[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 75 (Tuesday, May 2, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2663-S2666]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                     Government Funding Legislation

  Mr. President, as we all know by now, over the weekend an agreement 
was finally reached on the funding bill to keep the U.S. Government 
open and to provide much needed, long-term funding to our Federal 
agencies.
  I am particularly glad we found a way forward. Now, that is not 
synonymous with saying I like everything in the bill, but a piece of 
legislation like this is inherently a compromise. Compromise means that 
usually people on both ends of the negotiation are not entirely happy 
because they have had to give up something in order to get something. 
This is the process, and we have to build consensus, even on 
controversial topics like this funding bill.
  The agreed to bill consists of the 11 remaining appropriations bills, 
with additional funding set aside for our military, disaster relief, 
and border security. I, for one, have been encouraged to hear folks 
from both sides of the aisle--Republicans and Democrats alike--make 
clear that we actually agree more than we disagree when it comes to 
securing our border.
  President Trump has made no secret of his position. He said from the 
beginning that border security would be a top priority for him. Coming 
from a border State, as does the Presiding Officer, we all understand 
particularly well how important this is to our communities along the 
border but also to our States and to the entire country.
  I have been glad to read press reports and hear the minority leader, 
Senator Schumer, among others, talk about how providing more resources 
to secure our borders is necessary to keep us safe and to stem the tide 
of illegal drugs, illegal immigration, and contraband entering our 
country.
  In fact, last week, the Senator from New York, the minority leader, 
said: ``Democrats have always been for border security.'' Well, I was 
glad to hear him say that.
  Last month during the State work period, I had the chance to speak to 
hundreds of my constituents from all across the State--10 cities in 
all. Part

[[Page S2664]]

of that time was spent visiting with folks who live and work along the 
U.S.-Mexico border, specifically in Laredo and in the town of Mission, 
near McAllen.
  All along the border, we talked about the significant ties between 
the United States and Mexico, how Mexico is Texas' largest trading 
partner, and how Texas farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers rely 
greatly on trade with our southern neighbor. They pointed out that the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce has actually issued a chart that documents 
that 5 million American jobs depend on binational trade with Mexico. I 
think most people are unaware of that or don't pay enough attention to 
the fact that our economies are inextricably tied together.
  During my visit to the border, I was fortunate enough to have the 
chance to talk about our mutual security concerns with Governor Cabeza 
de Vaca, the Governor of Tamaulipas, a State that shares its northern 
border with Texas.
  I am grateful to Mexican leaders like the Governor and my friend 
Ambassador Gutierrez, the new Mexican Ambassador to the United States, 
who share our vision for a more secure border and more robust trade at 
the same time. They are not mutually exclusive. It is important that we 
have both--security and trade.
  It goes without saying that free trade has been a cornerstone of the 
economy in Texas, adding billions to our economy annually and 
bolstering our relationship with our partner to the south. In other 
words, free-trade agreements, particularly NAFTA, or the North American 
Free Trade Agreement, are particularly important to many of my State's 
leading industries, such as agriculture and energy.
  As I said, bilateral trade with Mexico supports 5 million jobs across 
our entire country, and this has led to a vibrant border, from El Paso, 
out in West Texas, and all the way to Brownsville in the south. Of 
course, like anything that is 20-plus years old, there is room for it 
to be updated and improved, and NAFTA is no different. I hope in moving 
forward that the President will work with us to modernize NAFTA.

