[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 7 (Thursday, January 11, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S154-S165]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RAPID DNA ACT OF 2017
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair lays before the Senate the message
from the House.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 139) entitled
``An Act to implement the use of Rapid DNA instruments to
inform decisions about pretrial release or detention and
their conditions, to solve and prevent violent crimes and
other crimes, to exonerate the innocent, to prevent DNA
analysis backlogs, and for other purposes.'', do pass with an
amendment.
Motion to Concur
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment
to S. 139.
Cloture Motion
I send a cloture motion to the desk on the motion to concur.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
concur in the House amendment to S. 139, an act to implement
the use of Rapid DNA instruments to inform decisions about
pretrial release or detention and their conditions, to solve
and prevent violent crimes and other crimes, to exonerate the
innocent, to prevent DNA analysis backlogs, and for other
purposes.
Mitch McConnell, James M. Inhofe, Roy Blunt, Shelley
Moore Capito, Marco Rubio, Johnny Isakson, Deb Fischer,
John Boozman, Thom Tillis, Richard Burr, Pat Roberts,
Orrin G. Hatch, Roger F. Wicker, John Cornyn, John
Hoeven, John Thune, Mike Rounds.
Motion to Concur with Amendment No. 1870
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment
to S. 139, with a further amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] moves to concur
in the House amendment to S. 139, with an amendment numbered
1870.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end add the following.
``This Act shall take effect 1 day after the date of
enactment.''
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to concur
with amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 1871 tO Amendment No. 1870
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an
amendment numbered 1871 to amendment No. 1870.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike ``1 day'' and insert ``2 days''
Motion to Refer With Amendment No. 1872
Mr. McCONNELL. I move to refer the House message on S. 139 to the
Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report back forthwith
with an amendment numbered 1872.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] moves to refer
the House message to accompany S. 139 to the Committee on the
Judiciary with instructions to report back forthwith with an
amendment numbered 1872.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end add the following.
``This Act shall take effect 3 days after the date of
enactment.''
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays on my motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 1873
Mr. McCONNELL. I have an amendment to the instructions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an
amendment numbered 1873 to the instructions of the motion to
refer.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike ``3 days'' and insert ``4 days''
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 1874 to Amendment No. 1873
Mr. McCONNELL. I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an
amendment numbered 1874 to amendment No. 1873.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike ``4'' and insert ``5''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Russia
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to share with my
colleagues a report I released yesterday, which is the product of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The report is called ``Putin's
Asymmetric Assault on Democracy in Russia and Europe: Implications for
U.S. National Security.''
I commissioned this report to be done early in 2017. I had to make a
decision on the allocation of resources, and I thought it was extremely
important that the American people and the international community
understand the breadth of Russia's campaign against democratic
institutions.
Yes, we saw it in 2016 in the U.S. elections, but that was only one
part of a much broader design, and I recognized we needed to devote the
resources at that time in order to make this report work. It is how
Russia has interfered not just here in the United States but in Europe.
I want to start with the statement that this is not a partisan
report. Yes, I commissioned it as the Democratic ranking member because
decisions had to be made early in 2017 on the allocation of resources.
I know the Presiding Officer knows, I worked very closely with Senator
Corker on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and throughout the
development of this report, I have kept Senator Corker informed.
The work of this report has relied upon the work of many Members of
the Senate on both sides of the aisle. In fact, I think the Presiding
Officer will recall the work we did--Democrats and Republicans--in the
passing of legislation in 2017 that held Russia accountable for its
maligned activities. I was proud that I had the strong cooperation and
support and leadership in developing that legislation from Senator
McCain, Senator Graham, and Senator Rubio, who contributed greatly to
the enactment of that legislation, and on the Democratic side, Senator
Menendez, Senator Shaheen, and Senator Durbin.
[[Page S155]]
This report is the accumulation of a year's work. It had
professionalism and dedication and patriotism of the very talented
staff at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I want to acknowledge
that because I know all of us recognize that our staffs are critically
important to the work we do in the Senate.
Damian Murphy was our captain on this project. He was the one who
provided the leadership to make sure we had a thorough report, that we
had an accurate report, and that our recommendations would be tailored
to make our Nation more secure. Terrell Henry provided incredible help
throughout the entire year. Laura Carey was an instrumental part of
getting this done. Megan Barkley helped us with making sure all of the
sources were properly cited.
