[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 20 (Monday, February 6, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S841-S844]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                        Biennial Budget Process

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I come to the floor with a labor of love 
before the U.S. Senate. We are talking about confirmations of people 
for Secretary positions on the Cabinet of the new President. We are 
talking about all kinds of things. We are in a budget period of time. 
We are talking about this year having two budgets--one we are going to 
use early and one we are going to use late.
  The truth is, since 1980, we haven't passed all 12 appropriations 
bills in the year but twice. In other words, in the last 37 years, we 
have only twice done our job that we ought to do every year. So 2 years 
out of 37 we did it; 35 years we did not do it.
  I am joining with the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, a 
great Governor of that State and now a great Member of the U.S. Senate, 
to propound for the third Congress in a row an idea that is so simple 
and so great that it works and it works for all the American people. It 
is called a biennial budget process. What it does is it embraces a 
discipline for how you budget to bring about the right solutions in 
terms of what you do budget.
  What the biennial budget process does is it says this. We would be 
far better off if we had more oversight of spending, more authorization 
projects, and more discipline in the way we spend money we are already 
spending before we start appropriating more.
  Therefore, in every even-numbered year, we ought to do oversight of 
our spending, we ought to do accountability in our spending processes, 
we ought to do accountability in our spending process, and we ought to 
do no appropriations.
  In our odd-numbered years, the nonelection years, is when you 
appropriate. Every other year you are spending, and then every other 
year you are doing accountability. What that causes is the cream to 
rise to the top. All of a sudden in 1 year, instead of departments 
coming to say we don't have time to oversight, we have to authorize 
more, they come to you and say: Here is how we spent our money, here 
are the savings we have found, and here is how we want to move forward 
in a more efficient way.
  It is a little bit like my kitchen table and my family. All the way 
through my 49 years of marriage, my wife and I and our kids have sat 
around the kitchen table, decided what our family priorities are, from 
our vacations to our jobs, and then we budget our money for that year 
so we can pay our bills, enjoy the time we had together, and end up not 
being broke at the of the year.
  What happens when you don't do that and you are a government is you 
end up owing $19 trillion and don't know how to pay for it. We cannot 
continue to spend at the escalated rate that we are spending without 
more accountability on the process so I think the biennial process is 
the right way to go.
  There is some documentation for that. The distinguished Senator from 
New Hampshire was a Governor of her State who had a biennial budget, 
but 19 of the 50 States have biennial budgets already. They work, and 
they work fine. They give them the luxury of doing what we don't do in 
Washington, they give them the luxury of having the time to study their 
appropriations, find savings in existing taxation before they start 
raising anybody's taxes or appropriating anymore.
  It is a simple, disciplined way to go about the business of spending 
the people's money in the same way they make their determination.
  I ran a pretty large company for 19 years and was in business for 35 
years before I came to Congress. I know that running a business is 
hard, but it is not hard because it is complex; it is hard because it 
is tough. Prioritizing your appropriations is tough business.

[[Page S842]]