  As we consider this Omnibus appropriations bill and specifically more 
resources to enhance security along the border, I think we can all 
agree that our approach should be twofold: We must devote resources to 
not only enhance border security but also to fix aging infrastructure 
at our ports of entry. Fortunately, this bill does exactly that. It 
contains the most robust border security funding in 10 years, and that 
includes funding for infrastructure upgrades, increasing technology 
along the border, and improving TSA screening at airports too.
  I am glad we found a way to fund the government and to actually 
govern while doing more for our national defense and security, 
particularly security along the border. But let's not lose sight of the 
ultimate aim here: Our country needs long-term, sustainable funding for 
our government, particularly for our national security, so they can 
plan and prepare in the years ahead, and the stop-start and short-term 
continuing resolutions or the threat of a government shutdown does not 
facilitate that sort of planning and preparation. That is how the 
appropriations process was designed to work best, and that is what I 
hope we are all working toward--a restoration of the normal 
appropriations process, with no more of these narratives about 
shutdowns.
  We weren't elected, in my view--certainly not given the majority here 
in the Senate and in the House, as well as the President in the White 
House--to shut down the government; we were elected to govern. Yes, 
governing is hard. It is hard by design. It is hard for anything to 
navigate the maze of the legislature and this legislative process. It 
is hard to get people to agree in the House and then the Senate and 
then to get the signature of the President of the United States. But 
that is the way our Founding Fathers designed our constitutional 
system.
  I think most of our colleagues in this Chamber would agree that we 
want to provide more stability, not less. It is important for our 
economy, if we want to see our economy grow.
  I just heard from folks who visited my office. They said the 
political instability of rules changing from one administration to the 
next with Executive orders and the like really is a deterrent to 
investment because they don't know whether the business model they are 
employing today will be viewed the same way tomorrow with a new 
administration. So we need to provide more stability by getting back to 
the consensus-building process that is legislating, and we need to do 
away with short-term continuing resolutions and funding that actually 
hurts us strategically.
  I know my family and most folks I know take a look at their budget. 
They consider what they want to do with it, including the things they 
absolutely have to pay for, and then from there decide if they have 
anything left for a vacation or if they want to save more or if they 
need to make an improvement in their home down the road. That is how we 
responsibly prepare for tomorrow in our personal lives, and governing 
is no different in that sense. That is how we can do better by the 
generations coming after us in the Senate--by putting our country on a 
budget and sticking to it. This bill, while not perfect, is a step in 
that direction. It complies with the budget caps of the Budget Control 
Act of 2011, which has kept discretionary spending roughly flat since 
2011. That is an amazing accomplishment in many ways.
  But if you look at the rest of what Congress does not appropriate--
the so-called mandatory or entitlement spending--it has been going up, 
and it will go up next year 5.5 percent.
  The fact is, until we have the courage to come to grips with all of 
the money the Federal Government spends so we can prioritize it in a 
fiscally responsible way--we will never adequately fund our military 
and we will never adequately fund our other national priorities as long 
as Congress and the White House are left with 70 percent of that 
spending untouchable because of the politics involved. I hope some day 
we will have the courage to deal with that.
  Mr. President, just a couple other thoughts before I close. I hear 
people from time to time talk about whether a government shutdown is 
one of those tactics or tools one might use in a negotiation to 
actually gain advantage. I happen to think that a government shutdown 
is basically an abdication of our responsibility, particularly if we 
are in the majority.
  On what basis would we argue to voters: Look, elect me, and I will 
shut down the government. Our voters, the people who elected Republican 
majorities in both Houses and elected this President, did not vote for 
us in order to shut down the government; they voted for us to govern, 
as hard as it is. As I said a moment ago, it is hard by design. People 
get frustrated. People don't get everything they want the first time 
they try to get it. Sometimes people just give up, which is what 
shutting down the government is--it is giving up.
  I hear other people talk about things like the filibuster. It is 
important to recognize there are basically two types of things we do 
here in the Senate. One is that we take up the nominations of the 
President's nominees, as we did with Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme 
Court. We do that for his Cabinet and the like. Basically, there are 
two choices there: yes or no.
  We have decided together that all of the President's Cabinet nominees 
and now all of the judges will get an up-or-down vote. So we have 
eliminated the so-called filibuster, or the 60-vote requirement, when 
it comes to nominations because you can't offer an amendment to a 
nomination. You can't shape it in order to try to develop consensus. So 
I think there is a good argument that we should never have headed down 
the road of a filibuster of nominees. They need to get a majority vote, 
and if they do, then they are going to be confirmed.
  Legislation is fundamentally different. We have 535 Members of 
Congress, all of us coming with different experience and different 
points of view. Again, the Founding Fathers made it hard for us to 
build sufficient consensus in order for us to govern this big country 
of ours, some 320 million people. What they understood fundamentally 
was that the only way that happens is when we are forced to govern by 
consensus; that is, to build sufficient votes in order to have some 
stability and durability in the laws we pass. Laws having to do with 
Medicare and

[[Page S2665]]

