[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 184 (Thursday, December 17, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8761-S8765]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this week the Omnibus appropriations bill 
was released, along with the tax relief bill, that extends and makes 
permanent many important tax credits and lays the foundation for 
comprehensive tax reform, hopefully sometime soon. Members of this 
Chamber and the House have been reviewing the text of both pieces of 
legislation, and I am happy to report that the House of Representatives 
has now given a resounding bipartisan vote on the tax relief bill, with 
318 Members of the House of Representatives voting to support it. The 
House, we are told, will move on the Omnibus appropriations bill 
tomorrow morning, and then we will take up both bills tomorrow morning 
in the Senate.
  I want to just remember and recall for anybody listening that the 
appropriations process did not have to end up this way. As a matter of 
fact, after having passed the first budget that Congress has had since 
2009, that then authorized the Appropriations Committee to begin the 
process of considering and passing 12 separate appropriations bills. 
Once they are voted out of committee, we will bring them to the floor, 
where they are open for amendment and debate in a completely 
transparent process, where people can understand the details of the 
legislation.
  It didn't turn out that way because our Democratic colleagues 
filibustered these individual appropriations bills, thereby leaving us 
with no alternative but to consider this massive Omnibus appropriations 
bill.
  I am tempted to call this omnibus bill an ominous bill, but I am not 
sure that is pejorative enough. It is not the right way to do business. 
I am disappointed. I am disappointed in our colleagues across the aisle 
who forced us to do business this way with them, but I hope next year 
we can have a regular and open appropriations process, one that will 
serve the American people far better.
  I am by no means happy with the way this year-end funding bill has 
come together, after having been hijacked, held up, and effectively 
shut down, but if this sounds familiar, this looks a lot like the 
strategy they employed when they were in the majority

[[Page S8762]]

preceding the election of just a year ago. Do you know what happened? 
Well, it didn't work very well because they ended up losing their 
majority.