Somebody has to do it, and the people who are elected to the Congress 
of the United States are elected to do that job.
  I am proud to join Senator Shaheen on the floor today and urge all 
Members to vote for a biennial budget process in the Congress of the 
United States. I remind everyone in the room that we had this vote a 
few years ago as a test vote on an all-night vote-arama on the budget, 
and we got 72 votes, if I remember correctly, in favor of the biennial 
budget. We have had past Budget Committee chairmen vote in favor of the 
biennial budget.
  We have had people from the majority and the minority vote for it. 
The fact is, it is a good idea whose time has come. I am pleased to 
join Senator Shaheen from New Hampshire and plead to the Members of the 
U.S. Senate to do what we ask the American people to do. Let's 
prioritize the way we spend our money, find savings where we can, and 
run a more efficient, more honest government, and a more transparent 
government for all.
  Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am really pleased to be able to join 
my colleague Senator Isakson from Georgia as we have introduced our 
bipartisan legislation, the Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act. 
I think this is a welcomed piece of bipartisan legislation at this 
point in the year.
  I want to start by thanking the Senator from Georgia for his very 
good work on this legislation. He has been leading this effort since he 
first came to the Senate in 2005, and I have been fortunate enough to 
partner with him on the legislation in the past two Congresses.
  I think that by working together, we could pass this commonsense, 
bipartisan legislation that could change the way we do business in 
Washington for the better. As Senator Isakson said, there is no 
question that our budget process is broken.
  Since 1980, we have only finished two budgets on time. In that 
timeframe, Congress has resorted to nearly 170 short-term funding bills 
or continuing resolutions. We also experienced a costly and dangerous 
government shutdown in October of 2013 that cost our economy $24 
billion.
  It hurt small businesses. It hurt the people across this country.
  That is no way to govern. I understand, as Senator Isakson said, that 
biennial budgeting will not fix everything, but it is a reform that 
will encourage us to work across the aisle to become better stewards of 
taxpayer dollars. I can attest to this personally because, as Governor 
of New Hampshire, I saw how you make a biennial budget work.
  In each biennium, I worked with a Republican legislature, and we put 
together a balanced budget in the first year of the legislative 
session. In the second year, we had the opportunity to do oversight. 
That is exactly what this bill would allow us to do here in Washington. 
It is a reform that has worked in New Hampshire, and it has worked in 
18 other States. So as Senator Isakson said, 19 States in all have 
biennial budgeting, and it really gives us a better opportunity to 
review the budget to see what is working, what is effective, and what 
is not.
  One example that I think shows how we can do this better is looking 
at several reports that have been issued by the Government 
Accountability Office. They have found areas of waste, fraud, and 
duplicative programs. And they have identified ways to reform things, 
like our farm program, to cut down inefficiencies in defense, and to 
reduce fraud in health programs. But today, Congress hasn't really 
taken the time and effort to go through those recommendations. Under 
biennial budgeting, we would be able to look at those kinds of 
recommendations and implement savings in the second year of the budget 
process.
  Biennial budgeting also reduces the number of opportunities for 
manufactured crises, like a government shutdown. As Senator Isakson 
said, we have gotten real momentum in the last couple of years. We had 
a great vote in 2013 in the Senate, where we had an overwhelming 
bipartisan group endorse the concept. We saw a vote in the House Budget 
Committee, where legislation on a biennial budget passed with a 
bipartisan vote. It not only passed the House but had over half of the 
House Members as cosponsors. And we saw a favorable hearing in the 
Senate Budget Committee on the legislation, so I think momentum is 
growing for this idea. It is a real way for us to take action to reform 
the budget process and make it work better.
  The bill that we are introducing has 13 bipartisan cosponsors. We are 
going to keep working to get more bipartisan cosponsors, and I hope 
that all of our colleagues will join us in this effort.
  I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Isakson and with 
Senators Enzi and Sanders on the Budget Committee to get this important 
reform through the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KING. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my post closure 
debate time to Senator Feinstein from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mr. KING. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I came to the floor this afternoon to 
address the nominee for Attorney General of the United States, Mr. 
Sessions. The U.S. Constitution provides that the Senate will advise 
and consent on all nominees put forward by the President. This 
fundamental check on Executive power continues to give confidence to 
the public that the individuals charged with the immense 
responsibilities and authorities of our Federal Government are of the 
highest ethical and professional character, are highly qualified, and 
are committed to exercising those powers in a manner that is consistent 
with our founding principles.
  Any person seeking to serve in such high positions of public trust 
ought to be able to explain his or her record of personal and 
professional conduct, not only to close colleagues and friends but also 
to the public they seek to serve.
  I have great respect for Senator Jeff Sessions for his commitment to 
public service, but I don't believe that he is the right choice to 
serve as our Nation's chief law enforcement officer. Time and again in 
the course of his career, his actions have demonstrated disinterest or 
even hostility to many of the civil rights that we rely on the Attorney 
General to protect and defend, from voting rights to civil rights, to 
equality for women, minorities, the LGBTQ community, and people with 
disabilities.
  Senator Sessions' record in the Senate provides little evidence that 
his views have evolved since the last time the Senate evaluated his 
fitness to serve in high Federal office, when President Reagan 
nominated him to serve as a Federal judge in 1986. Three decades ago, 
the Senate voted against his confirmation to serve as Federal judge. 
Today, I believe the Senate should not confirm him to serve as U.S. 
Attorney General.
  At this time in our history, with the growing concern about this 
administration's commitment to basic democratic principles, such as 
equality before the law, separation of powers, freedom of the press, 
and protection of minority views, I cannot support a nominee who has 
failed to demonstrate appreciation for these ideals, regardless of our 
personal relationship. We need an Attorney General who will fight for 
justice and equal protection for all Americans, regardless of race, 
gender, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.
  One of my principal objections to this nominee is his record of 
making it harder for certain groups of people to vote. In 2013, in 
Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court struck down section 5 of the 
Voting Rights Act, also

