[Pages S3255-S3261]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mr. Tester, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. King, Mr.
Rounds, and Ms. Smith):
S. 1722. A bill to amend the National Housing Act to authorize State-
licensed appraisers to conduct appraisals in connection with mortgages
insured by the FHA and to ensure compliance with the existing appraiser
education and competency requirements, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 1722

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``FHA Appraiser Eligibility
Expansion Act''.

SEC. 2. APPRAISER STANDARDS.

(a) Certification or Licensing.--
(1) In general.--Section 202(g)(5) of the National Housing
Act (12 U.S.C. 1708(g)(5)) is amended by striking
subparagraphs (A) and (B) and inserting the following:
``(A) be certified or licensed by the State in which the
property to be appraised is located;
``(B) be knowledgeable of the Uniform Standards of
Professional Appraisal Practice and the appraisal
requirements established by the Federal Housing
Administration;
``(C) meet the competency requirements described in the
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice before
accepting an assignment; and
``(D) have demonstrated verifiable education in the
appraisal requirements established by the Federal Housing
Administration under this subsection, which shall include the
completion of a course or seminar that educates appraisers on
those appraisal requirements and is provided by the Federal
Housing Administration or is approved by the Course Approval
Program of the Appraiser Qualification Board of the Appraisal
Foundation or a State appraiser certifying and licensing
agency.''.
(2) Application.--Subparagraph (D) of section 202(g)(5) of
the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1708(g)(5)), as added by
paragraph (1), shall not apply with respect to any appraiser
approved by the Federal Housing Administration to conduct
appraisals on mortgages insured under title II of the
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1707 et seq.) on or before
the date on which the mortgagee letter or other guidance or
regulations take effect under subsection (c)(3).
(b) Compliance With Verifiable Education and Competency
Requirements.--Effective beginning on the date on which the
mortgagee letter or other guidance or regulations take effect
under subsection (c)(3), no appraiser may conduct an
appraisal for any mortgage insured under title II of the
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1707 et seq.) unless--
(1) the appraiser is in compliance with the requirements
under subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) section 202(g)(5) of
such Act (12 U.S.C. 1708(g)(5)), as amended by subsection
(a); and
(2) if the appraiser was not approved to conduct such
appraisals before the date on which the mortgagee letter or
other guidance or regulations take effect under subsection
(c)(3), the appraiser is in compliance with subparagraph (D)
of such section 202(g)(5).
(c) Implementation.--Not later than the 240 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development shall issue a mortgagee letter or other
guidance or regulations that shall--
(1) implement the amendments made by subsection (a);
(2) clearly set forth all of the specific requirements
under section 202(g)(5) of the National Housing Act (12
U.S.C. 1708(g)(5)), as amended by this Act, for approval to
conduct appraisals under title II of such Act (12 U.S.C. 1707
et seq.), which shall include--
(A) providing that, before the effective date of the
mortgagee letter or other guidance or regulations, a
demonstration of competency and completion of training that
meet the requirements under subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D)
of such section 202(g)(5), as amended by subsection (a),
shall be considered to fulfill the requirements under such
subparagraphs; and

[[Page S3256]]