I also want to acknowledge my Democratic staff leader, Jessica Lewis,
who really was the one who decided early that we could get this done
and encouraged me to move forward.
Lastly, this report has received considerable attention since I
released it yesterday--considerable attention--because this is the
first comprehensive report that has been authored that deals with
Russia's maligned activities, which are global in nature. Sean Bartlett
was capable of making sure this story would be heard. I thank him for
his professional work in the way we were able to get this report
circulated.
Following the 2016 elections, I thought it was important that we shed
more light on the Russian Government's efforts to interfere in
democracies beyond our own. Anyone who thinks the threat posed by
Russia is limited to hacking emails or the American election in 2016 is
missing the real story, and that is what this report shows.
We wanted to describe the scale and scope of this threat to make the
American people aware that the Russian Government's interference in the
2016 elections are part of a pattern of behavior and warn that Russia
could attack again in 2018 and 2020. The Kremlin is a learning
organization, and they are constantly perfecting and improving their
techniques.
This report is the first government report to lay out in detail
exactly how the Russians operate. Mr. Putin employs an asymmetric
arsenal that includes not just military invasions--and they do use
their military--but cyber attacks, disinformation and propaganda, and
support for fringe political groups. They have employed the
weaponization of energy resources. They have a network of organized
crime, and they have a system that is fueled by corruption.
This threat existed long before President Trump and will remain
following his tenure, unless he takes steps and we take steps to
address it.
Our report examines how the Russian Government has sought to
interfere in 19 countries across Europe. Many lessons are to be learned
from our allies in Europe that have shown his behavior can be deterred.
While many in the executive branch understand the threat and have taken
steps to address Mr. Putin's asymmetric arsenal, Presidential
leadership has been absent. Never before has a U.S. President so
clearly ignored such a grave and growing threat to our national
security, and without Presidential leadership, the United States will
remain uncoordinated in its response.
The Washington Post reported in December that the National Security
Council has not had a meeting on countering malign Russian influence--
more than a year after the intelligence community assessment that
Russia interfered in our elections.
Mr. Putin's rise to power in 1999 was cynical and opportunistic. He
capitalized on a war in Chechnya and apartment bombings in Moscow to
shore up his image as a strong hand that could steady the country after
the rocky 1990s.
To do so, this former KGB officer emboldened his security services to
play an outsized, criminal role in running the state. Mr. Putin's
regime used violence to stop those who opposed him in and outside of
Russia, cheated his way through the Olympics, and, through his security
services' connections with organized crime and money laundering, has
emboldened cyber theft and racketeering that has real-world
implications for U.S. companies and citizens.
Mr. Putin developed his techniques first at home against his own
people. In Russia, he repressed independent civil society, journalists,
and political opposition, while manipulating cultural and religious
influences, the media and information space, and a corrupt crony
capitalist system to shore up his own regime.
The tools in Mr. Putin's asymmetric arsenal are drawn from a Soviet
playbook but updated with new technologies. These include propaganda
and disinformation, cultivating political fringe, religious and
cultural groups as influencers, and weaponizing crime and corruption as
a system of governance.
In Europe, Mr. Putin's Russia has invaded countries, attempted coups,
cut off countries from energy in the middle of winter, temporarily
crippled governments with cyber attacks, created a whole new way to
exponentially spread fake news using bots and trolls, and used dirty
money as a weapon to attempt to buy candidates and political parties.
The report illustrates these events in more detail in the 19 countries
across Europe.
The international response to the Kremlin's arsenal has been a
patchwork. Some European countries have shored up their democracies in
ways the United States has yet to do, in a strategic, whole-of-
government fashion. Europe's experience with Russia's meddling shows it
can be deterred, and the United States must take steps to deter Russia
now, as laid out in the report's recommendations.
The report helps us to understand why Mr. Putin is doing this. He is
doing this because that is all he has. Russia's economy is faltering.
It has a limited military capacity. It doesn't have many friends around
the world. Its economy is about 7 percent the size of the U.S.
economy--ranks No. 12 in the world. It is smaller than Italy or South
Korea or Canada, but we have to acknowledge he has had success with the
use of these tools, with the use of these weapons.
He has accumulated, by reported sources, more than tens of billions
of dollars of stolen wealth. He has a propaganda machine that has been
able to make him popular at home and accomplish many of his objectives
in other countries. He has slowed down Serbia's integration into the EU
and Ukraine and Georgia's ability to join NATO because of Russia's
troops located in its countries.
