[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 95 (Monday, June 5, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3235-S3238]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMMEMORATING THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE REUNIFICATION OF JERUSALEM
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 176, which the
clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 176) commemorating the 50th
anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time
until 5:30 p.m. will be equally divided in the usual form.
If no one yields time, the time will be charged equally.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The Democratic leader is recognized.
London Terror Attack
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, let me first express the profound sadness
that we all felt this past week about the terrorist attacks in London.
My heart is with the people of that great city and with the victims of
this string of attacks and their families. They are all in our prayers.
The morning after the attack, I was walking down the street in New
York, and I saw a husband and wife--they looked like out-of-towners--
with three beautiful little girls, and the girls were skipping along
happily. When they are with their parents when they are little, they
get so happy. I thought: God, what if a bomb blew up and killed them.
It just got to me.
So we really feel for these people who were just taken from us much
too soon by vicious, almost inexplicable viciousness.
In this moment of trial for one of our fiercest friends and allies,
the United States also stands shoulder to shoulder with the citizens of
the UK in our joint fight against terrorists and those who support
them.
We wish a swift recovery to the injured and comfort to the victims
and
[[Page S3236]]
their families. We certainly hope the perpetrators are swiftly brought
to justice.
Infrastructure
Mr. President, on infrastructure--another matter--we know President
Trump will spend this week unveiling his infrastructure proposal in
several phases. We will have to wait and see what the full details of
the plan are before we judge it, but we Democrats welcome a discussion
on infrastructure.
We believe the Federal Government ought to invest more, not less, in
rebuilding our roads, bridges and highways, our schools, electric
grids, and our water and sewer systems. We should be investing in
expanding broadband, which is so vital for our rural areas and a number
of urban areas that are still underserved.
So we have several concerns about the President's upcoming proposal,
considering the President actually cut infrastructure investment
significantly in his budget proposal to Congress. How can you be for
infrastructure and then cut all of these proposals in your budget? That
is what he did.
Now, unfortunately based on recent reports, the entire focus of the
President's infrastructure proposal this week is on privatization,
which sounds like a nice word. But when you scratch beneath the
surface, it means much less construction and far fewer jobs,
particularly in our rural areas. It also means Trump tolls from one end
of America to the other.
If President Trump wants the private sector to finance the
construction of infrastructure, it is going to demand a price. That is
how the private sector works. The financiers will look to turn a
profit. Let's remember that there is no such thing as a free lunch. If
the financiers put in money, they are going to want to take it back.
How are they going to turn a profit on infrastructure? Tolls, tolls,
and more tolls--tolls paid by American workers, salesmen, truckdrivers,
vacationers, and commuters; tolls paid by working families, middle-
class families, and consumers of all stripes. A private-sector-driven
infrastructure plan means tolls, tolls, tolls paid by average working
Americans.
It also means that infrastructure that can't be built with tolls--
like repairing our crumbling schools, for instance--will get left
behind. Moreover, a scheme that relies on private investment will leave
rural areas of America behind. My friend the Republican Senator from
Wyoming, a member of the Republican leadership, Mr. Barrasso, who
understands the needs of his very rural State said: ``Funding solutions
that involve public-private partnerships do not work for rural areas.''
That is not Chuck Schumer speaking, although New York has the third
largest rural population in America. That is Senator Barrasso speaking.
Let me repeat what he said: ``Funding solutions that involve public-
private partnerships do not work for rural areas.''
That is the Republican Senator from Wyoming, saying an infrastructure
proposal that involves privatization ignores a huge portion of the
United States--rural areas--where infrastructure investment is greatly
needed. When a Republican Senator says that, we all ought to pay
attention at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Privatization also ignores the ongoing maintenance needs of many of
our Nation's more populated areas. Sure, maybe if the toll is high
enough, a private company could build a shiny new bridge, but they
won't do anything to fix the crumbling railroad switches, potholes, and
water main breaks that are plaguing so many of our cities, particularly
in the older areas--the Northeast, the Midwest.
One aspect the President highlighted today is privatizing our air
traffic control systems. This would put the same airline companies that
have added baggage fees and change fees and shrunk leg room in charge
of the air traffic control system. Worse still, it would let the
airlines charge consumers even more than they charge now.
