else. >> will leave these remarks on the house impeachment inquiry, we can see all of what the senate has to say about that on our website, c-span.org. u.s. senate about to return from a short intelligence briefing, they are expected to continue on policy, and just a second we will take you live to the floor of the u.s. senate here in c-span2.

mrs. gillibrand: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i ask unanimous consent to speak as much time as i consume. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: thank you, mr. president. i rise to speak in opposition to the republican motion to instruct on paid family and medical leave. before i move to the issue at hand, i do want to address the serious allegations against president trump and the new information we are learning from the memo the white house released today. it is deeply concerning to learn

that president trump asked the ukrainian president zelensky to work with the united states to investigate vice president biden. our democracy is at risk and president trump has betrayed our country. i support speaker pelosi in starting the impeachment inquiry she announced yesterday and the revelations today make these investigations even more necessary. i now want to talk about an opportunity we have in the senate today to serve the nation by guaranteeing paid family and medical leave for two million federal workers and their families through the schatz motion. every other industrialized country in the world has some version of paid leave which allows workers to take care of their loved ones when a medical emergency arises. and yet the vast majority of our workforce here in america lacks access to paid leave. that means far too many of our workers are unpaid to take paid

time off if they need to care for a new child, a sick parent, or their spouse. this sadly includes two million of our federal employees. and i know, mr. president -- and i know mr. president is aware of this given his own family situation, but we have a chance to fix that right now. and i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the schatz motion. however, senate republicans have offered an additional motion that would block this benefit from every other working american. this is nothing short of an attack on all workers' access to affordable and accessible paid family leave. while my republican colleagues -- what my republican colleagues are suggesting is that our workers should work overtime to compensate for family leave. their motion would require workers to shift around their hours and take on more hours in order to receive the paid time off they need in an emergency situation or when welcoming a new child. so let me be very clear. this is not a benefit.

it's a cynical plan that would erode our american workers' ability to make ends meet and harm their access to real paid leave. it would hurt those who need this the most, including women, communities of color, and low-wage workers. most workers living paycheck to paycheck won't be able to take extra shifts to earn paid leave. too many families across the country don't even have $400 in savings for emergency expenses. take shelby ramirez mart knees, -- martinez, for example. she found herself in the most untenable situation where her daughter and father both had simultaneous surgeries scheduled. shelby is a mom of two, caregiver to her father and a full time student and security officer. she didn't have access to paid leave. so she was forced to take two weeks off and forego her pay. she couldn't have planned for that by working overtime and sacrificing time with her

daughter or with a flex savings account. what shelby and all americans need is dedicated and extended time off for medical emergencies and births. the republican motion to instruct calls for the employer tax credits that are handouts to large and rich companies like google that already provide paid leave and leaves taxpayers footing the bill. and there are false incentives for small businesses that still won't be able to afford the leave. my bill, the family act, would provide 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave for all workers. it's the only comprehensive proposal that is accessible and affordable for all working americans. it's modeled off a very successful state program like in california ensuring that working americans do not have to choose between their family and their paycheck. it shouldn't be so hard. so many workers around the country have new children, sick

spouses, elderly parents, and they need access to paid leave. so today let's stand together and reject fake paid leave by voting no on the ernst motion to instruct for people like shelby and her family. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. president. i come to the senate floor to urge adoption of two resolutions that are going to be considered by the united states senate instructing the conferees to the ndaa bill, which is the defense

authorization bill. one of those motions urges the conferees or directs the conferees to adopt bipartisan legislation introduced by senator cotton who is now presiding officer in the chair and myself and others. it's called the 5g act and it deals with defending the 5g future act. and what it does very simply is codify the trump administration's executive order putting huawei on what's called the entity list and then making sure that before there's a change to that, if you want to take them off entirely, that would require congressional action. but it also says if you want to seek waivers under that act, you should come to congress and at least give congress the opportunity to disagree. this is very important to protect our security, to protect u.s. technology from theft, and i urge my colleagues to support

that resolution. i'm also here to urge my colleagues to support another resolution. this one directing the conferees to the defense authorization bill to support a motion and resolutions put forward by senator rubio and i and others, again a bipartisan resolution, making it clear that we should deter foreign interference in u.s. elections. and it's based on the principles -- on the principles of a bipartisan legislation, bipartisan act that we've introduced called the deter act. but the idea is very simple, which is we want to say upfront that our intelligence communities or others in the administration should inform congress immediately if there's been interference in our elections. and if the answer is yes, that