The report highlights the lessons we have learned from our Europeans.
It is interesting, the Europeans understood this risk before we did and
took action. The Brexit campaign in the UK, Russia was clearly engaged
in it. Prime Minister May has made a resolute public statement that
Russia's meddling is unacceptable and will be countered.
France looked at what happened in 2016 in the U.S. elections, and
they took steps. The Macron campaign was subject to cyber attacks with
emails from President Macron during the campaign. They were released
shortly before the runoff election, but France was prepared, and they
were able to counter that. The French Government worked with
independent media and political parties to expose and blunt the
dissemination of fake news.
In Germany, we saw the famous ``Lisa case'' that was fabricated by
Russian-sponsored news outlets in order to incite the Russian-German
community for an anti-migrant-type protest. The German Government
bolstered democratic cyber security capabilities, particularly after
the 2015 hack of the Bundestag, and the Interior Minister proposed
creating a Center of Defense Against Misinformation. Germany has acted.
In the Nordic countries, the states have largely adopted a whole-of-
society approach, with an emphasis on education that teaches critical
thinking and media literacy. They have a curriculum in their school for
their schoolchildren to be able to differentiate between what is real
and what is fake in the news.
In Lithuania, the government diversified its supplies of natural gas.
All the Baltic governments have worked to integrate their electricity
grids to reduce dependency on Russia for energy needs.
In Spain, the Spanish Government has investigated, exposed, and cut
off significant money-laundering operations by Russia-based organized
crime.
[[Page S156]]
So what do we do about this? Russia has this plan to compromise our
democratic institutions. What do we do about it? Well, the report
spells out many, many recommendations. I am proud to say that many of
these recommendations have been championed by Members on both sides of
the aisle.
First, we call upon Presidential leadership. We need President Trump
to acknowledge the threat and establish a high-level interagency fusion
cell to coordinate all elements of U.S. policy on the Russian
Government's malign influence operations. The President should present
to Congress a comprehensive national strategy and work to get it
implemented and funded.
Second, the U.S. Government needs to support democratic institution
building and values abroad. We need stronger support for these
programs. The United States should provide assistance to help bolster
democratic institutions in European states.
Members of the U.S. Congress should conduct hearings and use their
platform to make democracy and human rights an essential part of their
agenda. I am proud of the work we have done in the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee. Working with Senator Corker, we have highlighted
human rights throughout the year, but we need to do more. The Senate
Foreign Relations Committee has recommended to the full Senate that we
pass legislation so we can start evaluating every country and its
ability to fight corruption, patterned after the ``Trafficking in
Persons Report'' on human trafficking. We need to get that bill enacted
into law.
Third, we need to expose and freeze Kremlin-linked dirty money. We
should declassify any intelligence related to Mr. Putin's personal
corruption and cut off Mr. Putin and his inner circle from the
international financial system. We know that the elite class in Russia
does not want to hold their money in rubles; they want dollars. We have
to deny them that opportunity. They also would like visas to visit the
United States; they don't want to be stuck in Russia. Those sanctions
have an impact, and we need to make sure they are enforced.
Fourth, we need to create a ``state hybrid threat actors''
designation and impose a sanctions regime. The United States should
designate countries that employ malign influence operations to assault
democracies as ``state hybrid threat actors.'' Those designated would
fall under a preemptive escalating sanctions regime that would be
applied whenever the state uses weapons like cyber attacks to interfere
with a democratic election or disrupt a country's vital infrastructure.
We need to make it clear that, yes, we want relations with all
countries, constructive relations, but if they are going to use these
weapons against our democratic institutions, we need to be prepared to
increase our sanctions against these countries.
Quite frankly, what we must understand is the importance of democracy
against what Mr. Putin is trying to do.
Fifth, we have to defend the United States and Europe against foreign
funding that erodes democracy. We need to pass legislation to require
full disclosure of shell company owners and improve transparency for
funding of political parties, campaigns, and advocacy groups. We have
bipartisan legislation to do that. Let's get that passed. We know that
shell companies are shielding illegal funds. Let's make sure that
Russia's game plan is not funded through shell companies that are
located here.
Sixth, we need U.S. leadership to build global cyber defenses and
norms and to establish a rapid reaction team to defend allies under
attack. We should push NATO to consider the implications of a cyber
attack within the context of article V and our ability to defend each
other. We should also lead an effort to establish an international
treaty on the use of cyber tools in peacetime, modeled on the
international arms control treaties.