If air traffic control is privatized, where are the protections for
consumers? What will prevent costs of flying from going way up? Under a
private system, what stops airlines from raising fees and taxes on
consumers?
So privatization, whether it is for the construction of roads and
bridges or in aviation, often leaves the average American with the
short end of the stick and gives big corporations way too much power.
So, again, we will wait and see what the President proposes. We want
to discuss infrastructure. We want to work with him on infrastructure.
But if it is all or mostly privatization with minimal public
investment, it will not be an effective way to rebuild our Nation's
infrastructure. It will cost middle-class families more, and it will
not create the kind of jobs our economy needs.
Let's not forget that the President proposed a trillion-dollar
infrastructure bill in the campaign. We Democrats were encouraged to
hear this. It is one of the first things I talked with President-Elect
Trump about on the phone, but so far we have been disappointed.
Senate Democrats put forward a real, trillion-dollar infrastructure
plan that would create millions of jobs and actually fix our crumbling
roads and bridges while investing in every corner of America. We stand
ready and willing to work with the President on a real plan that
actually achieves what he promised on the campaign trail. But,
unfortunately, if this week, on infrastructure, is all about
privatization, it is going to be another broken promise that President
Trump made to the working people of America.
James Comey Testimony
Mr. President, later this week, former FBI Director James Comey will
be testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee. I am glad he is
doing so in the open and on the record. I hope he is as forthcoming as
possible. Transparency and openness is absolutely vital if we are to
get to the bottom of the events of the past few months. Knowing James
Comey a little bit, transparency and openness have always been his way.
I would expect that Mr. Comey's appearance before the Senate
Intelligence Committee will not be his last appearance before Congress.
I know the Senate Judiciary Committee has made a similar request of Mr.
Comey. I support their request, and I hope he will go before them as
well.
Paris Agreement
Finally, Mr. President, a few words about the Paris climate accord. I
was deeply disappointed by President Trump's decision last week to
start the process for withdrawing the United States from the Paris
Agreement, an agreement signed by every sovereign nation, except Syria
and Nicaragua--Nicaragua, by the way, because they thought the
agreement didn't go far enough.
The decision will ultimately be viewed--the decision by Trump to pull
out of the Paris climate accord--as one of the worst decisions of the
21st century because of the huge damage it will do to our economy, our
environment, and our geopolitical standing.
Pulling out of the Paris Agreement doesn't put America first. It puts
America alone and last. It puts America last in recognizing science, in
being a world leader in protecting our own communities and working in
concert with the family of nations in safeguarding the planet we all
inhabit for future generations.
Climate change is an issue where time unfortunately is not on our
side. Every year that we don't work toward lowering our carbon emission
standards is another year of irrevocable damage to the environment.
Future generations will look back on this decision as a failure of
historic proportions.
President Trump's decision to withdraw is also a sucker punch to
American workers, who should be building the next generation of wind
turbines and solar panels. Now other countries, including China, our
economic rival, will seize the mantel of innovation and clean energy
away from America.
Listen to this. This astounded me. Just last month, Ernest & Young
published the latest edition of a report ranking nations by how
attractive they are for renewable energy investment. For the first
time, China and India both outrank the United States. So on one of the
newer technologies that will ultimately be cheaper than the existing
technologies, we are already falling behind and will fall further
behind. Imagine that China and India are now ranked by Ernst & Young as
being better places for renewable energy investment. That is not going
to help American jobs next year and certainly over the next decade.
[[Page S3237]]
It is a devastating loss to our economy, and the workers who would
have benefited greatly from America's leading the way forward in a new
industry will lose out.
Moreover, if the United States doesn't have a seat at the table with
the nations in the Paris Agreement, other nations could agree on
policies that hurt American businesses and American workers, even more
than this self-inflicted wound by President Trump.
Now, I am glad that States like my State of New York and cities and
businesses across the country are already stepping up, reaffirming
their commitment to the goals set in Paris and pledging to continue to
make progress in the fight against climate change. Our economy and our
communities will be better for it.
I seriously hope that the President reconsiders his decision for the
sake of our planet, for the future of the American economy, and for the
future of American jobs, which thrive on the kind of innovation
President Trump has just turned his back on.
Thank you, and I yield the floor.