that would trigger -- that would trigger immediate and stiff sanctions on whatever foreign government is acting to interfere in our elections. because, mr. president, we can spend a lot of money and resources protecting our elections infrastructures and our elections systems, and we should do that. and we can urge all of the social media companies to improve their platforms and make it more difficult for foreign governments and adversaries to use those platforms to influence and impact our elections. but none of those measures actually impose a big cost on a foreign government like russia for interfering in our elections. all those things do is make it harder and we should make it harder, but in this case the best defense is a good offense,

meaning the best defense to having a foreign government interfere in our elections is to discourage and deter them from doing that in the first place. and right now what we've learned is there's no cost to vladimir putin and the russians interfering in our elections. in fact, they assess that they get a significant benefit from creating division within the unction. and so if you're vladimir putin and you're doing a cost-benefit analysis, should i interfere in the u.s. elections or not, you conclude, hey, i'm going to gain something by creating this kind of division and confusion within the united states. so what we should be doing is saying in advance and upfront to vladimir putin and russia or any other foreign leader or government if we catch you interfering in our elections, you will definitely pay a price

in the form of sanctions against some of your financial institutions or key aspects of your economic sector. but we need to spell that out in advance so next time someone like vladimir putin is zig whether or not to interfere in -- is zig whether or not -- is deciding whether or not to interfere in an election and we catch him and this requires that congress be notified after the election as to whether or not we've detected foreign interference, next time they'll know in advance that in we catch them, there will be a price to pay, a penalty to pay. and that will, of course, discourage the activity in the first place. it doesn't cost us a dime to do this. yes, we should continue to spend money as i said to harden our systems here at home and better defend ourselves, but for goodness sakes, we should at

least take the position that we're going to let foreign powers know in advance if we catch you -- and by the way we will catch you if you interfere in our elections -- there will be an immediate and severe price to pay. so i urge my colleagues to unanimously support this resolution. it's appropriate that we're directing the conferees to the national defense authorization bill to include this provision because after all the reason we invest in our defense is to protect our country and to protect our democracy. and that bill should include a provision telling foreign powers if you mess around and interfer in our democratic elections, you will pay a price, and that will make it less likely that they will do so to begin with. i urge adoption of the resolution.

the presiding officer: the question occurs on the van hollen motion -- resolution to instruct. mr. van hollen: we don't want to do it by unanimous consent, i would ask for the yeas and nays. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the

clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. van hollen: i ask that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. the question is on the van hollen resolution to instruct. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the resolution is agreed to. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on cotton resolution to instruct. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas is recognized. mr. cotton: i'd like to speak briefly about our resolution which is to instruct the

conferees to adopt the bipartisan defending america's 5g future act into the conference report. huawei is no ordinary telecom company. it's the eyes and ears of the chinese communist party. that's idea administration earlier this year put it on the commerce department's blacklist. the rare action that both republicans and democrats can support. our legislation would to a large extent codify that decision. to keep huawei on the blacklist and ensure congress has a say on any exclusion say for a rural telecon that needs time to transition, if we oppose the action but most importantly to ensure that congress affirmatively acts to pass a resolution of approval to remove huawei from the blacklist. because that is where huawei belongs and where they should say without a decision of the people's representatives in congress. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the minority leader is recognized. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. i join with my colleague the

senator from arkansas in this bipartisan motion to instruct. huawei is a menace. it's a menace to our national security. it's a menace to our economic growth. it's a menace to the future of america in many ways. if we're not tough with huawei, who are we going to be tough with? if we're not tough with huawei, what are we going to do when china continues to take advantage of us in ways that are unfair, whether it be economic, national security, cyber, or whatever. this resolution will ensure that the conferees know that the senate is strongly in support of being tough with huawei on national security grounds, on economic grounds, and on basically ensuring that america stays number one in many of the leading technologies that are facing -- that we will need to create job growth, wealth, and prosperity in the future. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any members in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? seeing none, the yeas are 91, the nays are 4. the resolution is agreed to. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: i ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes in this series be ten minutes in length. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, -- the senate will be in order. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote on the jones resolution to instruct. mr. jones: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. jones: thank you,

madam president. colleagues, today we are voting on a resolution that will be -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. jones: colleagues, today we are about to vote on a resolution that will correct a long-held injustice, one that has been on the books for decades, one that has caused significant pain to military spouses. those who have given so much for our country. it is elimination of the military widows tax. it has been voted on in this body for over 18 years. it's never gotten across the finish line. but now is the time. this is our time to make sure that we tell our veterans that we are supportive, but we show it with our actions, not just with our words. i urge everyone to please vote to instruct the conferees to eliminate the military widows tax. thank you, madam president. i would yield. the presiding officer: who yields time in opposition?