Lastly, we need to hold social media companies accountable.
Government should mandate transparency for funding political
advertisements. This is the new way of communications. We have to catch
up with technology in our laws. We require traditional advertisers to
disclose all this information, but we have left social media alone
because we didn't know about it when we passed these laws. We have to
make sure that we have full laws on disclosure. Companies should
conduct audits on possible Kremlin-supported meddling in European
elections over the past several years. Companies should establish civil
society advisory councils and work with civil society and government to
promote media literacy.
That is just a sampling of some of the recommendations that are in
this report. It is pretty comprehensive, but I think it does give us a
game plan to understand that we can protect our national security, and
we must.
Following the end to World War II, the United States led the world in
constructing the liberal international order, underpinned by democratic
institutions, shared values, and accepted norms. It protects our shared
security, advances our interests, and expands our prosperity. Yet the
defense of that system of institutions and democratic principles is
anathema to Mr. Putin, who seeks to protect little more than his power
and wealth. It is therefore up to the United States and our allies to
engage in a coordinated effort to counter the Kremlin's assaults on
democracy in Europe, the United States, and around the world.
In closing, we must take care to point out that there is a
distinction between Mr. Putin's corrupt regime and the people of
Russia, who have been some of his most frequent victims. Many Russian
citizens strive for a more transparent and accountable government that
operates under the democratic rule of law, and we hope for better
relations in the future with a Russian Government that reflects these
values. We applaud the courage we saw very recently from the protesters
in Russia, who stood up against Mr. Putin because they want basic
freedom in their country.
I remember very clearly that when we passed the Magnitsky law that
holds those who violated the basic human rights, in Russia, of Sergei
Magnitsky, who was just doing his job as a lawyer--that they would be
denied our banking system and denied the ability to travel to this
country--when that bill was enacted, it was the people who were
protesting against the government who said: That law passed by the U.S.
Congress was the most pro-Russian bill passed by the U.S. Congress. We
stand with the people of Russia.
I am also the ranking Democrat in the U.S. Helsinki Commission. I
have worked for the Helsinki Commission for a long time. The Helsinki
Commission includes all the countries of Europe and the former Soviet
Union, the United States, and Canada. All countries had signed on to
the Helsinki Final Act. It talks about basic democratic principles, and
it gives each member state the right to challenge the activities of
every other member state.
We have an obligation to call out what Mr. Putin is doing because it
is not only against our national security interests; it is not only
hurting the people of Russia; it is against the commitments Russia made
in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
The United States must work with our allies to build defenses against
Mr. Putin's asymmetric arsenal and strengthen international norms and
values to deter such malign behavior by Russia or any other country.
I stand ready to work with all of my colleagues to protect our
national security interests and to recognize the threat that Mr. Putin
poses to our democratic institutions. I look forward to a day when we
can truly have a better relationship with Russia because they stop this
assault on democratic institutions in Europe, the United States, or
anywhere in the world.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
My Senate Agenda
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, earlier this month, I announced that my
current term of service would be my last. Since then, many of my
colleagues have asked how I feel with my Senate tenure drawing to a
close. I think many expect me to say that I feel an overwhelming sense
of satisfaction and relief. Hardly. If anything, the decision to retire
has imbued me with a sense of urgency that I have never felt before.
With a year left in office, I have an agenda that is as ambitious as
ever,
[[Page S157]]
and the ticking shot clock is a constant reminder of just how much I
have left to accomplish. Just 168 legislative days remain in my Senate
term, and I can assure you that those 168 days will be among the
proudest and the most productive periods in all my public service.
Anyone who thought Orrin Hatch would coast quietly into his golden
years clearly doesn't know me. The stars have aligned for this year to
be one of my most successful yet. So don't expect me to go gentle into
that good night. Expect me to be right here on the Senate floor, early
and often, pushing the most critical reforms of this Congress. Expect
me to take the lead on a Finance Committee agenda that will equal in
ambition our accomplishments of 2017. Expect me to be the same steady
presence in this body that I have been for the last 41 years.
Above all, expect a flurry of legislative activity from my office. I
have a dedicated staff. They are determined to drive this old workhorse
into the ground. And I have arguably the best working relationship with
this President of anyone on Capitol Hill. Add to this the advantages
that accrue from a lifetime of legislative experience and bipartisan
dealmaking.