Recognition of the Majority Leader
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
London Terror Attack
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, over the weekend, our friends and
allies suffered yet another tragic loss as terrorists struck in London,
claiming several innocent lives and injuring dozens more. Our steadfast
allies, the British, have confronted terrorism for decades, and our
friends have endured so much these past several months at the hands of
terrorists. Our hearts go out to them.
The Senate holds the victims of the attack and their families in our
thoughts, and we once again express our gratitude to all of the first
responders, medical professionals, and citizens who bravely stepped in
to help.
Our fight against terrorism will go on, and together we will target
terrorist networks and propagandists. We will continue to stand by the
British people, especially in this time of great difficulty.
Mr. President, this week marks the 50th anniversary of the beginning
of the Six-Day War. Confronted by the massing Arab armies and the
closing of the Tiran Straits, Israel responded, and in a fight for
survival, ultimately prevailed. As a result, the city of Jerusalem was
finally reunified after years of division. The reunification of the
city allowed for people of all faiths to worship and to access the
respective holy sites throughout Jerusalem.
In honor of this significant anniversary for our close ally, many
Senators from both sides of the aisle--including the Democratic leader
and myself--are joining together in a resolution to mark the occasion
today.
While we know Israel continues to face a number of threats,
bipartisan adoption of this resolution will serve as yet another
indication of the commitment of the United States of standing by our
friends in Israel. I look forward to supporting it later this afternoon
and working to strengthen our relationship with that nation in the
years to come.
Remembering Jim Bunning
Mr. President, on May 26, the Commonwealth of Kentucky lost a
legendary figure with the passing of Senator Jim Bunning. For more than
two decades, Jim was my colleague here in Congress. Before that, he was
a storied Major League Baseball pitcher, earning him a spot in
Cooperstown. Today, I remember Jim Bunning, a Hall of Famer in life.
Jim's career in the majors spanned 17 seasons, where he pitched
primarily for the Tigers and the Phillies. In that time, he earned 224
career wins and struck out 2,855 batters. Of his many impressive
accomplishments on the diamond, Jim's two greatest pitching
achievements were his no-hitter in 1958 and the perfect game he threw
in 1964, a feat that has only been accomplished 23 times in all of
baseball history.
In recognition of his career with the Phillies, the team retired
Jim's No. 14 jersey, and his baseball career was finally capped off by
his election to the Hall of Fame in 1996 by the Veterans Committee.
Anyone would be proud with such a resume, but for Jim it was only the
first act. Jim moved back to Fort Thomas in northern Kentucky. Over the
next three decades, he served at all levels of government, from the
Fort Thomas City Council to the Kentucky State Senate, to both Chambers
of the U.S. Congress, including 12 years in the House and 12 in the
Senate. Jim dedicated his life to serving the people of Kentucky, and
Kentuckians are truly grateful for his work.
He was a man of principle from start to finish. He stayed true to
himself. As Congressional Quarterly once wrote, ``All agree . . . that
[Bunning] is unafraid to go his own way.'' Throughout his career, Jim
took many principled stands, even if it meant standing alone. In his
farewell address to the Senate, he said: ``I have been booed by 60,000
fans in Yankee Stadium, standing alone on the mound, so I never cared
if I stood alone in Congress, as long as I stood by my beliefs and my
values.''
That summed up Jim Bunning, but in his life, Jim really never did
stand alone. Through trials and hardships, he always had his loving
wife Mary by his side. Jim would have been the first to tell you that
his success in life would not have been possible without Mary. She
stood with him through both the glory and the hardships of his baseball
career, and was, in Jim's words, his ``rock,'' his ``best fan,'' and
his ``best friend.'' Together, they helped raise the nine children Jim
is survived by today. He is also survived by 35 grandchildren--one of
whom, by the way, once worked in my office--and 21 great-grandchildren.
It is clear the two most important things to Jim were always his family
and his deeply held Catholic faith.
Jim was a man of strong beliefs and good character. Never one to make
excuses, he worked hard at whatever he put his mind to; first, in
baseball as a legendary pitcher and then as a voice for the people of
Kentucky for over 30 years. With an unshakeable commitment to his
family and the firm principles guiding him, Jim was truly a ``hall of
famer'' in life.