Social Security were controversial in their day, but there was 
bipartisan consensus that supported them, and that is why they remain 
durable to this day.
  I have heard people recently--actually since the election and 
actually as recently as today--say ``Well, maybe we ought to do away 
with the 60-vote cloture requirement,'' which is another way of saying 
``Let's do away with the filibuster on legislation.'' Well, I think I 
know how Members of the Senate feel about that, by and large. If I am 
not mistaken, the Senator from Maine, our friend Ms. Collins, and 
others led an effort to get 61 signatures from Senators saying they 
didn't believe we should ever do away with the legislative filibuster, 
and I agree with that. It is very important that in a country as big 
and diverse as ours, with 535 Members of Congress, that we be forced or 
strongly encouraged, at least, to build consensus before we pass laws 
that are going to govern this great and vast country of ours. That is 
why the cloture requirement or the filibuster requirement is still 
important. It may be frustrating, it may take longer to get things 
done, but once we get them done by bipartisan consensus, then they are 
durable and they will last even beyond the next President and the next 
administration.
  There is another reason it is important to keep the filibuster 
requirement on legislation. That is because when we are in the 
minority, as Republicans have been from time to time--when the majority 
can't get the 60 votes because there is sufficient dissension and 
different points of view that deny 60 votes, then legislation can't 
pass because we can't cut off debate under the cloture rule.
  I have in my hand a document with 15 examples of bills that our 
Democratic friends, when they were in the majority, supported but that 
failed to reach the 60-vote threshold because Republicans were not 
convinced, and thus cloture was not achieved and the bills were not 
passed. I can think of tax increases. I can think of card check in the 
labor law environment. I can think of measures with regard to climate 
change, which remains politically controversial--not the fact of 
climate change but, rather, what government should do to respond to it. 
There are examples like that and others where Republicans, even when we 
were in the minority, were able to stop and force a more extended 
conversation, to force greater effort at consensus building before we 
passed legislation that might have such a dramatic impact on our great 
country.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this document be printed 
in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  Mr. President, we will continue to debate this appropriations bill 
this week. My hope is that we will pass it by Thursday and we will move 
on to our other business. I know the House of Representatives is 
revisiting the healthcare bill that will, once passed the House, come 
to the Senate, and the Senate will have an opportunity to weigh in on 
that, and then the consensus building will continue until we ultimately 
get it to the President for his signature.
  Shortly behind that is going to be a pro-growth tax reform bill, 
which is going to be an important element of what we do this year to 
help get our economy growing and back on track. Again, this is 
something on which no individual has all the good ideas, and we are 
going to have to work together to get it done. I think it is very 
important that we get the funding of the government behind us so we can 
move on to healthcare reform, so we can move on to tax reform.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        Why the Senate Legislative Filibuster Protects Americans


Fifteen examples of Democratic Bills with Majority Support that failed 
                     to reach the 60-vote threshold

       S. 3036: Climate Security Act (Cap and Trade)--Vote: 48-36 
     (Jun. 6, 2008)
       S. 3044: Consumer-First Energy Act (Increased taxes on 
     energy producers)--Vote: 51-43 (Jun. 10, 2008)
       S. 3268: Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act (Imposed new 
     regulations on energy trading)--Vote: 50-43 (Jul. 25, 2008)
       S. 3816: Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act 
     (Protectionist trade policies)--Vote: 53-45 (Sept. 28, 2010)
       S. 1323: Sense of the Senate regarding the budget 
     (Resolution expressing the need to increase taxes)--Vote: 51-
     49 (Jul. 13, 2011)
       S. 1660: American Jobs Act of 2011 (Democratic stimulus 
     bill/Tax Hike)--Vote: 50-49 (Oct. 11 2011)
       S. 2204: Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act (Raised taxes on 
     energy producers)--Vote: 51-47 (Mar. 29 2012)
       S. 2230: Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012 (``Buffet Rule'' 
     Tax Hike)--Vote: 56-42 (Apr. 16, 2012)
       S. 2237: Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act (Democratic 
     stimulus bill/Tax hike)--Vote: 53-44 (Jul. 12, 2012); Vote: 
     57-41 (Jul. 12 2012)
       S. 3369: DISCLOSE Act of 2012 (Political free speech 
     restrictions)--Vote: 51-44 (Jul. 16, 2012); Vote: 53-45 (Jul. 
     17, 2012)
       S. 3364: Bring Home Jobs Act (Raised taxes on American-
     based global businesses)--Vote: 56-42 (Jul. 19, 2012)
       S. 388: American Family Economic Protection Act (Dem. 
     sequester alternative: raised taxes and cut defense 
     spending)--Vote: 51-49 (Feb. 28, 2013)
       S. 1845: Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act 
     (Extend length of unemployment benefits, adding billions to 
     the deficit)--Vote: 52-48 (Jan. 14, 2014); Vote: 55-45 (Jan. 
     14, 2014); Vote: 58-40 (Feb. 6, 2014); Vote: 55-43 (Feb. 6, 
     2014)
       S. 2223: Minimum Wage Fairness Act (Raised the minimum wage 
     to $10.10)--Vote: 54-42 (Apr. 30, 2014)
       S. 2569: Bring Jobs Home Act (Raise taxes on American-based 
     global businesses)--Vote: 54-42 (Jul. 30, 2014)
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, 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.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Strange). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, when he was running for President, Donald 
Trump laid out a pretty clear vision of how he would deal with Wall 
Street. He said: ``Wall Street has caused tremendous problems for us.'' 
He claimed he wasn't ``going to let Wall Street get away with murder,'' 
and he called out Goldman Sachs as the prime example of a big bank that 
has too much influence over the political process. That was really 
powerful stuff.
  When Candidate Trump became President Trump, he seemed to forget 
every scrap of his tough-on-Wall Street talk. Within weeks of taking 
office, he turned over his administration's economic agenda to none 
other than Goldman Sachs. His senior strategist, Steve Bannon, spent 
half a decade at Goldman Sachs as an investment banker. His National 
Economic Council Director, Gary Cohn, came directly from Goldman Sachs, 
where he spent 25 years and rose to become President of the bank. His 
Secretary of the Treasury, Steve Mnuchin, spent 17 years at Goldman 
Sachs before leaving to start his own hedge fund, which brings us to 
Jay Clayton, President Trump's nominee to run the Securities and 
Exchange Commission. To be fair, Mr. Clayton never worked at Goldman 
Sachs, he just worked for Goldman Sachs, taking their money and 
representing them for years as a lawyer at a major New York City law 
firm.
  So here we are, just over 8 years after Wall Street triggered a 
financial crisis and brought the economy to its knees, and President 
Trump has put the Goldman Sachs gang in charge of holding Wall Street 
accountable. Trump's betrayal of his campaign promises on Wall Street 
is shameful, but it is also dangerous, especially when it comes to 
picking the person to lead the SEC. The SEC is supposed to be the cop 
on the beat for Wall Street. That is why Congress created it in the 
1930s, after fraud and other misconduct on Wall Street led to an 
enormous stock market crash and the Great Depression. Congress gave the 
SEC the authority to oversee financial markets and to hold companies 
and individuals accountable when they defrauded investors.
  When the SEC doesn't do its job, the consequences can be devastating. 
Look at what happened the last time the SEC was under Republican 
control in the years leading up to the 2008 crisis. The SEC was asleep 
at the switch. While Wall Street flooded the market with dangerous 
securities and lied to investors, the SEC heard nothing, saw nothing, 
stopped nothing. The Republican-led SEC did nothing. When the whole 
market blew up, it was ordinary