The point I wish to make is simple: In legislative terms, my final
year could well be the most fruitful yet, and I hope it will be.
In the months ahead, I am eager to capitalize on our tax reform
victory by putting the Nation back on the path to fiscal
sustainability, finding a way forward on immigration, and securing
long-term funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program--a
program that I helped put into law and have been very pleased with over
the years. I also intend to update our intellectual property laws for
the 21st century, enact key fixes to our higher education system, and
fill our courts with as many qualified judges as possible. Likewise, I
look forward to working with my colleagues across the aisle to improve
the competitiveness of our workforce, strengthen digital privacy, and
blaze new trails on medical marijuana research.
But this brief overview doesn't cover even half of my agenda for
2018, nor does it include some of the legislative surprises I plan for
later this year. The virtue of being a seven-term Senator with a
reservoir of good will is that you have a little bit of latitude in
your final year. That is why my plan is to go big and to go bold,
because unless you are Michael Jordan, you retire only once, so you
might as well make the most of it.
The truth is, I put the pieces in place long ago to ensure that my
final year in office would be a legislative knockout, so no one should
count me out, not for a single second, and anyone who does should be
reminded that I can do in just a few months what it takes most a decade
to complete. Tough old birds like me don't have lameduck years; we just
dig in and get tougher. For me, 2018 is not a victory lap but a sprint
to the finish, and I plan to finish strong. I look forward to working
with all of you until the very end.
With that, I just want to say how much I love the Senate, how much I
love my colleagues on both sides of the floor, how much I have enjoyed
working with all of you over all these years and will enjoy this
remaining year hopefully even more. I hope I can do some things that
will be very beneficial to our country, to all of us, and that will
help us all feel better about our service here and help us all strive
to do better together.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I want to assure the Senator from Utah,
who just spoke, who is also the President pro tempore of this entire
body, that he is well regarded on both sides of the aisle. I don't
think any Senator has had a more distinguished or consequential
career--four decades of legislating.
I want to assure the Senator that nobody thinks he is going to slow
down. In fact, as he just said, he has plenty on his agenda for the
next year, and we look forward to working with him during that time
period.
We also wish him well on his retirement. I have talked to him a
little about this. He has a wonderful family, and he has big plans for
the future with some important work he wants to do in public policy
through his foundation.
I have so much respect for Senator Hatch. I thank him so much for
what he did most recently to help guide us through this latest tax
reform and tax cut bill that actually is making a difference for the
people I represent and he represents.
Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield, I thank the Senator so much. I
am grateful for the friendship that I have with all of you but
especially with him. He is one of the up-and-coming, moving, strong
Senators in this body. I have tremendous respect for his work ethic,
the effort he has put forth on a daily basis, the ethics that he
imposes upon himself, and the logistical all around way of doing the
Senate's work. I am very pleased to have him as a friend.
Mr. PORTMAN. I thank the Senator. I have to get the last word,
though, because this is about the Senator.
Senator Hatch said he loves this place and he loves its Members.
There is a lot of love for him in this place on both sides of the
aisle, and it is well deserved and earned.
Russia
Mr. President, I heard Senator Cardin earlier speaking about the
threat that Russia poses not just to us--and the meddling that has been
occurring here in our elections over the years--but also the threat
that they pose to other democracies around the world, particularly in
Eastern Europe. I appreciate his report. I appreciate the fact that he
has worked with a number of us, including Senator Murphy, on the other
side of the aisle, to put forward legislation to try to push back
against this disinformation.
In fact, we have required that the State Department increase their
efforts through what is called the Global Engagement Center. I am
meeting with the Deputy Secretary of State here after this speech, and
I am going to speak more about that with him, but we really want to be
sure that the United States is taking more aggressive action against
the kind of disinformation that can destabilize democracies.
We heard some of the examples of what his report was able to uncover
in terms of some of the Russian activity, particularly, again, in
Europe and in Eastern Europe. This is an issue. It is a foreign policy
issue that we have been, in my view, slow to respond to. It didn't
start with the last Presidential election, and it will not end with
this last Presidential election unless we take a more aggressive stance
and step up.
So I appreciate that it has been a bipartisan effort that we should
acknowledge as Americans that it is in our interests to push back
against the disinformation and the propaganda and the destabilization
of democracies.