  Needless to say, the American people actually want us to do our jobs, 
to look out for their interests, and to make sure we pass legislation 
that is thoroughly considered, transparent, and then we could be held 
accountable for the votes we have made. Unfortunately, this omnibus 
appropriation process undercuts those principles, and as I said a 
moment ago, it is not a good way--it is a terrible way--to have to do 
business.
  But I am happy and proud of the fact that in virtually every other 
area we have undertaken--following the budget, the multiyear highway 
bill, the trade promotion authority legislation, the Defense 
authorization bill that was led by our colleague from Arizona, the 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the Justice for Victims of 
Trafficking Act that passed 99 to 0--as I was talking about with the 
Senator from Tennessee, it is clear we know how to work together on a 
bipartisan basis, disagreeing on some issues but finding common ground 
where we can, and the American people end up being the winner.
  Dysfunction and shutdowns do not work. That is not why most of us 
came here. Most of us came here to try to make this institution and the 
country and conditions for our constituents a little bit better, one 
step at a time.
  In this Omnibus appropriations bill there is an issue I want to 
highlight, and that is a clear win for progrowth and one that will 
foster, not hinder, job creation, and that is lifting the decades' old 
ban on exporting crude oil produced here in America. This month 
actually marks 40 years since the United States implemented a ban on 
the export of crude oil, a policy that was put into place as a 
precaution to protect the United States from disruption in the global 
oil supply. But as we all know, the world looks a lot different than it 
did back then. The shale revolution has helped the geopolitical energy 
landscape turn in favor of the United States, and we have an abundance 
of oil and natural gas available, not only for our use here 
domestically but to export to our friends and allies around the world. 
By doing away with this antiquated policy and allowing our domestic 
production to reach global markets, we can kick start the U.S. economy 
and provide a real opportunity for job creation in the country.
  Lifting the ban would not just be beneficial to people working in the 
domestic energy sector because the domestic energy production involves 
many different sectors--construction, shipping, technology. By allowing 
more export of our crude, we have the potential to create thousands of 
more jobs deep into the supply chain in a variety of sectors and across 
a multitude of States. In fact, one study estimated that for every new 
production job in the oil field it translates into three additional 
jobs in the supply chain and another six in the broader economy. So we 
are talking about a major opportunity for job creation throughout our 
country.
  Doing away with this outdated protectionist policy also gives the 
United States an opportunity to promote stronger relationships with our 
allies and partners around the world. Today many of our allies in 
Europe, including some of our NATO allies, rely on countries such as 
Iran and Russia for their energy needs. Our allies' dependence on our 
adversaries for basic needs such as heating, electricity, and fuel 
creates a real vulnerability that exists for the United States, as 
their ally and partner. By lifting the ban, the United States can help 
offer our friends a chance to diversify their energy supplies and 
enhance their energy security and avoid giving people such as Vladimir 
Putin the opportunity to use oil and gas and energy as a weapon.
  Lifting the crude oil export ban will strengthen our economy. It will 
actually save Americans on their gasoline prices at the pump by 
increasing supply, and it will help our friends and allies around the 
world. So it is a big win for the American people, whether or not you 
work directly in the industry.
  Finally, I would say--and I know the Senator from Arizona is waiting 
to speak, so I will be brief--that I am happy to see that the omnibus 
also includes several bipartisan priority items that will benefit my 
constituents in Texas. For example, for years I have worked alongside 
of Congressman Filemon Vela, a Democrat from South Texas, to put 
pressure on Mexico to fulfill its commitment to deliver water to South 
Texas as outlined and required in a 1944 treaty. Now this is incredibly 
important for a wide swath of folks whose access to water is not always 
assured. This bill includes language that reinforces that commitment 
and includes a measure that requires the State Department to assess the 
impact of Mexico's water debt on Texas and the rest of the United 
States.
  This bill also renews an innovative port of entry partnership program 
modeled after the Cross-Border Trade Enhancement Act. This, too, is 
bipartisan legislation in this case, which I have introduced along with 
Congressman Henry Cuellar, another South Texas Democrat, earlier this 
year. Specifically, it provides new opportunities for border 
communities and businesses to improve staffing levels and upgrade 
infrastructure at our international border crossings to help move 
people and goods across our border more safely and efficiently. 
Obviously, with 6 million jobs in the United States dependent on cross-
border commercial traffic and trade between the United States and 
Mexico, this is really important.
  This omnibus legislation also includes a provision to fully repeal 
the country-of-origin labeling regulations known as COOL. This has been 
a real problem for our livestock producers in Texas and in the United 
States. By repealing these costly food labeling mandates, the United 
States will avoid a trade war with Canada and Mexico, two of our 
largest export and trading partners, and will help Texas farmers, 
ranchers, and manufacturers back home in my State and across the 
country.
  In terms of national priorities, the omnibus bill increases resources 
for our military, thanks to the leadership of people such as the 
chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. This bill will 
increase resources for our Active-Duty military to make sure that those 
deployed around the world, as well as those serving stateside, have 
what they need to get the jobs done that they volunteered to do.
  This legislation also blocks overreach by the Environmental 
Protection Agency by providing no new or expanded funding for its 
programs--the lowest level of funding since 2008.
  Finally, this bill prioritizes our veterans and helps ensure they are 
better able to receive the care and benefits they deserve in a timely 
manner.
  This legislation also includes the Protecting Americans from Tax 
Hikes Act, which includes the permanent extension of State and local 
sales tax deductions, something that amounts to more than $1 billion in 
annual tax relief for Texans. This will ensure that Texans are on a 
level playing field with those who deduct their State income tax, 
because we don't have an income tax and never will. That is something 
that I can say that Texas will never have. As I said, it never will.
  This also rolls back several of President Obama's ObamaCare taxes and 
can provide relief to folks all over the country being crushed by the 
President's failed, unpopular health care law.
  So while no legislation is perfect, and indeed this process is the 
antithesis of perfect--it is the wrong way to do business--this is the 
hand we have been dealt by the filibusters of the appropriations bills 
by our Democratic colleagues. So we are doing the best we can with the 
hand that we have been dealt. In the end, nothing passes Congress and 
gets signed into law by the President without some level of bipartisan 
cooperation in both Chambers of Congress and working together with the 
executive branch. This legislation does include several significant 
wins for the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016. I am obviously pleased we are 
not going to pass another continuing resolution, which I believe is 
irresponsible, but at the same time the process by which we are now 
considering this legislation is just as irresponsible.