[[Page S843]]

known as the preclearance provision. And while the overwhelming 
majority of civil rights organizations considered this ruling, which 
invalidated a landmark achievement of the civil rights movement--a 
devastating defeat--Senator Sessions was quoted as saying that it was a 
``good thing for the South.'' He has been quoted as saying that he 
views the Voting Rights Act as an intrusive piece of legislation. We 
often refer to the shorthand name for this case, calling it simply 
Shelby County. But I believe the full title is instructive: Shelby 
County v. Holder. Holder, of course, was Attorney General Eric Holder. 
And in this case, the Supreme Court ruled against the Department of 
Justice and against the views of this Congress, which voted in 2006 to 
extend section 5 for another 25 years.
  It also demonstrated the awesome responsibility and discretion of the 
Attorney General. Eric Holder was fighting to protect minorities in 
States with a history of racial discrimination from future voter 
suppression efforts. In contrast, as U.S. Attorney General, Jeff 
Sessions prosecuted several members of the Southern Christian 
Leadership Conference, the great civil rights organization formerly led 
by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He indicted these people for allegedly 
attempting to fraudulently register people in minority communities to 
vote. All of those counts were dismissed in that case. However, the 
chilling effect of this type of use of government authority on our 
civil society should not be underestimated. This illustrated the 
awesome power of the prosecutor in our judicial system. That power is 
exponentially greater in the Office of the U.S. Attorney General.
  As I said, Senator Sessions is also an outspoken advocate for voter 
ID laws, including at the Federal level. In State after State, 
including my home State of New Hampshire, unnecessarily stringent voter 
ID laws have been passed by Republicans with the clear intent to deny 
access to the ballot box on the part of minorities, the young, and the 
poor. Striking down the laws passed by Republicans in North Carolina, a 
unanimous Federal court ruled that they ``target African Americans with 
almost surgical precision''--that is a direct quote--and ``impose cures 
for problems that did not exist.''
  Invalidating similar laws in Wisconsin, U.S. District Court Judge 
James Peterson wrote: ``The Wisconsin experience demonstrates that a 
preoccupation with mostly phantom election fraud leads to real 
incidents of disenfranchisement, which undermine rather than enhance 
confidence in the elections, particularly in minority communities.''
  President Trump has falsely claimed on numerous occasions that 3 to 5 
million undocumented immigrants voted in the election in November. We 
have even heard that claim in New Hampshire, where our deputy secretary 
of State, a Republican, has said those claims are not accurate.
  Throughout our history, these arguments, not grounded in fact and 
data, have been used as a pretext for advancing new voter ID laws, 
including at the national level. Yet, as Attorney General, Senator 
Sessions would enthusiastically support this agenda. I believe that to 
be disqualifying for any nominee to serve as Attorney General.
  When I was Governor of New Hampshire, I had the honor of being able 
to appoint the attorney general in our State. My qualification was that 
the attorney general should be the people's attorney. I think that is 
no less true of the Attorney General of the United States.
  I am also deeply concerned by the nominee's record on issues 
associated with women's health and autonomy. For example, as Senator 
Blumenthal said so eloquently earlier this afternoon: Senator Sessions 
voted against the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women 
Act. This law has been reauthorized on a bipartisan basis each time it 
has been brought up since 1994.
  The 2013 reauthorization expanded the scope of domestic violence 
programs, yet Senator Sessions was one of only 22 who voted no. This is 
of particular concern when we see the framework for what is suggested 
will be the Trump administration's budget, which would eliminate the 
Office on Violence Against Women at a time when one in five women is a 
victim of rape, either completed or attempted.
  Senator Sessions has also been a fierce opponent of a woman's right 
to choose. He voted against a resolution supporting the Roe v. Wade 
decision, which affirmed the constitutional right of women to control 
our own reproductive choices. He has cosponsored legislation to 
prohibit Federal funding for health insurance plans that include 
coverage of abortion. He even opposed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, 
which removed barriers to women who bring charges of discriminatory 
wage practices.
  Senator Sessions voted against it in 2008 and again in 2009, when it 
became law over his opposition. Senator Sessions has consistently 
argued for ``color blind'' enforcement of our Nation's civil rights 
laws. He contends that racism in the United States has been effectively 
addressed, and, therefore, diversity programs unfairly discriminate 
against White Americans.
  For the same reason, he has voted against legislation to protect the 
rights and safety of the LGBT community. In 2009, he vehemently opposed 
the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act, which protects LGBT Americans from 
hate crimes. In debate on that proposed law, Senator Sessions said:

       Today I am not sure women or people with different sexual 
     orientations face that kind of discrimination. I just don't 
     see it.