(B) providing a method for appraisers to demonstrate such
prior competency and completion; and
(3) take effect not later than the date that is 180 days
after the date on which the Secretary issues the mortgagee
letter or other guidance or regulations.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Ms. Harris, Ms. Hirono, and Ms.
Klobuchar):
S. 1733. A bill to limit the separation of children from their
parents or legal guardians, to limit the detention of families and
children, to provide unaccompanied alien children with access to
counsel, to increase the number of immigration judges and support
staff, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
that will address one of the most pressing immigration problems facing
our nation.
For the past decade, thousands of families have fled violence and
poverty to seek asylum in the United States. These families include
vulnerable children who must be kept safe once they arrive in the
United States. However, since the beginning of the Trump
Administration, several new policies have been implemented.
Most disconcerting is the Trump policy to separate young children,
even babies, from their mothers and fathers. Dozens of these children
spent days and weeks in cages with nothing but thin mats and aluminum
blankets.
We have also learned that the Trump Administration then deported many
of these parents, leaving the children to be orphaned in this country.
In fact, hundreds of children who were separated under this policy have
now been apart from their parents for many months, without any
immediate prospects for reunification. These children continue to
experience extreme stress that leaves them vulnerable to serious,
lifelong mental and physical health problems.
Even when families are reunified after months apart, some children no
longer recognize the mothers and fathers. This is unconscionable. Today
I am introducing the Protecting Immigrant Families and Improving
Immigration Procedures Act, a bill that will not only end the practice
of separating families at the border, but also put in place other
safeguards to protect these at-risk groups.
The first component of the bill I am introducing today is the full
text of the Keep Families Together Act, a bill I introduced earlier
this year to halt the separation of families and which currently has
more than 40 cosponsors. The President claimed to end his policy of
separation in June 2018. However, we have since learned that the
practice of separating families continues today.
In fact, the Inspector General for Health and Human Services found
that thousands more children were separated than the administration
initially revealed in June. Parents who try to protect their children
from violence and poverty abroad should not be punished by having those
children ripped from their arms. Children should not be subjected to
severe trauma in the interest of deterring migration.
Instead, families should be kept together and given an opportunity to
present their cases for asylum as has been done for the past seven
decades.
The second part of the bill I'm introducing today ensures that
families with children are not forced into prolonged, indefinite family
detention in order to remain together. Child welfare experts, including
the American Academy of Pediatrics and the United Nations, have found
that detention of this sort has tremendous negative effects on
children's health and welfare. This bill guarantees that the Trump
Administration cannot reverse the crucial protections that are
currently in place under the Flores settlement agreement.
The third piece of this bill would help address the backlog in our
immigration courts while protecting the basic rights of children. This
part of the bill contains provisions to provide adequate resources to
our immigration court system. By adding additional judges and staff,
courts will be able to reduce the crushing backlog of over a million
pending deportation cases.
The fourth component of this legislation is Senator Hirono's bill,
the Fair Day in Court for Kids Act, that provides counsel for
unaccompanied children. This is meant to ensure that these children
receive a meaningful opportunity to present their cases in immigration
court. This is important because young children, including toddlers,
have been forced to represent themselves in immigration court in recent
years. It is simply impossible for children to understand their legal
immigration status or rights, let alone explain it to a judge.
This bill protects the most vulnerable children in by providing
counsel when there is no parent or legal guardian available. The final
part of the bill will ensure that immigration judges can manage their
caseloads and prioritize the cases as needed. Currently, individuals in
deportation proceedings who have been victims of human trafficking or
have assisted with criminal prosecutions are often eligible for visas
that would protect them from deportation. This bill would allow
immigration judges to close these deportation cases quickly to protect
these vulnerable individuals and conserve scarce courtroom time. This
will be a crucial step in clearing the backlog of pending immigration
cases.
By taking these steps, we will help put our immigration system on a
pathway to respect the basic rights of children, particularly those who
are fleeing violence and poverty abroad. These children are some of the
most vulnerable people in the world, and it is absolutely essential
that our legal system should treat them with fairness and respect.
These are goals that should be appealing to Democrats and Republicans
alike. I hope my colleagues will join me in passing the Protecting
Immigrant Families and Improving Immigration Procedures Act.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text
of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 1733

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Families and
Improving Immigration Procedures Act''.

SEC. 2. ENSURING THAT FAMILIES REMAIN TOGETHER.

(a) Limitation on the Separation of Families.--
(1) In general.--An agent or officer of a designated agency
shall not remove a child from his or her parent or legal
guardian at or near the port of entry or within 100 miles of
the border of the United States unless 1 of the following
situations has occurred:
(A) A State court, authorized under State law--
(i) terminates the rights of a parent or legal guardian;
(ii) determines that it is in the best interests of the
child to be removed from his or her parent or legal guardian,
in accordance with the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997
(Public Law 105-89); or
(iii) makes any similar determination that is legally
authorized under State law.
(B) An official from the State or county child welfare
agency with expertise in child trauma and development
determines that it is in the best interests of the child to
be removed from his or her parent or legal guardian because
the child--
(i) is in danger of abuse or neglect at the hands of the
parent or legal guardian; or
(ii) is a danger to himself or herself or to others.
(C) The Chief Patrol Agent or the Area Port Director, in
his or her official and undelegated capacity, authorizes
separation, upon the recommendation by an agent or officer,
based on a finding that--
(i) the child is a victim of trafficking or is at
significant risk of becoming a victim of trafficking;
(ii) there is a strong likelihood that the adult is not the
parent or legal guardian of the child; or
(iii) the child is in danger of abuse or neglect at the
hands of the parent or legal guardian, or is a danger to
himself or herself or to others.
(2) Prohibition on separation.--An agency may not remove a
child from a parent or legal guardian solely for the policy
goal of deterring individuals from migrating to the United
States or for the policy goal of promoting compliance with
civil immigration laws.
(3) Documentation required.--The Secretary shall ensure
that a separation based upon a situation described in
paragraph (1)(C)--
(A) is documented in writing; and
(B) includes the reason for such separation and the stated
evidence for such separation.
(b) Recommendations for Separation by Agents or Officers.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act,