[[Page S8763]]

  As my colleague from Texas just pointed out, we are here where we are 
because my colleague and leader on the other side of the aisle refused 
to allow the appropriations bills that had been passed through 
committee one by one to be considered and voted on and amended in the 
fashion that the American people expect us to behave, and, frankly, the 
Constitution demands. So here we are after months and months of 
gridlock with the Democrat leader not allowing us to bring up these 
bills one by one.
  We are now faced with a $1.1 trillion bill that, in the view of many, 
is must-pass with literally hours to review and debate and no 
amendments--no amendments. So we are faced with a parliamentary 
situation of $1.1 trillion we are considering without an amendment--
without a single Member on either side of the aisle being able to 
propose an amendment to make it better. My friends, this is a recipe 
for corruption. It is a recipe for corruption.
  A few people--a very few people--not all 100 Members of the Senate or 
435 Members of the House but a handful of people behind closed doors 
work, and then 48 hours or so, or whatever it is, before the vote, it 
is presented to us as ``take it or leave it,'' with the choice being 
this: Well, you can sign on to it; you will probably have to hold your 
nose, but we have no choice.
  Well, my friends, I believe we do have a choice. I believe we do have 
a choice. I believe we should behave in the manner in which our 
constituents expect us to behave: Take up a bill, have an amendment, 
have a debate, have a discussion, and do what we are supposed to do. 
And if the Democratic leader wants to block us, then let him take the 
responsibility for doing so. Now we are faced with a $1 trillion 
spending bill that includes numerous policy provisions that have never 
been debated and discussed, pork barrel spending that would never stand 
the light of day--never, ever--and I will be talking about some of 
them.
  I will give you some examples of the pork that has been snuck into 
this bill. Let me give you a few examples here that I think might 
interest our constituents. This is in this bill, in law: $3.6 million 
for 30 vineyards, breweries, and distilleries to build tasting rooms, 
conduct whiskey production feasibility studies, and other alcohol 
marketing gimmicks. Yeah, the one thing we really want to do is give 
money to help alcohol marketing. There is $100,000 in funding to sell 
goat whey sodas and soft-serve frozen goat yogurt, $247,677 to develop 
pecan snacks, and $49,750 to introduce Americans to flavored beef 
bratwurst and beef chili. If there is anything I think the American 
people need to be educated and introduced to, it is bratwurst and 
chili. There is $49,990 for spinning raw alpaca fiber into a very fine 
yarn, $42,000 to produce cheese from buffalo milk, $250,000 to produce 
and market lamb jerky, $26,270 to determine the feasibility of 
producing blue cornmeal from Navajo corn, and $200,000 to make apple 
pies. Now this list goes on and on.
  My favorite, my friends, of many of them is a thing called the 
catfish inspection office--the catfish inspection office. Most of us 
enjoy catfish and we appreciate the benefits to our nutrition and of 
course the sizeable industry around catfishing. What we have again this 
year is a Department of Agriculture catfish inspection office. Now 
there is the Department of Agriculture catfish inspection office, but 
the FDA also has a similar catfish inspection office, and the GAO, the 
Government Accountability Office, has issued more than six reports 
calling the U.S. Department of Agriculture catfish Inspection Office 
``wasteful and duplicative.'' As a result of this protectionist 
program, an estimated $15 million of your tax dollars per year will be 
spent on enabling government bureaucrats to impose barriers on foreign 
catfish importers, which will in turn increase the price of catfish for 
American consumers, restaurants, and seafood producers. So, my friends, 
in this bill $15 million every year of your tax dollars will be spent 
for a catfish inspection office. That is the kind of thing that happens 
when you get to this date at the end of the year with a mammoth bill 
worth $1 trillion. It is too ripe. It is too ripe for the picking by 
the pork barrellers who we have in the Senate and the House.