Tax Reform
Today, Mr. President, I wish to speak about some good news; that is,
that here in Congress we actually did something with the tax relief and
tax reform legislation that is actually creating a better economy and
more hope for people.
There was news announced today, just a few minutes ago, that is in
addition to the news we have heard over the last few weeks. This
historic tax reform was created, we will remember, with two goals in
mind. One was to cut taxes for middle-class families--so individual tax
cuts. The second part of it was to make America a better place to do
business. Let's ensure that there will be more jobs created here rather
than elsewhere. Let's level the playing field so our workers aren't
competing with one hand tied behind their back.
As I have said through the process and as we developed this bill, we
had a bipartisan agreement that our Tax Code was broken, but we
couldn't seem to come up with an agreement of how to fix it. Some
Democrats said: Well, that is great that you guys have done this bill,
but it is not going to help. I said at the time: The proof will be what
happens, what happens to jobs, what happens to wages, what happens to
the economy in general, and what happens to your paycheck.
I am here to announce today that the results have been pretty darn
impressive, and they have been across the board--all of those things I
talked about. We have already seen as a result of this tax legislation
that America has become a better place to do business. All over the
country there are companies and businesses, small and large,
[[Page S158]]
that have stepped forward to talk about that. I now have a list of 150
businesses--and I am sure there are many, many more--that have decided
to do something. Either they announced a pay increase, a bonus, an
increased 401(k) contribution, an increased pension contribution, or
maybe a new investment in equipment and in technology to make workers
more competitive. All of this is specifically because of the tax relief
and reform bill. That is what is happening.
For those who haven't followed it, even today another company,
Walmart--the largest employer in my State--announced that they are
indeed going to increase pay and provide bonuses to over 1 million
workers. Some companies have actually announced a combination of
things, not just a pay increase but maybe a pay increase as well as an
increased contribution to a 401(K) or an increased contribution to a
charity.
So I think we are already seeing the direct effects--the direct and
very positive beneficial effects--of this tax reform legislation, as
many have hoped that we would see, given the fact that we wrote it to
create these incentives for more jobs and better jobs.
But today we are going to begin to see the direct effects of the
other part of the bill; that is, the tax relief directly to
individuals. The IRS just announced about an hour ago that they are
publishing updates to the tax withholding tables for employers. Now,
what does this mean? This means that Uncle Sam is going to take a
little less of your paycheck, and you are going to see it on your
paycheck. So the withholding--the amount that is withheld from your
paycheck with taxes--is going to be changed. The Treasury Department
says that for 90 percent of Americans--90 percent--there will be a
change in withholding that will be positive for them. In other words,
they will have less money coming out of their paycheck.
Most people whom I represent in my home State of Ohio live paycheck
to paycheck. This is really important. We talked earlier about how much
this is going to be: $2,000 a family on average. That is the median
income for a family in Ohio. Whatever the amount is, this is
significant, and it is something that people are going to be pretty
surprised about because so many people have misrepresented what this
legislation is about. They are now seeing that it is about jobs, it is
about wages, it is about bonuses, and so on. But they are also going to
see in their own paycheck that it is about more take-home pay. It is
about having a little healthier family budget.
So, again, as we went through this process, when we would have these
debates I would say: I encourage people to look online, to look at the
professionals, to look at a tax calculator. I said: The proof is in
your paycheck. I think the proof will be in their paychecks--more hard-
earned money staying in their pocket rather than going to Washington is
something that my constituents will like, particularly if we see this
economy start to pick up because of this tax reform bill, which, by the
way, will result in a stronger economy.
Therefore, there will be more revenue through growth. So the Federal
Government will have more revenue coming in. Every 1-percent increase
in GDP--a 1-percent increase in growth in this country--means about
$2.7 trillion in increased revenue coming into the Federal coffers. So
that is more revenue coming in, not from a tax increase but from
growth. That is the kind of revenue we want to have to be able to deal
with many issues we face on the fiscal side, including our large
deficits and debt, and that we will also begin to see as we see a
better economy grow and develop because of this tax reform legislation.
That is my strong belief and, again, I think the evidence is pretty
clear that we are headed that way.
I want to commend the IRS for moving so quickly because this is
pretty quick for us to turn it around. We just passed the legislation
at the end of the year. It became effective on January 1. Here we are
on January 11, and we are already seeing them changing the withholding
that is going to go to the employers so that employers will withhold
less from people's paychecks.