[[Page S2666]]

investors and working families who got asked to bail out Wall Street.
  So what kind of SEC Chairman would Mr. Clayton be? Let's start by 
looking at how he would lead the SEC's enforcement efforts against Wall 
Street, how he would be as a cop on the beat. Under ethics rules, for 
the first half of his term, Mr. Clayton cannot participate in any 
enforcement action that involves one of his former clients. That means 
he cannot take part in any case against Goldman Sachs. OK. But there is 
more. Goldman Sachs is just one of his former big bank clients. Mr. 
Clayton also can't take action against Deutsche Bank or against UBS or 
against Barclays. These are some of Wall Street's biggest and most 
egregious repeat offenders, and Mr. Clayton would be barred from 
enforcing the law against them.
  That is not all. Ethics rules also prevent Mr. Clayton from 
participating in any enforcement case against a party that is 
represented by his former law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell. Sullivan and 
Cromwell is a premier Wall Street firm, with a long client list that 
includes big banks like JPMorgan Chase and the credit rating agency 
Moody's. That means there will likely be even more cases against top 
Wall Street firms that Mr. Clayton can't work on.
  Here is why that matters so much. For most enforcement actions, it 
takes a majority vote of the five SEC Commissioners. In other words, it 
takes three people to advance an enforcement action. In a number of 
recent cases, the two Democrats have voted for stronger enforcement and 
the two Republicans have voted against it. If the Chairman can't vote--
and Mr. Clayton can't vote if some of the biggest and most disreputable 
banks are involved--then the Commission is likely to come up short of 
the necessary three votes. You know what that means. It means the banks 
walk free. Confirming Mr. Clayton to run the SEC will almost certainly 
result in weaker enforcement against the major players on Wall Street.
  Mr. Clayton is also likely to pursue a Wall Street-friendly agenda 
when it comes to the SEC's rulemaking responsibilities. When he 
testified before me and before other members of the Banking Committee, 
Mr. Clayton refused to commit to completing the rules that Congress 
asked the SEC to write all the way back in 2010 as part of its 
postcrisis financial reforms. Mr. Clayton even refused to commit to 
implementing and enforcing some of the postcrisis rules that the SEC 
has already finalized and put in place.
  I don't have any faith that Mr. Clayton will be the kind of tough, 
independent leader we need at the SEC. His nomination is just one more 
broken promise, one more time that Donald Trump has put Wall Street 
ahead of the interests of the American people. The last time a 
Republican President led us down this path, it resulted in the worst 
financial crash of our lifetime. We can't go down that path again.
  I will be voting against Mr. Clayton's nomination, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.