[[Page S3257]]

the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Health
and Human Services, shall develop training and guidance, with
an emphasis on the best interests of the child, childhood
trauma, attachment, and child development, for use by the
agents and officers, in order to standardize separations
authorized under subsection (a)(1)(C).
(2) Annual review.--Not less frequently than annually, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall--
(A) review the guidance developed under paragraph (1); and
(B) make recommendations to the Secretary to ensure that
such guidance conforms to current evidence and best practices
in child welfare, child development, and childhood trauma.
(3) Requirement.--The guidance developed under paragraph
(1) shall incorporate the presumptions described in
subsection (c).
(4) Additional requirements.--
(A) Evidence-based.--The guidance and training developed
under this subsection shall incorporate evidence-based
practices.
(B) Training required.--
(i) Initial training.--All agents and officers of
designated agencies, upon hire, and annually thereafter,
shall complete training on adherence to the guidance under
this subsection.
(ii) Annual training.--All Chief Patrol Agents and Area
Port Directors, upon hire, and annually thereafter, shall
complete--

(I) training on adherence to the guidance under this
subsection; and
(II) 90 minutes of child welfare practice training that is
evidence-based and trauma-informed.

(c) Presumptions.--The presumptions described in this
subsection are the following:
(1) Family unity.--There shall be a strong presumption in
favor of family unity.
(2) Siblings.--To the maximum extent practicable, the
Secretary shall ensure that sibling groups remain intact.
(3) Detention.--There is a presumption that detention is
not in the best interests of families and children.
(d) Required Policy for Locating Separated Children.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
publish final public guidance that describes, with
specificity, the manner in which a parent or legal guardian
may locate a child who was separated from the parent or legal
guardian under subsection (a)(1). In developing the public
guidance, the Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, immigrant advocacy organizations,
child welfare organizations, and State child welfare
agencies.
(2) Written notification.--The Secretary shall provide each
parent or legal guardian who was separated, with written
notice of the public guidance to locate a separated child.
(3) Language access.--All guidance shall be available in
English and Spanish, and at the request of the parent or
legal guardian, in the language or manner that is
understandable by the parent or legal guardian.
(e) Required Information for Separated Families.--Not less
frequently than monthly, the Secretary shall provide the
parent or legal guardian of a child who was separated--
(1) a status report on the monthly activities of the child;
(2) information about the education and health of the
child, including any medical treatment provided to the child
or medical treatment recommended for the child;
(3) information about changes to the child's immigration
status; and
(4) other information about the child, designed to promote
and maintain family reunification, as the Secretary
determines in his or her discretion.
(f) Annual Report on Family Separation.--Not later than 1
year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and
annually thereafter, the Secretary shall submit a report to
the committees of jurisdiction that describes each instance
in which a child was separated from a parent or legal
guardian and includes, for each such instance--
(1) the relationship of the adult and the child;
(2) the age and gender of the adult and child;
(3) the length of separation;
(4) whether the adult was charged with a crime, and if the
adult was charged with a crime, the type of crime;
(5) whether the adult made a claim for asylum, expressed a
fear to return, or applied for other immigration relief;
(6) whether the adult was prosecuted if charged with a
crime and the associated outcome of such charges;
(7) the stated reason for, and evidence in support of, the
separation;
(8) if the child was part of a sibling group at the time of
separation, whether the sibling group has had physical
contact and visitation;
(9) whether the child was rendered an unaccompanied alien
child; and
(10) other information in the Secretary's discretion.
(g) Clarification of Parental Rights.--If a child is
separated from a parent or legal guardian, and a State court
has not made a determination that the parental rights have
been terminated, there is a presumption that--
(1) the parental rights remain intact; and
(2) the separation does not constitute an affirmative
determination of abuse or neglect under Federal or State law.
(h) Clarification of Existing Law.--
(1) Federal law.--Nothing in this section may be
interpreted to supersede or modify Federal child welfare law,
where applicable, including the Adoption and Safe Families
Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-89).
(2) State law.--Nothing in this section may be interpreted
to supersede or modify State child welfare laws, as
applicable.
(i) GAO Report on Prosecution of Asylum Seekers.--
(1) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study of the prosecution of asylum seekers
during the period beginning on January 1, 2008 and ending on
December 31, 2018, including--
(A) the total number of persons who claimed a fear of
persecution, received a favorable credible fear
determination, and were referred for prosecution;
(B) an overview and analysis of the metrics used by the
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice
to track the number of asylum seekers referred for
prosecution;
(C) the total number of asylum seekers referred for
prosecution, a breakdown and description of the criminal
charges filed against asylum seekers during such period, and
a breakdown and description of the convictions secured;
(D) the total number of asylum seekers who were separated
from their children as a result of being referred for
prosecution;
(E) a breakdown of the resources spent on prosecuting
asylum seekers during such period, as well as any diversion
of resources required to prosecute asylum seekers, and any
costs imposed on States and localities;
(F) the total number of asylum seekers who were referred
for prosecution and also went through immigration
proceedings; and
(G) the total number of asylum seekers referred for
prosecution who were deported before going through
immigration proceedings.
(2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit a
report to Congress that describes the results of the study
conducted under paragraph (1).