I also want to personally commend the Treasury Secretary, Steven
Mnuchin, because I know he has a passion to make sure that our hard-
working taxpayers get this tax relief as soon as possible. My sense is
that he is the one who has promoted our moving quickly on this, in a
professional and careful way so that the withholding tables are
accurate but ensuring that we do allow people to begin to have a little
more in their paychecks to be able to help make ends meet. Again, with
most people I represent living paycheck to paycheck this is a big deal.
Steve Mnuchin has been, I think, essential to getting this done as
quickly as it has been done, as he was essential in the tax reform
legislation, along with Gary Cohn of the White House, and others.
So this law is going to help middle-class families in three main
ways.
First, it cuts taxes across the board. As I noted, the IRS
announcement means that about 90 percent of taxpayers will see more
money in their paychecks. They do this in a number of ways in the tax
reform legislation, and I am talking about the reform notice here. It
is Notice 1036. For those who want to go online and look at it, just go
on the IRS website, irs.gov, and you can see it, the new withholding
tables. They lay all of this out. Depending on how much your paycheck
is, whether you are paid weekly, biweekly, semimonthly, or monthly, you
see what your benefits are going to be. But it happens because there is
a doubling of the standard deduction, and most people already take the
standard deduction in my State of Ohio. Now more people will take it
because there is a doubling and essentially a zero tax bracket. So it
goes from about $12,000 a family to about $24,000 a family.
It also has a lowering of the rate of tax. So your tax rate is going
to be lower relative to what it was before this.
Also, if you have kids, you get a doubling of the child tax credit,
including part of that being an increase in the refundability of that
if you don't have income tax liability. But if you still have expenses,
if you still have payroll taxes, you get your benefit there.
So these are the kinds of things that, combined, end up with this
notice going out saying: You are going to have a little more in your
paycheck.
Second, the result of these tax cuts is going to take about 3 million
Americans off the tax rolls altogether. I say ``about'' because the
Joint Committee on Taxation doesn't have the final number yet but they
have told me that it is at least 3 million Americans who now pay income
taxes who will no longer have income tax liability. Now, they may have
payroll tax liabilities, and they may have State and local taxes, but
the point is that this was about Federal income reform and relief, and
they are going to be out from under the IRS and again be able to help
make ends meet. That is as a result of this legislation. I said earlier
that about $2,000 per family is the average tax savings for a median
family income in Ohio, $2,000 a year in tax relief is about the
average.
This is important because as expenses have gone up over the last
couple of decades--particularly, healthcare expenses in the last
decade--wages have not. So wages have been relatively flat. In fact, on
average, if you take inflation into account, they have been flat over
the last couple of decades. We are beginning to see some increase in
wages now. This is terrific, but with wages being flat and expenses up,
people have had a real squeeze, and that middle-class squeeze is real
in my home State. So this is extra money that families--many people
living paycheck to paycheck--can use for expenses like healthcare,
maybe make a car payment, save for retirement, or maybe help their
kids.
The second goal of this tax reform, boosting the American economy, is
also beginning to happen, as I said earlier. When the Tax Cuts and Jobs
Act became law, immediately we saw a number of companies and
businesses, small and large, around the country say: We are going to do
something about this. I remember being home over the holidays and,
actually, the day after Christmas, December 26, I was talking with
friends, and a guy who owns a small manufacturing business, the brother
of a friend of mine, said: Would you be willing to come out to our
little company to talk about the tax bill?
I said: Sure, if we can figure it out schedulewise.
[[Page S159]]
He said: Because I want to give my employees a bonus. I am looking at
this tax bill, how it is going to affect our little business, and what
it is going to do for us to be able to invest more in the company, and
I want to give my employees a $1,000 bonus--everybody, 137 employees--
and I also want to do something in terms of investing in my equipment
because I want to make my people more competitive.
This is a small manufacturer in Cincinnati, OH, that makes a high-
quality product, a precision product, and he wants to make sure that
his people have the best equipment to be competitive. In his case, he
has competition from overseas, as do a lot of American businesses,
either directly or indirectly these days in an increasingly global
economy, and he wants to be sure he is competitive. So I went there.
I went to the company, Sheffer Corporation, and I had the opportunity
to talk about the tax reform bill and what it does across the board. He
made the announcement, and I can tell you that people were very happy
because these are folks who work hard and play by the rules. They
aren't looking for any kind of a handout, but what they do want is to
be able to know that if they work hard and do the right thing, they
will be able to see a little better future for themselves and their
kids and their grandkids and not have that middle-class squeeze we
talked about, where wages are flat and expenses are up.
