank president trump and the people that work in the administration on this rule for making this happen and looking out for the

interests of my constituents in iowa and other rural states and for areas of high unemployment. this rule also addresses the minimum investment threshold amounts that are required for the eb-5 projects around the country. this is the very first time the investment threshold has been adjusted since the program was created in 1990, and think of the inflation since that time. for projects that are outside of the targeted employment areas, the threshold will be raised from $1 million to $1.8 million. for projects in targeted employment areas, the threshold will be raised from $500 million to $900 million. the minimum investment amount will be adjusted for inflation

every five years. it's ridiculous that our country's major green card program for investors has been operating with investment amounts that haven't been adjusted a single time in 30 years. that makes no sense. and i'm glad the president and his team have taken necessary action to restore a little common sense to the eb-5 program. now, there's more work that needs to be done on the eb-5 program, and we'll have to do that by legislation. but the president and his administration deserve a lot of credit for finally implementing those first reforms that i and several other colleagues have championed for years. i, more than the most,

understand the power and influence of big-moneyed eb-5 interests have historically had in washington and how they have used that power and that influence to consistently thwart any attempt to reform this program in such an obvious way that it's needed. their unrelenting efforts to stymie eb-5 reform over the years absolutely epitomizes the swamp culture that so many voters rejected in the last presidential election. and getting rid of that swamp culture is exactly what the president campaigned on. and this is a perfect example of his carrying out a campaign promise. they're also representative of a

culture in washington that too often disregards the interests of the little guy in rural iowa in favor of the interests of the rich and the powerful. so again i applaud the president and his team for standing up to these rich and powerful interests. i'm happy to say that with the publication of this rule the little guys in rural america finally got a win in the eb-5 program. i now look forward to working with the president and my colleagues to build off this win and to bring further reforms to the eb-5 program. thank you, president trump. now, on another subject, for the past week there have been ongoing discussions between congressional leadership and the administration relating to an

agreement on budget caps and raising the debt limit. those discussions produced an agreement that was announced monday night. while i understand reaching an agreement was important to ensure the full faith and credit of the united states, i'm disappointed the final agreement does not address a subject that has been causing heartache for millions of taxpayers for at least the past six months. the subject is what is known around capitol hill and washington, d.c., as tax extenders, things that come up every two or three years that need to be reauthorized. for decades then congress has routinely acted in a bipartisan basis to extend a number of expired or expiring provisions.

typically, their extension would be included as part of a larger spending package or budget deal at the end of the year. unfortunately, this never occurred at the end of last year. now, here we are almost seven months into the end -- after the end of 2018 and three months after the close of the regular tax-filing season, and taxpayers still have no answers. the budget and debt limit agreement announced monday is yet another missed opportunity to provide answers for millions of taxpayers, both individuals and businesses. these people are waiting on congress so they can finalize their 2018 taxes and in some cases it may even mean whether or not they can stay in business.

while finance committee ranking member wyden and i, working as a team, have been ready and willing to address tax extenders since early on in this congress, the new democratic majority in the house of representatives has been reluctant to act. it seems as though the house democrats are unaware of the historic bipartisan, bicameral nature of tax extenders or how those provisions even apply to taxpayers, to industries, and maybe helping the entire economy -- and maybe helping the entire economy. this is witnessed from the characterization from some of these members as, quote, just tax breaks for corporations and businesses. so i want to tell you how these are not just tax breaks for

corporations or businesses. in fact, the overwhelming majority of the tax extenders either benefit individuals and families directly or they benefit our communities by giving a boost to local businesses that many people directly rely on for jobs and to support the local economies. for illustration purposes, i've broken the tax provisions that expired in 2017 into four categories -- tax relief for individuals, green energy incentives, employment and economic incentives for distressed areas, and general business incentives. if you look at this chart, you will see that these four categories are broken down by the relative costs of the

extension of the tax extender in each category. now, as you can see, based upon joint committee on taxation estimates -- so these aren't my estimates but joint committee on taxation -- of a two-year extension of these provisions for 2018 and 2019, the largest costs associated with extending them is for what is termed green energy incentives. these green energy incentives account for nearly 60% of the cost of this extension. these incentives include provision to encourage the use and production of clean and renewable fuels, to promote electricity generation from a certain clean and renewable

source, and the tax incentives for more energy-efficient buildings and homes. here i would have thought that the new democratic majority in the house would be all about what we call green jobs and would be all about reducing our nation's carbon emissions through alternative energy sources is what we're talking about here. yet, the new democratic majority has been reluctant to embrace a bipartisan tax package with nearly 60% of the costs dedicated to green energy incentives. the long delay in addressing these provisions is needlessly putting thousands of good-paying green jobs at stake. a couple weeks ago we saw a

biodiesel plant in nebraska closing down costing about 40 employees their job. and just this day, renewable energy group announced it is closing a texas plant due to the uncertainty of the biodiesel tax credit. now, should we fail to extend the biodiesel tax credit soon, many more will be closed and that would put 60,000 jobs supported by the biodiesel industry nationwide in jeopardy. now, going to another one, after this green energy proposal, which i just discussed, individual provisions represent the second largest component of tax extenders, totaling nearly a third of the cost. these provisions include relief for homeowners who obtain debt

forgiveness on home mortgages, a deduction for mortgage insurance premiums, and a provision that allows college students to deduct tuition and related expenses. and in regard to college students, wouldn't you think the new democratic majority would be interested in helping college students? this also -- this class also includes incentives for individual consumers to purchase energy-efficient products for their homes as well as certain types of alternative vehicles. to highlight just one of these provisions in 2017, over 1.5 million taxpayers took advantage of the college tuition deduction. you can think of that as over 1.5 million students who have been left dangling for this entire last year and this year

as congress continues to consider whether or not to extend that college tuition deduction. and for some, this deduction is up to $4,000 for education expenses. and that can make a difference between continuing their education or waiting another year to finish a degree and move up to a better job. the remaining two categories -- these two -- are small in terms of cost in comparison to the first two. the provisions relating to employment and economic initiatives for distressed areas makes up only 4.1% of the overall cost and consists of two provisions. one would be the end-in employment credit and the other

would be the empowerment zone incentives. now, this is really odd. it's really hard to believe that the new house democratic majority finds it very objectionable to incentivizing employers to hire native americans or for the second part of it to provide incentives to encourage businesses to locate and bring jobs to low-income areas. and i hear the people in the other body, the new majority over there, talking all that we don't do enough to help low-income people. what's better than providing them with jobs and doing it through the empowerment zone incentives tax credit so you get capital in there to build jobs up in low-employment area -- or

low-income areas? and if we can't address these two employment and economic incentives, how are we going to deal with too much larger ones that expire at the end of this year? the work opportunity tax credit and the new markets tax credit, all to create jobs. so i guess it must be somehow the final category, which i term general business incentives, that the house democrat majority must find objectionable because it falls into that category that we're only trying to help big business or big corporations. that's their accusation. these provisions make a whopping 4.5% of the total cost of the extending provisions that expired at the end of 2017. most of these provisions have been