SEC. 3. FLORES SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

(a) In General.--A family unit may be detained only in
accordance with the holding made in Flores v. Sessions et al.
(9th Cir. July 5, 2017; C.D. CA; July 24, 2015)) and the
stipulated settlement agreement as filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on
January 17, 1997 (CV 85 4544 RJK) (commonly known as the
``Flores settlement agreement'').
(b) Rulemaking.--Any regulation proposed or promulgated to
supersede the Flores settlement agreement is null and void.
(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act may be
construed--
(1) to affect the application of the Flores settlement
agreement to unaccompanied alien children; or
(2) to abrogate the Flores settlement agreement.
(d) Review of Detention Determinations.--The review of any
determination by the Secretary to detain an individual or
family unit under this section shall be in accordance with
all other provisions of law, holdings (including any holding
made in Flores v. Sessions et al. (9th Cir. July 5, 2017;
C.D. CA. July 24, 2015)), consent decrees, and settlement
agreements (including the Flores settlement agreement).

SEC. 4. ACCESS TO COUNSEL FOR UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILDREN.

(a) Appointment of Counsel.--In any removal proceeding and
in any appeal proceeding before the Attorney General from any
such removal proceeding, an unaccompanied alien child (as
defined in section 462(g) of the Homeland Security Act on
2002 (6 U.S.C. 279(g))) shall be represented by Government-
appointed counsel, at Government expense.
(b) Length of Representation.--Once a child is designated
as an unaccompanied alien child under subsection (a)--
(1) the child shall be represented by counsel at every
stage of the proceedings from the child's initial appearance
through the termination of immigration proceedings; and
(2) any ancillary matters appropriate to such proceedings
even if the child reaches 18 years of age or is reunified
with a parent or legal guardian while the proceedings are
pending.
(c) Notice.--Not later than 72 hours after an unaccompanied
alien child is taken into Federal custody, the child shall be
notified that he or she will be provided with legal counsel
in accordance with this section.
(d) Within Detention Facilities.--The Secretary shall
ensure that unaccompanied alien children have access to
counsel inside all detention, holding, and border facilities.
(e) Pro Bono Representation.--
(1) In general.--To the maximum extent practicable, the
Attorney General should make every effort to utilize the
services of competent counsel who agree to provide
representation to such children under this section without
charge.
(2) Development of necessary infrastructures and systems.--
The Attorney General shall develop the necessary mechanisms--
(A) to identify counsel available to provide pro bono legal
assistance and representation to children under this section;
and
(B) to recruit such counsel.
(f) Contracts; Grants.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General may enter into
contracts with, or award

[[Page S3258]]

grants to, nonprofit agencies with relevant expertise in the
delivery of immigration-related legal services to children to
carry out the responsibilities under this section, including
providing legal orientation, screening cases for referral,
recruiting, training, and overseeing pro bono attorneys.
(2) Subcontracts.--Nonprofit agencies may enter into
subcontracts with, or award grants to, private voluntary
agencies with relevant expertise in the delivery of
immigration related legal services to children in order to
carry out this section.
(g) Model Guidelines on Legal Representation of Children.--
(1) Development of guidelines.--The Executive Office for
Immigration Review, in consultation with voluntary agencies
and national experts, shall develop model guidelines for the
legal representation of alien children in immigration
proceedings, which shall be based on the children's asylum
guidelines, the American Bar Association Model Rules of
Professional Conduct, and other relevant domestic or
international sources.
(2) Purpose of guidelines.--The guidelines developed under
paragraph (1) shall be designed to help protect each child
from any individual suspected of involvement in any criminal,
harmful, or exploitative activity associated with the
smuggling or trafficking of children, while ensuring the
fairness of the removal proceeding in which the child is
involved.
(h) Duties of Counsel.--Counsel provided under this section
shall--
(1) represent the unaccompanied alien child in all
proceedings and matters relating to the immigration status of
the child or other actions involving the Department of
Homeland Security;
(2) appear in person for all individual merits hearings
before the Executive Office for Immigration Review and
interviews involving the Department of Homeland Security;
(3) owe the same duties of undivided loyalty,
confidentiality, and competent representation to the child as
is due to an adult client; and
(4) carry out other such duties as may be proscribed by the
Attorney General or the Executive Office for Immigration
Review.

SEC. 5. INCREASES IN IMMIGRATION JUDGES AND SUPPORT STAFF.

(a) Immigration Judges.--The Attorney General shall
increase the total number of immigration judges to adjudicate
pending cases and efficiently process future cases by not
fewer than 75 judges during fiscal year 2019.
(b) Support Staff.--The Attorney General shall--
(1) increase the total number of judicial law clerks by 75
during fiscal year 2019; and
(2) increase the total number of support staff for
immigration judges, including legal assistants and
interpreters, by 300 during fiscal year 2019.