the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: madam president, i agree with the comments made by the senator from alabama. there's one problem with this. that is, it's not paid for. i am supporting it. actually i am a cosponsor on the bill and was a cosponsor of the bill long before this year, but we're going to have to really get busy and figure out how to pay for this thing. it is very expensive, but i do encourage people to vote for it. the presiding officer: the question is on the jones resolution. the yeas and nays. a sufficient second. there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? seeing none, the yeas are 94, the nays are zero. the resolution is agreed to. the question occurs on the schatz resolution. there are two minutes of debate equally divided prior to this vote. the senator from hawaii. mr. schatz: thank you, madam president. this resolution urges the inclusion of the federal employee paid leave act in the final conference agreement on ndaa. this legislation provides 12 weeks of paid family leave for federal employees in all situations already covered under fmla. too many of our federal

employees have to make the impossible choice of getting a paycheck and looking after a sick child, caring for an aging parent or recovering from a health condition or keeping their job. as a result, many are forced to leave their jobs or find other jobs. paid family leave is not only the right thing to do for federal workers, it's the smart thing to do for our federal workforce. this is the most practical and fiscally responsible way to provide family leave for federal workers. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: who yields time in opposition? all time has expired. the question is on the resolution. the yeas and nays. sufficient second? there appears to be.

the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: does any senator in the chamber wish to vote or change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 47. the nays are 48. the resolution is not agreed to. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on the peters resolution to instruct. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan pet. mr. peters: mr. president, let me be grarveg. today our water and our health is at risk from highly floor natured chemicals known as pfas. these chemicals -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. the senator from michigan. mr. peters: these chemicals have been widely used commercially and are concentrated in firefighting foams used by the department of defense. they are toxic and they have

been linked to serious health issues to those who are exposed to it. high levels of pfas contamination exist at the former air force base in michigan and military sites all across our country. my resolution would retain the senate language prohibiting the department of defense from using firefighting foams containing pfas chemicals by the end of 2023. pfas reforms are already widely used internationally by military services and at major hub airports such as heathrow and didubois. we must protect our troops, our firefighters, our communities and our water. i urge my colleagues to support my resolution. mr. president, i yield back all remaining time. the presiding officer: all time is yielded back. the question is on the resolution. all in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it.

the resolution is agreed to. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on the mcsally resolution to instruct. is all time yielded back? the question is on the resolution. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: does any senator in the chamber wish to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 52, the nays are 42, and the resolution is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, mr. president. the presiding officer: mr. majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that following disposition of the resolutions to instruct on

s. 1790, the senate proceed to executive session and vote on the motions to invoke cloture on the hyten and scalia nominations in the order filed. further, that the mandatory quorum calls be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on the ernst resolution to instruct. ms. ernst: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. could we have order in the senate, please? thank you. the senator from iowa. ms. ernst: mr. president, i urge my colleagues to support this resolution to ensure that congress is working toward commonsense, effective family leave solutions. it is well past time that we make paid paid parental leave,

affording all moms time to spend time with their new baby is something all americans want to see happen. while i appreciate my colleague from the state of hawaii's resolution putting washington insiders and federal employees first doesn't add up as the right first step. i believe we need to think more broadly about this issue and how it impacts hardworking families in iowa and across the country. we all recognize there are significant barriers for new working parents to spend time with their baby during those critical and precious first few months. that is why i am working with senator mike lee on a proposal to offer paid parental leave to all new parents in a way that is both budget neutral and flexible. in fact, a number of republicans and democrats are working on potential pathways forward. at the heart of all of this, we simply cannot lose sight of the fact that we need solutions that

work for all american families, not just those fortunate enough to have a government job. if we are serious about enacting paid family and medical leave policies instead of scoring political wins, we will support the resolution before us. families are the bedrock of our society. let's look for solutions that all americans can embrace. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution. mrs. gillibrand: mr. president, i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, because as it's written, it really only rewards companies that are very wealthy and successful with additional tax credits to do something that they're already doing. mrs. gillibrand: and by that measure, it will leave most american workers without access to leave. the other potential idea is about shifting hours and suggesting that workers have to work overtime to be able to have paid leave. every parent in america, every

person in america will have a time when they have a family crisis, whether it's a dying parent, whether it's a sick spouse, whether it's a new child, and we are still the only industrialized country in the world that doesn't have access to national paid leave. we should be able to come together around this commonsense solution that senator schatz has offered to create at least the first step to make sure our federal workers aren't disproportionately harmed because they can't compete with the private sector. so i oppose this amendment, and i urge my colleagues to oppose it. the presiding officer: the question is on the ernst resolution. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: does any senator wish to vote or change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 55. the nays are 39. and the resolution is agreed to. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session and 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 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of general john e. hyten for appointment as vice chairman for the joint chiefs of staff and appointment to the air force while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility in in accordance with title 10 u.s.c. sections 1 154 and 6011 to be signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of general john e. hyten to be vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and for appointment in the united states air force to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility in accordance with title 10 u.s.c. sections 1554 and 601 to be general shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory

under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: does any senator wish to vote or change his or her vote? if not, the ayes are 73. the nays are 21. the motion is agreed to. 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 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of eugene scalia of

virginia to be secretary of labor signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of eugene scalia of virginia to be secretary of labor shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: does any senator wish to vote or change his or her vote? if not, the ayes are 52, the nays are 42, and the motion is agreed to.

mr. scott: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: i rise to speak about my amendment to h.r. 549, which grants for venezuelans fleeing nicolas maduro's regime and reforms the broken t.p.s. program. i would like to thank my friend senator rubio and congressman marty balart who have been tireless advocates as foe fight for freedom for people across the globe.

i am proud to have worked with senator rubio along with my colleague from utah, senator lee, and other republican senators to offer protection for the venezuelan people while offering certain reforms to t.p.s. the crisis in veteran venezuelaa defining human rights issue of our time. maduro is starving his own people and innocent people are dying. what is happening in venezuela is pure genocide. we have to act but you also need to be responsible. the courts have basically made a temporary program permanent, which is not sustainable. my amendment protects the vulnerable venezuelan population while making sure human rights violators are clearly identified as ineligible to come to the u.s. my bill grants t.p.s. for venezuelans right now. the amendment also makes much-needed reforms to our t.p.s. program. the amendment grants t.p.s. to venezuelans for 18 months. it requires congressional approval for t.p.s. extensions,

no more than 18 months at a time. my amendment limits the ability of illegal aliens with no connection to the t.p.s. designation to benefit from t.p.s. it ensures that human rights violators identified under the magnitsky act are not eligible for t.p.s. status. it includes provisions to include that t.p.s. status does not count as admission for purposes of the immigration act. under my amendment, t.p.s. recipients could not return to the t.p.s. country during the period of designation. and finally, the amendment requires current t.p.s. designations will come up for congressional review two years after the enactment of this amendment. we want those seeking refuge from repressive regimes to have safe haven in our country, but we need a system that works and is truly temporary. i am honored to work with my colleagues to get something done today to help venezuelan

families that makes some much-needed changes to our broken system. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to address the senate in spanish. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. scott: thank you. [speaking spanish] mr. scott: as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on the judiciary be discharged from further consideration and the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 549. i ask unanimous consent that the scott of florida amendment be agreed to and that the bill as amended be considered and read a third time and passed, that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. menendez: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey.

mr. menendez: every member of the senate knows that venezuela 's dictator has created an unprecedented and harrowing humanitarian crisis in that country. extreme food and medicine shortages, widespread criminal violence, brutal state-sponsored repression have forced more than 4.3 million venezuelans to flee their homeland. this number could reach eight million by the end of next year. as venezuelans flee their country, it's time for the united states to place itself fully on the side of the venezuelan people. unfortunately, just this week, we have seen news stories about the trump administration deporting venezuelans from florida. it's chubl that anyone would be sent back to the catastrophic humanitarian conditions that exist in venezuela, and that's why in february of this year, senator durbin and i, along with senators rubio, leahy, booker introduced bipartisan legislation to provide t.p.s. to venezuelans living here in the

united states. the house of representatives has already passed a version of this bill back in july with support from dozens, dozens of republican members. however, rather than providing t.p.s. for vulnerable venezuelans in the united states, the junior senator from florida has brought up an amendment that seeks to overhaul existing existing t.p.s. statute and make it easier for the trump administration to strip status from vulnerable migrants that are legally in the united states. respectfully, the suggestions that the courts have made it impossible to end any t.p.s. is just not based in fact. this debate is not about watering down our immigration laws. it is about using the laws that we have right now to provide protection of venezuelans so that we can ensure that the trump administration doesn't

deport them back to the nightmare they fled. and so it's unfortunately while i join the senator in the same goal, that the senator from florida would prefer to pass legislation that advances the administration's immigration agenda rather than help the venezuelan people, something we all agree about. as a matter of fact, we don't even really need congressional action because the president has the right to give temporary protective status to the venezuelans living in the united states, and he doesn't need an act of congress to do that. he has failed to do that. and it is in that failure that the house of representatives acts to try to create a legislative response. so for all these reasons, i object to the unanimous consent request from the senator from florida. and while we agree on the need to provide t.p.s. for venezuelans, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the

judiciary committee be discharged -- the presiding officer: the senator will suspend. the objection is heard. mr. menendez: okay. sorry. and let me continue. to say that since the senator from florida and i do agree on the need to provide t.p.s. for venezuelans, with that, i ask as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 549, the bill that has already passed the house, and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. further, that the bill be considered read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. scott: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: reserving the right to object, i object on behalf of my colleague, senator rand paul. the -- what i propose is a bill that grants t.p.s. to venezuelans right now.