  I will quickly give a couple more examples: $1.7 million for the 
Senate kitchen exhaust systems upgrades; $65 million for Pacific coast 
salmon restoration for States. On the face of it, you would think that 
money for Pacific coast salmon restoration would perhaps be a 
beneficial expenditure of your tax dollars. Guess what. The State of 
Nevada is included in this $65 million salmon restoration. A cursory 
glance at a map of the United States might indicate that the State of 
Nevada is not exactly an ideal place for salmon restoration, but they 
are going to get some of these millions of dollars, and I am sure it 
has nothing to do with the makeup of the U.S. Senate from Nevada.
  There is $15 million for an ``incentive program'' that directs the 
Department of Defense to overpay on contracts by an additional 5 
percent if the contractor is a Native Hawaiian-owned company. So if you 
have a contract with a Native Hawaiian-owned company, the Department of 
Defense will add approximately 5 percent of taxpayers' dollars.
  There is language that makes it easier for the Department of Defense 
to enter into no-bid contracts. If there is anything in my years I have 
seen that lends itself to outrageous spending, of course it is no-bid 
contracts. The Department of Defense may eliminate competition and use 
a no-bid contract for a ``product of original thinking and was 
submitted in confidence by one source.'' That is interesting.
  Well, anyway, there are many more of those.
  I am proud of what this Congress has done this year. There are many 
good things that have been done. There has been the Defense 
authorization bill. For the first time, there has been a budget. For 
the first time, we have reformed education. For the first time, we have 
done so many things. We have finally sent a bill to the President's 
desk repealing and replacing ObamaCare, but to end the bill with this 
is really an embarrassment.
  So here we are looking at $1 trillion, and I particularly want to 
talk a little bit about national defense. I could not be more proud of 
the bipartisanship--both Democratic and Republican--that has been 
involved in the Senate Armed Services Committee and the bipartisanship 
with our friends on the other side of the Capitol.
  We have come up with legislation that has been described as the 
biggest reform bill for defense in 30 years--I am proud of it--and we 
have a lot further to go. We had hours and hours of hearings, hours and 
hours of markups. We had over 130 amendments to the Defense 
authorization bill considered on the floor of the Senate.
  We did things we have never done before. For example, we are 
completely reforming the retirement system for the military. It used to 
be that you had to stay 20 years before you could receive any financial 
benefit. Now, after 2 years and 1 month, you can get into a matching-
funds agreement with the Federal Government. So now, instead of 85 
percent of those who joined the military never receiving a financial 
benefit, 85 percent of those who join will receive it.
  So I am very proud, and I am very proud of the work I did with my 
colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, as well as our friends on 
the other side of the aisle.
  Then at the last minute, these earmarks, these pork barrel projects, 
these egregious, wasteful projects are airdropped into what I believe 
is a 2,000-page--whatever it is, it is huge, and we saw it for the 
first time at about 10 p.m. or 12 a.m. last night, and they want us to 
vote on it tomorrow. That is crazy.
  What the appropriators did, they included over 150 different programs 
and initiatives where the appropriations exceeded what they were 
authorized, totaling $9.4 billion. By passing the Defense 
authorization, we set an expectation on how to allocate funds. This was 
obviously completely broken.
  As an example, the appropriators included $160 million for humvees 
even though the Army requested zero dollars for humvees. We had 
hearings on this. We had hearings on the issue of what the Army needed, 
and it was abundantly clear that the Army did not need any more 
humvees. Somehow the appropriators decided that there would be $160 
million for humvees; $7 million for a machine gun--five times

[[Page S8764]]