SEC. 6. DOCKET MANAGEMENT FOR RESOURCE CONSERVATION.

Notwithstanding any opposition from the Secretary,
immigration judges may administratively close cases, and the
Board of Immigration Appeals may remand cases for
administrative closure, if an individual in removal
proceedings--
(1) appears to be prima facie eligible for a visa or other
immigration benefit; and
(2) has a pending application for such benefit before U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services or another appropriate
agency.

SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Agent; officer.--The terms ``agent'' and ``officer''
include contractors of the Federal Government.
(2) Child.--The term ``child'' means an individual who--
(A) has not attained 18 years of age; and
(B) has no permanent immigration status.
(3) Committees of jurisdiction.--The term ``committees of
jurisdiction'' means--
(A) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
(B) the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
of the Senate;
(C) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives.
(4) Danger of abuse or neglect at the hands of the parent
or legal guardian.--The term ``danger of abuse or neglect at
the hands of the parent or legal guardian'' shall not mean
migrating to or crossing the United States border.
(5) Designated agency.--The term ``designated agency''
means--
(A) the Department of Homeland Security;
(B) the Department of Justice; and
(C) the Department of Health and Human Services.
(6) Finding.--The term ``finding'' means an individualized
written assessment or screening by the trained agent or
officer that includes a consultation with a child welfare
specialist, formalized as required under subsection (b)(3)
and consistent with subsections (c), (d), and (h).
(7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Homeland Security.
______

By Mr. CARPER:
S. 1734. A bill to amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to
allow the District of Columbia to receive Federal funding under such
Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, today I am once again introducing
legislation to allow the District of Columbia to receive funding and
other benefits under the Coastal Zone Management Act. I am pleased to
offer this companion legislation to a bill, H.R. 2185, introduced by
the Congresswoman from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton.
Few of us realize that 70 percent of the District is located within
the coastal plain. Similar to my State of Delaware, sea level rise,
upstream sources of water, degraded infrastructure, and coastal
subsidence mean that the District could experience serious future
cleanup and repair costs due to flooding--including damage to federal
property, which makes up almost 30 percent of the District. The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports that
since 1950, nuisance flooding has increased by more than 300% in the
District. And, since 2006, DC has experienced two 100-year flooding
events, and District officials estimate that a future 100-year flood
event could cause over $1.2 billion in damages. Needless to say, these
events will become more and more common due to climate change--
including rising sea levels--and coastal subsidence.
The District of Columbia would use funding from the Coastal Zone
Management Program for flood risk planning and environmental
restoration to prevent and mitigate future flood damage. At the same
time, this work would help to restore and conserve the District's
coastal resources such as habitat, fisheries, and endangered species.
If included in the Coastal Zone Management Program, the District of
Columbia would be eligible for $1 million or more of federal funding
annually to assist in coastal flood-control projects, to combat non-
point source water pollution, and to develop special area management
plans in areas experiencing environmental justice and/or flooding
issues.
The National Coastal Zone Management Program, housed in NOAA, was
established through the passage of the Federal Coastal Zone Management
Act of 1972. At the time, Congress recognized the need to manage the
effects of increased growth in the nation's coastal zone, which
includes jurisdictions bordering the oceans and the Great Lakes.
There are currently 34 jurisdictional coastal zone management
programs, including both States and territories. In order for the
District of Columbia to participate in the program, Congress must pass
this amendment to the Coastal Zone Management Act that would include
the District under the definition of a ``coastal state.''
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 1734

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Flood Prevention Act of
2019''.

SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR FEDERAL
FUNDING UNDER THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT
OF 1972.

Section 304(4) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
(16 U.S.C. 1453(4)) is amended by inserting ``the District of
Columbia,'' after ``the term also includes''.
______

By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Reed, and Mr.
Coons):
S. 1741. A bill to direct the Secretary of Energy to establish a
program to advance energy storage deployment by reducing the cost of
energy storage through research, development, and demonstration, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a set of three bills
that will lower the cost of energy storage, increase flexibility in the
power grid, and create a comprehensive set of grant programs to advance
development of renewable energy technologies throughout the country.
Currently, many energy technologies--like energy storage--compete in
unfair markets, making it hard for new innovations to measure up to
more established technologies like those of the fossil fuel industry.
Congress and the Department of Energy