they also make much-needed reforms to the t.p.s. program and give congress rightful oversight. i'm very disappointed that my democrat colleagues would block this commonsense compromise. republicans support it. the sponsor of the house bill passed bills -- of the house-passed bill supports it. i believe the president would sign it. it's clear that the democrats actually don't want to get something done on this issue. unfortunately, they have decided to use the venezuelan community as a political prop instead of working with us to find a solution. i think that's shameful. even though the democrats stood up and blocked t.p.s. for venezuelans today, i will never stop fighting to support the venezuelan community here. my amendment is a solution that can be passed by congress and signed into law by the president. i hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle help us get this done. we cannot lose sight of the fact that nicolas maduro is killing its citizens in this genocide. every passing day the situation on the ground grows worse. hundreds of thousands are

fleeing the violence and starvation of maduro's socialist regime. they need our help. while extending t.p.s. to venezuelans is the right move, the united states and freedom-loving nations around the world need to do everything in our power to isolate maduro in venezuela and cut off the supply of money from cuba and caracas. we have to help ma -- to get maduro out. it's time to get t.p.s. done in this country. temporary protected status was never meant to be endless. it was meant to help families in need. we need to get this program to work. we need to get t.p.s. for venezuelans today. i look forward to working with all of my colleagues to help all the families in venezuela and finally get a real solution, a long-term solution to t.p.s. thank you. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: very briefly, i regret that my colleague has gone down the road of questioning political motives here. the reality is that in a bipartisan way the senior senator from florida joined with us in february of this year to

provide legislation that would provide t.p.s. for venezuelans in the united states. the house of representatives which has a democratic majority -- he mentions democrats -- pass a version of this bill in july of this year with support from dozens of republican members, a bipartisan effort in the house of representatives. so at the end of the day, it doesn't take undermining t.p.s. dramatically changing t.p.s. in order to give venezuelans temporary protected status. that is something the president could do without the house of reps tifs or the senate -- reps tifs -- representatives or the president acting. there are those who want to make an excuse for the president but he has chosen not to do it, number one. number two is the reality is we wanted to create t.p.s. for

venezuelans, we could do that now by having accepted my unanimous consent request because the house of rep house f representatives passed it and it would be on the way to the president and he of course would have to decide whether he would sign the legislation, even though he could do it on his own right now. so i hope we can work towards the goal of actually giving the venezuelans living in the united states seeking refuge from the violence, from the chaos that is venezuela that opportunity but i'm not ready to undermine all of temporary protected status in order to do that. with that i yield the floor.

mr. portman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president, i'm on the floor tonight to talk about retirement security, something everybody cares about. who doesn't want peace of mind in retirement? when i'm back home, i hear about it all the time partly because a lot of people are worried about the costs they're going to have in retirement, including long-term care costs. a lot of people are seeing their parents, grandparents living

longer, healthier lives yet they don't have the retirement nest egg to be able to keep up. we need to do something to help on that. social security is there. it's the safety net. it needs to always be there. but that's what it is, just a base amount. $1,200 a month is not very much which is the average for some folks in my home state of ohio. so you've got to have private retirement savings that adds to that. that can be savings you have in your bank account, but the best way to do it is through a 401(k) account at your work where the employer hopefully puts a match in so it's a good deal for you because you put your money in and the employer puts money in. you get to have a tax deduction for it. an i.r.a., even if you're not at work, you can take out an individual i.r.a. you get a tax deduction. that's good. and then some companies have defined benefit plans, the old pension plans. those are great if you have one. not as many workers do anymore but we want to preserve those that are left. if you're a federal government employee, you do have the

federal employees pension plan which works for them. all this together is incredibly important right now for the people i represent and people are worried about it. some of the statistics are actually pretty scary that a lot of people for small businesses don't have access to a plan altogether. they don't have an opportunity to get a retirement savings plan. about 50% of workers in small businesses are in that category, as an example. over time we've tried to address some of these issues. right now fortunately the united states senate has a few bills that it could take up that actually help in that. i've been working on this issue for a number of years, actually about 20 years going back to my days in the house with now senator ben cardin. we passed legislation to expand how much you can put into a retirement account, 401(k), i.r.a., increasing amounts. but also the catchup contributions. some people are familiar with. also what's called auto enrollment so companies automatically enroll you unless