the current size of the program. Again, our Army and Department of 
Defense said they didn't need it.
  But this is the worst one of all, my friends, and it will not 
surprise anyone that it is manufactured in Alabama. There is $225 
million for the addition of a joint high-speed vessel, which is, of 
course, manufactured in Alabama. This will be the 12th ship of this 
class. The Navy's requirement was 10--10 vessels. Remember, this is 
$225 million for this vessel. The Navy said stop at 10. We stopped at 
10. Last year the appropriators added one for $225 million; this year, 
another $225 million. By my calculation, that is $450 million for two 
joint high-speed vessels that the military--the Navy and the Department 
of Defense--said they don't need or want. What could we have done for 
the men and women in the military with that $450 million we just wasted 
on two ships the Navy and the military said they didn't need? It is 
unacceptable.
  The bill includes over $2 billion in funding--I am not making this 
up--it includes almost $1.2 billion on top of the $1 billion for 
medical research within the Defense Department. My friends, I want to 
emphasize that I am all in for medical research. I think medical 
research is vital to the future of all Americans. But what in the world 
does most of this have to do with Defense appropriations? Nothing. 
Nothing. It is the Willie Sutton syndrome at its best. Mr. Sutton was 
once asked why he robbed banks, and he said, ``Because that's where the 
money is.'' My friends, the Department of Defense is where the money 
is, so we have seen this gradual creeping up of funding out of defense 
funds for programs--which I will read a few of--that have nothing to do 
with defense.
  I will say again that I am for funding medical research. I think it 
is vital, and I think it is important. But someone is going to have to 
explain to me how tuberculosis, autism, lung cancer, gulf war illness--
actually, that is one of them--spinal cord injury, ovarian cancer--
those research funds should come out of the Labor, Health and Human 
Services appropriations bill, not out of defense at a time of 
sequestration, when we have planes that can't fly and guns that won't 
shoot and ships that can't sail.
  So what have we done? Let me show you what they have done this year. 
You can see the gradual increase. Beginning in 1992, there was about 
$20 million, I guess, something like that. Then in 1994 it went up and 
then up. Then something happened and it went down. Then you can see the 
gradual, almost steady increase of funding for medical research as the 
funding for defense has remained constant or even in some cases 
reduced.
  So what have we done this year, my dear friends? Here it is: $2.2 
billion of your tax dollars is now earmarked for medical research--all 
of them worthy causes. Almost none of them have anything to do with 
guns, ships, planes, barracks, or medical research that is directly 
connected to our military. To add to that, the Army received an 
additional $16 million to conduct research on Parkinson's disease, and 
the list goes on and on.
  So what do we have here. By the way, the bill also includes nine 
``Buy American'' provisions, which will inevitably add to weapons 
systems and other contracting costs. The ``Buy American'' provisions 
are a handout to labor unions and are a ploy to protect defense 
companies in a particular State.
  I won't waste time and go too much longer except to say that today we 
see an interesting political environment in America. We see on the 
Republican side--my side--we see the leading candidates, people who are 
basically seeking the nomination of the Republican Party because they 
are running against Washington; that they don't want business as usual; 
that they are frustrated by the fact that, in their view, the Congress 
doesn't work for them.
  The approval rating of Congress is consistently somewhere in the 
teens, and Americans are frustrated and they are angry. Many of them 
support an individual who says: We will make America great again; it 
will be huge. It is language that is not very specific, but it inspires 
them to see change take place.
  Although I disagree with that and I think we have a record this year 
that we can be proud of in many respects--whether it be education 
reform or whether it be finally sending a bill to the President's desk 
to repeal ObamaCare or fixing education, as I mentioned, or better ways 
of defending the Nation with many reforms of how the Pentagon does 
business--there are many things I am very proud of. I think we can 
return to our constituents and tell them that for the first time this 
year, Congress has done some things that will be helpful to the 
everyday man and woman who has not received really much benefit over 
the last 8 years since the economic collapse.
  But then we send them this Christmas turkey. We send them a bill 
laden with millions and millions of dollars in wasteful and unnecessary 
spending. We send them a bill that purchases for $225 million a ship 
that nobody wants or needs. That, my friends, gives substance and 
reason behind the frustration many of our constituents feel.
  It is probably over for this year. I think it is probably going to be 
a situation where there are sufficient votes to pass this ``omnibus 
bill'' worth $1.1 trillion of taxpayers' money without a single 
amendment, not a single one. Then we will go home, enjoy Christmas, and 
then come back in January hopefully refreshed. But I hope that in 
January we will make a commitment to the American people that we will 
stop doing business this way, that we will stop waiting until the last 
days and having these extensions that last 2 days or 3 days before the 
threat of a government shutdown--which no American I have ever met 
enjoys--and learn that the American people expect better of us than 
this process.
  I am not proud of this. In fact, I am a bit ashamed because, 
particularly on defense, there are so many critical needs of the men 
and women who are serving in our military. Their carriers are going on 
10-month cruises. Some of our men and women who are serving are on 
their fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh tour to Afghanistan. Even now many 
are going back to Iraq, and they will be going back, my friends. They 
will be going back. They will also be in Syria because, I predict to 
you now, there will be another attack on the United States of America 
because this President cannot lead. We are paying the price for a 
feckless foreign policy that is a disgrace and will be judged by 
historians as one of the low points in American history as far as 
national security is concerned.
  So instead of providing for those critical needs--and I guarantee I 
can come up with billions of dollars of critical needs. By the way, I 
can also come up with reforms that will save billions of dollars in our 
legislation.
  We are proud of that. For example, we require a reduction of 7.5 
percent per year for 4 years in the size of the staff in the military. 
That will save over $3 billion over time. I am proud of that. So we 
come to the American people with a defense bill that is lean and 
efficient. We have a long way to go, but we are proud of it. Then we 
look at things like this. It is not acceptable.
  I hope I don't have to stand up here again next year. I hope we can 
finally sit down and work for the American people, and that means 
taking up the appropriations bills one by one by one and giving them 
the same attention the Defense bill got. The Defense bill got 2 weeks, 
133 amendments, debate on every issue conceivable concerning national 
defense. We need to do that with each of the 12 appropriations bills. 
That way we can give the American people a product that is the most 
efficient, that is the least wasteful, and something we can be proud 
of.
  I urge my colleagues to understand that this legislation on the 
Defense appropriations part of it does not help America defend itself 
in these difficult times. In fact, because of the waste, because of the 
pork-barrel spending in this, because of the earmarks in it, we have 
actually harmed the ability of our Nation to defend itself and the 
welfare of the men and women who are serving. That is something we 
cannot be proud of.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S8765]]

  

  Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to complete my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________