[[Page S3259]]

can work hand-in-hand with industry to level the playing field, using a
fair, tech-neutral approach when updating the electricity system, to
benefit the American consumer.
My Reducing the Cost of Energy Storage Act will provide funding to
the Department of Energy to research and develop ways to lower the cost
of energy storage technologies. Ultimately, this bill will make it
possible for renewable energy to be used on a more reliable and
affordable basis.
To protect the power supply from disruptions caused by natural
disasters, which can wipe out power to millions of homes, my Flexible
Grid Infrastructure Act will require the Department of Energy to find
and develop ways to make the power grid more flexible and responsive to
these challenges. The bill will also connect displaced workers to
training programs that will allow them to transition to high-skill
clean energy jobs. Finally, this bill will provide States and utilities
with resources to upgrade the flexibility and reliability of the power
grid.
In order to ensure private sector growth in distributed energy
technologies, my Distributed Energy Demonstration Act will create
competitive, cost-share grant programs for new small-scale, grid-
connected projects, such as rooftop solar panels, hot water heaters,
electric vehicles, and modernized utility pricing technologies.
Together or apart, these bills will promote a more flexible
electricity grid that can respond to power disruptions from natural
disasters and ensure reliable, low-cost electricity for consumers now
and in the future. They will also lower costs for energy storage
technologies that make renewable energy more reliable and cost-
effective, boost funding for cutting-edge research, and reward State
and private sector innovations, which will make renewable energy more
reliable and affordab1e for U.S. energy consumers.
______

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself. Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. Harris, and Ms.
Klobuchar):
S. 1744. A bill to provide lawful permanent resident status for
certain advanced STEM degree holders, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the text
of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 1744

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Keep STEM Talent Act of
2019''.

SEC. 2. LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR CERTAIN ADVANCED
STEM DEGREE HOLDERS.

(a) Aliens Not Subject to Direct Numerical Limitations.--
Section 201(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1151(b)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(F)(i) Aliens who--
``(I) have earned a degree in a STEM field at the master's
level or higher while physically present in the United States
from a United States institution of higher education (as
defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1001(a))) accredited by an accrediting entity
recognized by the Department of Education;
``(II) have an offer of employment from, or are employed
by, a United States employer in a field related to such
degree at a rate of pay that is higher than the median wage
level for the occupational classification in the area of
employment, as determined by the Secretary of Labor; and
``(III) are admissible pursuant to an approved labor
certification under section 212(a)(5)(A)(i).
``(ii) In this subparagraph, the term `STEM field' means a
field of science, technology, engineering, or mathematics
described in the most recent version of the Classification of
Instructional Programs of the Department of Education
taxonomy under the summary group of--
``(I) computer and information sciences and support
services;
``(II) engineering;
``(III) mathematics and statistics;
``(IV) biological and biomedical sciences;
``(V) physical sciences;
``(VI) agriculture sciences; or
``(VII) natural resources and conservation sciences.''.
(b) Procedure for Granting Immigration Status.--Section
204(a)(1)(F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1154(a)(1)(F)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``203(b)(2)'' and all that follows through
``Attorney General''; and
(2) by inserting ``203(b)(2), 203(b)(3), or 201(b)(1)(F)
may file a petition with the Secretary of Homeland
Security''.
(c) Dual Intent for F Nonimmigrants Seeking Advanced STEM
Degrees at United States Institutions of Higher Education.--
Notwithstanding sections 101(a)(15)(F)(i) and 214(b) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)(i),
1184(b)), an alien who is a bona fide student admitted to a
program in a STEM field (as defined in section
201(b)(1)(F)(ii)) for a degree at the master's level or
higher at a United States institution of higher education (as
defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1001(a))) accredited by an accrediting entity
recognized by the Department of Education may obtain a
student visa or extend or change nonimmigrant status to
pursue such degree even if such alien intends to seek lawful
permanent resident status in the United States.
______

By Ms. SINEMA (for herself and Mr. Tillis):
S. 1749. A bill to clarify seasoning requirements for certain
refinanced mortgage loans, and for other purposes; considered and
passed.

S. 1749

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Affordable
Mortgages for Veterans Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. SEASONING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN REFINANCED
MORTGAGE LOANS.

(a) Ginnie Mae.--Section 306(g)(1) of the National Housing
Act (12 U.S.C. 1721(g)(1)) is amended by striking the second
sentence.
(b) Veterans Loans.--Section 3709(c) of title 38, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in the matter before paragraph (1), by striking ``is
refinanced'' and inserting ``is a refinance''; and
(2) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the
following new paragraphs:
``(1) the date on which the borrower has made at least six
consecutive monthly payments on the loan being refinanced;
and
``(2) the date that is 210 days after the first payment due
date of the loan being refinanced.''.
(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act may be
construed to restrict or otherwise modify the authorities of
the Government National Mortgage Association.
______