you choose not to enroll which helps to get the participation rate way up, about 75% up to 95%. so we've done some things that have helped. and because of that, i know that if you provide more incentives for retirement, it works. because it worked back in 2001. in fact, if you look at what's happened since then, total retirement savings have increased from about $11 trillion to about $29 trillion since 2001. and by the way, this means there's more resources available in our economy because there's more savings. savings is a good thing for investment. it leads to higher g.d.p., higher economic growth, greater access to capital for small businesses and so on. so this has worked. by the way, these retirement nest eggs have increased among every income quintile since 2001. when you adjust it for inflation. every quintile. so it's not just people at the higher end or even the middle. it's people who are low income,

middle low, higher income all benefit from this. but as i said, we've got a lot more to do because even with that social security which is the safety net, really tough to live on that, people are not saving enough through their private savings and their retirement plans. we need to finish the work that we started. we also need to fix some outdated regulations that just don't make sense in today's world. i'm chair of what's called the subcommittee on retirement in the finance committee so we're working on these proposals on a bipartisan basis. and we're making some progress. i want to tell you interest some of those bills now -- tell you about some of those bills now. one bill is one that's before the senate right now in the sense it's already passed the house called the secure act. one is a larger bill that does more than the secure act that has been introduced by senator cardin and myself. and then there is a small provision i want to mention tonight that has been introduced separately, also is in the secure act that is an urgent thing to pass because there are a bunch of people that are going

to lose their retirement benefits uns will we pan it very -- unless we pass it very soon. let me back up and give you some of the troubling facts of why we need to do something here. less than half of employees, again small businesses with less than 50 workers, less than half of those workers have access to a plan. so the problem is really in our smaller businesses. we know that. larger businesses all tend to have a 401(k). many have a defined contribution plan. others have a defined benefit plan like a pension. but they tend to have retirement options for workers but many small businesses do not. even when workers have access to a plan, still only 34% participate. so among small businesses, fewer plans than there should be but also fewer people participating. only 22% of part time workers are in plans. increasingly in our economy, people have part-time jobs, may have a few part-time jobs but they don't have a retirement plan in any of them.

by the way, when you look at this in terms of the folks who are not participating, low-income americans also are not participating as you would want. 22% only of low-income families are participating in retirement plans. many of them don't have the disposal income to be able to contribute. we'll talk about that in a second, how to address that problem. and then the final problem i want to mention is not to do with the small businesses or part-time workers or low-income workers. it has to do with people outliving their retirement. let's face it, we're living longer and healthier lives as americans. that's a good thing. but a lot of people didn't or couldn't plan for that. so they may have thought, i've got a nice little nest egg here, a 401(k). i'm going to retire at age 65 when they're in their late 80's or 90's, they realize there wasn't enough set aside. here's an opportunity for us to address that as well. earlier this year we introduced

this legislation, senator cardin and myself called the retirement security and savings act. it addresses all these problems that i mentioned. it has more than 50 reforms actually to help americans achieve this goal of a safe, secure retirement, peace of mind after your working years, letting people retire with dignity. it has a few important provisions i want to mention tonight. i won't go into all 50 but mention some of them. first, to increase this low 22% coverage among low-income workers, it expands what's called the savers credit. this has worked well but it is not refundable now meaning for a lot of people who are low income, they can't take advantage of it. they don't have the income tax liability particularly with the new tax bill, frankly, where a lot of people have lower taxes so they don't have the ability to take th the deduction but thy can use a credit. we change the savers credit to expand it so it's more usable and we make it refundable but not refund able to individuals but to a retirement account.

you don't want to provide more funding that is not going to be used for the correct purpose of retirement. it has to go into your retirement account. in addition it increases the credit amount available to a lot of low-income savers. this is really going to help on getting people who again are working but they're not saving to be able to save for retirement. the bill also addresses the problem of only 22% of part-time workers being in a plan. it requires employers to allow part-time workers who have completed to years of service to participate in a 401(k) plan. this is a big deal to the aarp as an example. one reason they're strongly supporting this bill, by the way as well as a whole group of businesses and nonprofits and others, people love this bill because it's going to help people save for retirement. what's not to like there? but particularly with regard to part-time workers saying if you've completed two years of service, you need to have access to a 4301k plan owe 401(k) plan.