On behalf of the entire Senate family, I would like to offer
heartfelt condolences to Mary, their family, friends, and all who knew
and loved Senator Jim Bunning.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moran). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I want to talk about a subject that is
near and dear to the Presiding Officer's heart, as well as to this
Senator, because we both have had the privilege of serving on the
Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.
Congress finds itself facing a year of deadlines, and the two most
talked about are the debt ceiling and continued funding for the
government. But if that were not enough, a very important deadline is
looming that affects the safety of the traveling public. By the end of
September, Congress must reauthorize the Federal Aviation
Administration or risk the shutdown of the agency's core safety
mission.
This Senator has the privilege of being the ranking member of the
Senate Commerce Committee, and I have the privilege of working with the
chairman, Senator Thune, on a comprehensive and long-term FAA
reauthorization bill. Unfortunately, what prevented the long-term bill
from passing Congress last year is threatening to do the same again
this year.
This morning, the White House formally announced its intention to
privatize the air traffic control function of the FAA, a move the White
House claims will be self-sustaining. This so-called plan for ATC
privatization includes an entity that would be run in large part by--
you guessed it--the major airlines, and that entity would receive, free
of charge, government-owned FAA assets, and that entity would collect
user fees to finance its operations.
Well, this is how many of us interpret this proposal: Let's hand over
to the airlines all the people and the equipment essential to the safe
operation of our Nation's air traffic control
[[Page S3238]]
system and trust them--the airlines--to manage our skies and the
increasing air traffic. On top of that, here on the other side, they
say: Well, let's finance the airlines' control of our skies through
user fees paid for by the general aviation community.
We know that several airlines in the past year have had to cancel
thousands of flights and strand passengers at airports for hours
because they couldn't effectively manage their IT systems. How can we
trust airlines to govern an entity that manages our skies when they
can't even manage their own basic IT systems?
The FAA, our government's Federal Aviation Administration, safely and
effectively manages the largest and most complex airspace in the world.
Supporters of air traffic control privatization can cite other
countries all they want that have privatized, but none of those
privatized systems hold a candle to the complicated and densely
populated air traffic system the FAA has accomplished.
Rather than helping the FAA continue its progress toward modernizing
our air traffic control system through NextGen--that is being
implemented as we speak, and in 3 years, the process of handing off
most of the air traffic to satellites instead of ground-based radar--
that is in just 3 years. On the other hand, the transition to a
privatized air traffic control entity is only going to disrupt and
delay the FAA's modernization efforts.
One has to ask, if it isn't broken, what exactly is the
administration trying to fix?
We actually have real issues that need to be addressed in this FAA
bill, such as continuing to safely integrate drones into our Nation's
airspace, reforming the process for aircraft certification, and, very
importantly, helping the FAA hire more air traffic controllers. We need
to work to ensure that consumers, the flying public, have real
protections in place that protect them when things go wrong. I wish the
administration would focus on those issues, which received nearly
unanimous support in the Senate last year, rather than try to up-end
the world's safest air traffic control system.
Let's not get sidetracked by proposals that have neither bipartisan
consensus in Congress nor agreement among aviation stakeholders. Last
year we came very close to enacting a bipartisan and comprehensive FAA
bill. It passed the Senate 95 to 3, although it didn't have air traffic
control privatization. I know we can do it again, and I look forward to
working with Senator Thune and the members of the committee, who will
have the first crack at this when we bring up the FAA bill. Hopefully
we can go with a consensus bill that will give us an authorization for
the FAA for many years--5 to 7 years into the future--so that we can
have the certainty of the authorization with which to continue to build
a safe airline and air safety record and implement the next generation
of air traffic control.
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. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question now occurs on agreeing to the resolution.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from Alaska (Ms.
Murkowski), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), the Senator from
North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Toomey).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet),
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Illinois
(Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the
Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 138 Leg.]
YEAS--90
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Franken
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Harris
Hassan
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Strange
Tester
Thune
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NOT VOTING--10
Bennet
Booker
Duckworth
Flake
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Sullivan
Tillis
Toomey
The resolution (S. Res. 176) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the preamble is
agreed to.
(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in the Record of May
24, 2017, under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motions to
reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table.
The Senator from Nevada.
____________________