By Mr. LEE (for himself and Mr. Hawley):
S. 1753. A bill to promote accountability and effective
administration in the execution of laws by restoring the original
understanding of the President's constitutional power to remove
subordinates from office; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, President Trump was famous for many things
even before he was elected. One of those things was the catch-phrase
``You're fired,'' which he popularized on his reality TV show ``The
Apprentice.''
This is a relatively commonplace phrase. It is something that most
persons are familiar with, but it is not surprising that the phrase
would have so much appeal for a television audience. I think the reason
has something to do with the fact that it carries a certain power and
resonance with it because the person who has the authority to use it
within any organization is, generally speaking, a person who gets to
call the shots. It is emblematic of executive control and, therefore,
the ability to get things done within an organization.
That is not to say that good leaders get their way solely or even
primarily by threatening to fire people who work for them. Effective
leadership, more often than not, requires what are sometimes called
soft leadership skills.
But the fact, nonetheless, remains that the head of an organization
must always have hanging in reserve, sort of like an employer Damoclean
sword--the absolute right to terminate a subordinate.
It is the ultimate and essential backstop that enforces and reifies
an executive's power to make decisions. This is true for pretty much
any leader, whether that leader happens to be the CEO of a corporation,
the coach of a sports team, or a general out on the field of battle.
Yet, remarkably, under our laws, the President of the United States
lacks authority over many high-ranking officers within the executive
branch. Despite its elemental association with Executive power,
Congress and the courts have time and again deprived the President of
the ability to remove his subordinates at will.
These restrictions often take the form of statutory for-cause removal

[[Page S3260]]

protections, such as the provision of the Federal Trade Commission Act
that provides that Commissioners may be removed only ``for
inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.''
In enacting laws like this, Congress has cast aside the original
meaning of the Constitution and thereby eroded a critical safeguard of
American freedom. As anyone who has studied the Constitution or
constitutional law, for that matter, can guess, my reference to the
FTC's for-cause protection is not accidental.
That statute formed the basis of the lawsuit that culminated in the
1935 decision by the Supreme Court in a case called Humphrey's
Executor, in which the Supreme Court held for the first time that
Congress may impose restrictions on the President's removal power.
In so holding, the Supreme Court overruled its earlier precedent in
Myers v. United States, which had held that Congress may not limit the
President's ability to remove principal officers within the Federal
Government, but Humphrey's Executor didn't simply overrule Myers.
Rather, as Justice Scalia later wrote, ``it gutt[ed], in six quick
pages devoid of textual or historical precedent. . . . a carefully
researched and reasoned 70-page opinion.'' That juxtaposition alone
tells you what you need to know about these decisions. One had
constitutional text and original understanding and historical precedent
behind it. The other was constitutional law by judicial fiat.
Article II of the Constitution unquestionably establishes a unitary
executive. The vesting clause provides that ``the executive power shall
be vested in a President of the United States of America.''
As Alexander Hamilton explained it in Federalist No. 70, placing the
totality of the Executive power in a single individual was no
happenstance. It was no mistake. It wasn't just sort of some fluke. The
delegates to the Constitutional Convention recognized that a unified
executive was essential to ensure energy and accountability in the
execution of the laws, and the Constitution was drafted accordingly,
consistent with this understanding.
Without the authority to supervise and direct, and, yes, ultimately
fire his subordinates, it is impossible for the President to fulfill
his duty imposed by article II to ``take care that the laws be
faithfully executed.''
The Founders also understood that the President's removal power was
the bedrock of his authority to oversee the executive branch. In a
famous debate during the First Congress, James Madison argued that ``if
any power whatsoever is in its nature Executive, it is the power of
appointing, overseeing, and controlling those who execute the laws.''
He went on to note that ``if the President should possess alone the
power of removal from office, those who are employed in the execution
of the law will be in their proper situation, and the chain of
dependence be preserved; [they] will depend, as they ought, on the
President, and the President on the community.''
Madison's argument prevailed, and the First Congress declined, on
constitutional grounds, for the reasons articulated by James Madison
himself, to create for-cause removal protections for the heads of the
newly established executive branch departments. They considered it;
Madison raised, very persuasively, this constitutional argument against
it; and then they voted it down. That was the original understanding of
the removal power, and it predominated for nearly 150 years after the
Founding.
Since Humphrey's Executor and its radical departure from the original
understanding in 1935, for-cause removal protections, both statutory
and otherwise, have, sadly, proliferated, giving rise to a vast,
headless, out-of-control branch of government, a fourth branch of
government, if you will, that exists beyond the control of the
President and is therefore unaccountable to the people.
In fact, by some estimations, there are over 80 so-called independent
agencies within the executive branch. These executive branch agencies
that we refer to somehow as independent are entrusted with regulating
immense swaths of American life--from competition policy and workplace
safety regulations to labor relations and even securities laws. They
make rules; they adjudicate rights; and they enforce laws. The
potential for abuse is tremendous; the inconsistency with the
republican principles this country was founded on, obvious.
Now, there are a lot of people here who like the sound of the term
``independent agency,'' and they might suppose, incorrectly, that an
agency that is independent, that is beyond the control of the President
of the United States to oversee, that that is somehow a good thing.
On closer inspection, we discover that quite the opposite is true.
When we insulate someone from Presidential oversight, what we are doing
is taking the American people out of the picture. There is a reason why
we have elections every 4 years, and those elections focus on the
election of a President. It is so there is some chain of accountability
between the people and the executive branch of government.
That has become more important, not less, over the last few decades
as we have created more and more executive branch agencies and we have
entrusted those agencies with more and more power. It has never been
more important than it is today to make sure the people are connected.
If you disconnect the American people by insulating them from the
political process, then you have a whole group of people who these days
are charged not just with administrating the laws but, in some cases,
with effectively making it and interpreting it, and you are taking them
beyond the supervision that would otherwise be appropriate by the
President of the United States within the executive branch of
government.
In their fight against British tyranny, the Patriots of the American
Revolution rallied behind the principle of ``no taxation without
representation.'' Today we are faced with a somewhat different threat
to freedom, as Chief Justice Roberts wrote in a case just a few years
ago. ``The growth of the Executive Branch, which now wields vast power
and touches almost every aspect of daily life, heightens the concern
that it may slip from the Executive's control, and thus from that of
the people.''
In other words, as Chief Justice Roberts explained, when you take
this power away from the President, you are taking it away from the
people. The people lose their input on and their control over these
very important functions of what is appropriately described as the
people's government.
The concern is further compounded by the existence of independent
agencies that are, by law, divorced from any Presidential control. As a
result, in this new fight against tyranny, our watchword perhaps must
be ``no regulation without representation.'' That is why I have
spearheaded the Article I Project and why I supported legislation such
as the REINS Act and the Separation of Powers Restoration Act that
would bring the Federal regulatory apparatus, as we know it, to heel.
Of course, more is needed. We need to not only reform Congress's
relationship with the administrative state but the President's as well.
To that end, I am introducing new legislation called the Take Care Act.
The bill would restore the unitary executive envisioned by the Founders
and, in fact, required by the Constitution by stripping away all
existing for-cause removal protections from the so-called independent
agencies. It would also limit Congress's ability to create for-cause
protections by implication in the future and take other critical steps
to fortify the President's directive authority.
Simply put, the Take Care Act would eliminate the headless fourth
branch of government, empower the President to ensure faithful
execution of the law, and make the bureaucracy accountable to the
people again. Importantly, the Take Care Act would not cause the work
of administrative agencies to become subject to the unmitigated whims
and caprices of a President. There is still very real, very meaningful
political constraints, including the Senate's advise and consent role,
that would ensure, as they do now, in areas outside of these so-called
independent agencies, that the executive officers can fulfill their
congressionally assigned duties without undue interference.
In other words, although there are some so-called independent
agencies as to which the President has no removal