that's going to help. it allows employers to make matching contributions to the 401(k) accounts to employees who are paying off student loans who otherwise wouldn't receive a full match. why? because they have to choose between paying down the student loan debt they've got and saving for retirement. i really like this idea. it's an enknow vaitive one first proposed by senator ron wyden on the finance committee, the ranking democrat. but i think this will really help with again people who are coming into the work force. they've got the student loans so they've got to pay off that debt. they can't afford to put money against 401(k)'s. this enables them to put that money into the match and help them get started on retirement. in ohio, by the way, on average the student debt now for someone coming out of one of our four-year colleges, universities is $27,000. that's tough for a lot of people to get started in life. to get at this problem we talked about a few small businesses having plans, tax credit that

small businesses receive for starting a retirement plan. it's $500 now. we take it up to $5,000, a tenfold increase that would really help small businesses we're told. this is why they support the bill. it also provides an innovative tax credit idea. small businesses will get a tax credit who automatically enroll their employees into plans at least every three years. what does this mean? we talked about auto enrollment earlier. if you have auto enrollment in your company, your participation rate goes up to 95% from about 75%. why? because people come into the workforce. they might not sign up for the 401(k) but if they're automatically signed up, they're not going to say no they start to get a little bit of that payroll tax and a little of their paycheck going toward retirement and by the way, they find out this works, you know, start a nest egg. they like it and stick with it. same thing here. if at least every three years you have to automatically enroll your employees, what happens?

you get people into these plans and they stay in these plans. we think this is going to be a big deal in small businesses and we think it's worth giving them a tax credit for, kind of an innovative idea. and for small businesses, our bill also reduces some of the burdensome and duplicative regulations that are associated with administering the plan. for a lot of small businesses, they don't have a lawyer or general counsel. they don't have, you know, professional who can help on this. but the h.r. person would sure like to have the ease of administration of these plans. so we do that which is important to get more of these small businesses offering these plans. the problem we have talked about with americans living longer and healthier lives and being in danger of outliving their retirement, we also address. and for those who follow this closely because you're getting close to retirement, pay attention here because this could be helpful. to help folks who have accumulated retirement savings preserve those nest eggs, to help preserve your hard earned nest egg, the bill actually

changes what's called the minimum distribution rules. if you're in your late 60's or maybe turning 70, you may be shocked to have just found out that, guess what, the 401(k) you've got or i.r.a. you've got, you have to start distributing money out of it under what's called the minimum required distribution rules. my dad was a little surprised by that, because he was still working at age 70 and a half, when you have to start doing that. a lot of people back home are still working at age 70 and a half. and they want to keep their retirement nest egg there and they want to keep building up. they hope to live a long life. when you're 70 1/2, you got to start taking it out and paying taxes on it. we changed that over a few years because it is an expensive provision in this bill. we pay for it through other means. but the idea is, you want to let people keep that money in their

nest egg. and by the way, if your nest egg is $100,000 or less, there's no minimum required distribution minimum required distribution >> for those that are 70 and a half and wonder why they don't take this money out if i have $65000 i have stayed out right up need to take it out for retirement let them keep it in that plan. keep it in going forward forever. if you have $100,000 in their then you don't have to take it out until you are 75 this will help people to ensure that they can set aside money for retirement and they know it will be there when they need it. their retirement planning. that's a good thing, and i look forward to getting it passed

through the finance committee and sent to this senate floor for a vote. as i said earlier, even before we can get this broader package done, we have a smaller bill here in the senate. it is called the secure act. it actually passed the house unanimously, 417-3. that rarely happens. and that shows you the kind of bipartisan support it has. it's not as comprehensive as the bill i just talked about, but it does have some good provisions. it has the increase in the small employer tax provision we talked about. it also raises the minimum age distribution from age 70 1/2 to age 72. it doesn't go to 75 and it does have the $100,000 cap that we talked about. so we go further in our bill, but this secure act is a good step in the right direction. i support it. i support bringing it up and passing it.

it already passed the house. i do think that we ought to allow a couple amendments on each side because this secure act that passed the house has not been voted on on this floor before. it came out of the our committee back in 2016, i believe. there hasn't been debate on it or deliberation. why not allow a few amendments on it on each side? but the point is, let's get that bill up and get it passed. then there's this final bill that i was talking about. it is part of the secure act, which is on the floor right now ready to go. it's also been introduced separately. and this is to address an urgent problem right now that's affecting over 450,000 americans. now, it gets a little complicated here, as retirement plans do sometimes. but these are people that are in these defined benefit plans, the pension plans. and they are in businesses that have shifted from a defined

