[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.
____________________