  Well, Senator Sessions, if you talked to the members of the gay and 
lesbian community, as I have, if you would talk to women across this 
country who have faced discrimination in employment practices, who have 
faced discrimination before the Affordable Care Act, in terms of our 
health insurance, who have faced discrimination in terms of getting 
justice in cases of violence against women, you would understand that 
we need to make sure that the laws protect women and minorities.
  In 2013, Senator Sessions voted against a measure to prohibit 
discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation or gender 
identity. He also voted in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban 
gay marriage.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for 1 sentence?
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I will yield to the honorable Senator 
from Missouri.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Thank you so much. I yield the remainder of my 
postcloture debate time to Senator Feinstein.
  I thank Senator Shaheen. I apologize for interrupting.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. So in 2013, as I was saying, Senator Sessions voted 
against a measure to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based on 
sexual orientation or gender identity. And similarly, he voted in favor 
of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Finally, Senator 
Sessions' views on immigration are just outside the mainstream. Most 
Americans want fair, humane treatment for would-be immigrants to the 
United States, as well as for undocumented immigrants who are already 
here.
  Senator Sessions has amply demonstrated that he does not agree with 
this view. Since he came to the Senate, he has been a leading opponent 
of bipartisan immigration reform efforts. In 2007 and again in 2013, he 
was instrumental in defeating immigration reform proposals that had 
widespread support in Congress and the country.
  More recently, he has been a key adviser to Candidate Trump and now 
President Trump on immigration policies, encouraging extreme positions 
such as a ban on Muslim immigration and harsh treatment of DREAMers, 
those undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States as young 
children.
  I have also had the opportunity to work with Senator Sessions in 
trying to renew and extend the special immigrant visa program for those 
Afghans and Iraqis who helped our men and women in the military as we 
were fighting conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have heard from 
multiple members of our military who served that these interpreters and 
these people from Iraq and Afghanistan who worked with them to make 
sure that they could help keep them safe have saved lives and have made 
a difference in that military conflict because of the

[[Page S844]]

help they provided to our fighting men and women.
  Yet Senator Sessions, as we were trying to extend that program, was 
unwilling to allow us to make sure that we could bring them to the 
United States, with all of the vetting that goes on to make sure that 
the people who come here are actually people who helped us. He opposed 
extending that program to allow all of those folks to come here.
  I believe we need an Attorney General who will not only insist on 
equal enforcement of the laws but who has a passion for pursuing 
justice and fairness for all Americans, as well as for those who want 
to visit or who want to immigrate to the United States. In my view, 
Senator Sessions has failed to demonstrate that commitment.
  Indeed, I worry that as Attorney General, Senator Sessions would 
affirm and encourage Trump's most troubling tendencies, especially with 
regard to minorities, to women, to immigrants, and to the LGBTQ 
community. I believe Senator Sessions is the wrong person for the 
critically important post of U.S. Attorney General. I intend to vote 
against his confirmation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my postcloture 
debate time to Senator Schumer. I want to thank Senator Thune for his 
courtesy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, we continue to just sort of--at a glacial 
pace--work our way through the nominations. We have in front of us the 
nomination for Attorney General of Senator Jeff Sessions, a colleague 
of ours. I am very excited to be able to support his nomination to be 
the next Attorney General of the United States.
  But unfortunately it is taking an extraordinarily long time for us to 
plow through this because Democrats continue to use procedural 
roadblocks to keep the administration from being able to get their team 
in place. I say that, having concluded today, based on the research 
that we have been able to assemble, that this is the slowest pace for 
Cabinet approval since George Washington.
  Now, that sounds a little melodramatic, but I think it is accurate. 
In fact, if you go back to the Eisenhower administration and roll 
forward to today, every President, going back to Eisenhower, has had 
their Cabinet completely or mostly in place by today. In fact, going 
back to the 1880s and up through the 1930s, the entire Cabinet for 
those administrations was approved on day one--day one of the 
Presidency.
  Here we are, as we again continue to run into dilatory tactics by the 
Democrats here in the Senate. There have been now, I think, seven of 
the Cabinet-level nominees of President Trump who have been confirmed. 
At this point in President Obama's first term in office, there were 21 
confirmed. So this idea that somehow some purpose is achieved or some 
goal accomplished by dragging this process on, I think, does a great 
disservice to the American people who, when they voted last fall, voted 
with an expectation that when they put a new President in office, that 
President would be able to assemble his team and get them about the 
important work of governing this country.
  So it is regrettable that we are where we are. It is unprecedented 
and historic, the levels to which the Democrats here in this Chamber 
have taken their attempts to slow this process down. I hope that will 
change. I hope we can get back on track here, get this team put in 
place, and then let's get on with the important work we have to do.
  There is a lot of stuff that needs to be done to make this country 
stronger, more competitive, safer for Americans today, to get the 
economy growing at a faster rate, to create better-paying jobs, and 
increase wages. There is just a lot of stuff that this body needs to be 
working on. Right now, what we are doing is simply human resources 
business. We are trying to confirm people to positions, but it could go 
so much smoother, so much easier, so much more quickly, and so much 
more efficiently if we would just get a little cooperation from the 
Democrats in the Senate. I hope that will happen because this is 
unprecedented, as I said, in the level of degree to which the Democrats 
are stooping.