pension plan -- defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan like a 401(k). now, what happened in some of these businesses is they said, but if you're already in a defined benefit plan, you can stay in it. we're going to freeze your plan going forward, so new employees can't go into it, but you can stay in your plan. and i think that's fair. let people who are in the plan, who paid in all these years continue to stay in that defined benefit plan as they retire. the problem is that inadvertently, the rules with regard to pensions are tripping these people up. because there's something called the nondiscrimination income testing. in other words, you can't have too many of the benefits go into a defined benefit plan to people who are more on the high-income as we spread out. the people that are left in these plans are people who are older, because the new employees have had to go to the defined

contribution plan. so it is an older group of employees, and, there was, more highly -- and, therefore, more highly compensated because they've been given raises over tomb. so they trigger this nondiscrimination income testing and they lose their benefits. they can't continue to accrue benefits. that's just wrong. these are people who have played by the rules, done everything right, through no fault of their own, but through this quirky regulation, which was never meant to address this kind of an issue, they're facing the very real possibility 450,000-plus people that they're going to lose their benefits. they should be able to get this retirement plan that they have worked so hard to be able to enjoy. nobody really disagrees. again, it is in the secure act. we've introduced it separately. around here you run what's called a hotline with your fellow senators to see, does anybody object to this, if it is

a noncontroversial piece of legislation. we did this. and, guess what? this legislation was approved by everybody on the republican side. nobody had a problem with it. again, it's just a question of being sure that these flawed rules aren't inadder have at any timely hurting these -- inadvertently hurting these 4350,000 -- 450,000 americans. so we're trying to work on this together to try to get it done and we found out the objection is not based on the legislation at all. no one has any problem with the legislation. it's based on their interest in not allowing anything that's in the secure act to be done separately because they wasp to be sure the secure act gets done. i want to be sure the secure act gets done, too. it is an important bill. it is a first step in the right direction. but let's not take it out on these employees. if we don't fix it, then by this year end, like in the next couple months here, these people are going to lose their

benefits. so my hope is that now that we have tested the waters and found out that it's not controversial among my colleagues, let's just bring it up under unanimous consent, get it done, and then let's move on and do the secure act, too. so my hope is that we'll be able to do that. it's been introduced again as a stand-alone bill. so it's not like it's the other parts of the secure act that are only in the secure act that stand alone. so it shouldn't violate anybody's sense of fairness to say, let's deal with this separately and get it done. i want to thank chairman chuck grassley and ranking member wyden for helping on this because they have been supportive of the secure act. they've been supportive of dealing with the quirk in the law that deals are these 450,000 people that are going to lose their benefits and they've been supportive of this broader retirement package as well. let's do it in order. number one, let's get the retirement preservation act

done. that's the 450,000 people. let's do that by unanimous consent. everybody agrees to t let's move to the security act. get that done. again, that was passed in the house almost unanimously. then let's move on to the broader portman-cardin legislation we talked about than the deals with these issues of small business coverage, deals with the issue of low-income workers needing to save more, deals with part-time workers having to save more. deals with the issue of people outliving their retirement savings. of the 50-plus provisions in there, there's a lot that really helps the people i represent back in ohio and folks all around the country. they deserve us here in congress to help them. help them ensure they have peace of mind in their retirement and we're doing all we can to provide the incentives to make that happen. thank you, mr. president. i yield back my time.

mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: .

quorum call:

mr. portman: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that following leader remarks on thursday, september 26, the senate proceed to the consideration of h.r.

4378, that the only amendment in order be the paul amendment, number 942, and the time until 12:15 p.m. be equally divided in the usual form, and at 12:15 p.m. the senate vote in relation to the paul amendment, and the following disposition of the amendment of the bill as amended, if amended, be read a third time and the senate vote on passage of the bill as amended, if amended, with 60 affirmative votes required for passage. finally, i ask unanimous consent that following disposition of 4378, the senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the hyten nomination, with the time until 1:30 p.m. equally divided between the leaders or their designees, and that at 1:30 p.m., the postcloture time on the hyten and scalia nominations be considered expired and that the senate vote on the nominations in the order listed, and if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon

the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: mr. president, i also ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. thursday, september 26. further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning business 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, morning business be closed, and the senate proceed to the consideration of h.r. 4378 under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m.

mr. menendez: mr. president, i come to the floor once again to call for action in light of call for action in light of >> in light of revelations that president trump appears to have no problem seeking the assistance of a foreign government for his own political gain today's summary of the telephone call from the white house with a foreign leaderes exposes this in black and white. given the lack of transparency to have faith that the transcript reflects the totality of the conversation but what they did release was shocking enough. he clearly pressed the ukrainian government to investigate former vice president biden for his own political betterment mentioning the attorney general of the united states six times. using le