[[Page S3261]]

power, there are a whole lot that are not. The President's Cabinet and
many other positions within the Federal Government involve people who
are appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and who serve
at the pleasure of the President who can be fired at any moment for any
reason the President might deem appropriate.
Nevertheless, that does not mean that Presidents go around just
firing people arbitrarily because Presidents understand that there is a
political cost to doing that. We have seen in recent years, and we have
seen earlier in American history, how Presidents, even when they have
disagreements with members of their Cabinet or other people who serve
at the pleasure of the President--Presidents are still reluctant to
fire people because there are political costs attached to that, and
especially where Congress perceives there might be a partisan political
motive in mind, Congress may well take action.
In the case of the Senate, it almost inevitably will at least
threaten, if not carry out the threat, to hold up future confirmations
of Presidential appointees if Presidents abuse this power.
So it simply isn't true to say that this would open the floodgates
and cause all Presidents to just fire people arbitrarily without
hesitation in the future. What it would mean is that our elected
President would have the power to represent the people and to oversee
the executive branch of the Federal Government just as article II
already requires.
So all this bill would do would be to rescind and limit
unconstitutional restrictions on the President's removal power, and
while it may be more convenient to limit this power by statute,
convenience and efficiency are not the primary objectives or the
hallmarks of a democratic government, as the Supreme Court has
repeatedly reminded us.
Another famous catchphrase popularized by an American President is
``the buck stops here,'' which President Truman, of course, displayed
on a placard on his desk in the Oval Office at the White House during
his Presidency. What it means is, the President is the final decision
maker within the executive branch, and, therefore, bears the sole and
ultimate responsibility for executing the laws.
In order to fulfill that very special, sacred, important
responsibility, the President must have plenary power to direct the
President's subordinates in how they carry out their assigned tasks
and, if necessary, fire them. That is what the Constitution and,
indeed, common sense require. By restoring the original understanding
and restoring the removal power to the Presidency, the Take Care Act
would give the President this authority.
By taking this step, we would reempower the American people with that
which is rightfully theirs to begin with.

____________________