When the economy is not growing at a fast rate, which we have seen
over the last decade, it is really a challenge. When we have an economy
growing at 2 percent or less, it is tough to see that kind of open
opportunity. Now, with this tax reform bill, I think we have a much
better chance of seeing that. In fact, looking at some of the
projections for next year, it looks like most people think the economy
is going to grow at better than 2 percent--maybe 3 percent or maybe a
little higher. We don't know. The point is that people are going to
have more hope and opportunity.
It is not just Sheffer, though. In my hometown of Cincinnati, the
Fifth Third Bank announced a companywide wage increase. So wages are
going to go up for entry-level jobs and push all wages, as well as
bonuses, for 13,000 employees in Cincinnati.
Across the country we have seen this. Tomorrow I will be at a plant
in Cleveland, OH, that is putting more money into their pension plan. I
think it is going to be about $15 million into a pension plan, which
isn't in terrible shape, but it could be a lot healthier. That is going
to help those employees directly.
Last Friday I was at a plant in Columbus, OH, a small manufacturer,
Wolf Metals. They do an awesome job there competing with people all
around the globe, and they are going to make more investments in
equipment. In fact, I like this comparison to the tax bill because one
of the pieces of equipment--a $1 million piece of equipment they are
going to replace with the tax bill savings--is 32 years old. The Tax
Code that we reformed was 31 years old. So it is time, don't you think,
every few decades to actually reform our Tax Code, to bring it up to
speed and make it more competitive to give our workers the edge, just
as it is time to replace that machine to give his employees, what they
need to compete globally.
Nationwide Insurance in Columbus, OH, is going to reinvest in their
workers. Western & Southern Financial Group, Boeing, Comcast, and AT&T
are some of the big companies we have heard about. They have all
announced increased investments in their workers and new investments in
their operations as a result of this law.
With regard to Walmart, they employ about 1.5 million Americans now.
As I said, it is the largest employer in Ohio, with over 50,000
employees. They are going to raise wages, provide bonuses, and expand
benefits for the workers as a result of this tax reform legislation.
So these are the results. This isn't a hypothetical. This is not
something we are just saying might happen; it is something that is
actually happening.
I think every single American is going to see a benefit from this
because a stronger economy helps everyone. The 90 percent of people who
see their withholdings change so that they have more tax relief are
obviously going to see it. The people who work in the businesses we
have talked are going to see it. But all of us benefit.
President John F. Kennedy once said something I think makes a lot of
sense. He talked about a rising tide. He said, ``A rising tide lifts
all . . . [ships].'' In other words, it helps to have a growing
economy.
These results are going to help with regard to our competitiveness
too. Right now, we have a situation where, because of our Tax Code,
jobs and investments are going overseas. Now, we may not hear as much
about this, but what we are going to see is fewer foreign companies
buying U.S. companies and, therefore, less investment in jobs going
overseas.
In 2016, the last year for which we have numbers, three times as many
American companies were bought by foreign companies as the other way
around. Ernst & Young has done a study saying that over the past 13
years, 4,700 American companies were purchased by a foreign company
that otherwise would still be American if we had in place this tax bill
that we have now.
Part of the result of this tax reform and tax cut legislation we are
talking about today is obvious. We will see better jobs, higher wages,
more investment in companies, more investment in retirement--all the
things we all want to see, Republican and Democrat alike. Part of it is
the tax cuts. Today, with the IRS announcement, people will see this in
their paychecks. If not this next pay period, they will see it before
February 15 because that is what the Treasury Department is requiring
companies to do. So it is coming soon.
The other part we may not see, but is very real, is that the decline
we have seen in American competitiveness--the result being that jobs
and investment go overseas--is going to start to reverse, and it is
none too soon. We needed to do this years ago. Many of us have been
talking about it for years.
Finally, we are putting American workers in a position where they can
compete and they can win. Isn't that what it is all about? I don't want
these 4,700 companies going overseas. I don't want three times as many
American companies bought by foreign companies instead of the other way
around. We don't want that. What we want is people to say: I am going
to invest in America and American workers.
I believe we have so many advantages in this country, and we are so
blessed to be Americans. We have great universities. We have the
opportunity here, through our workforce, to be as productive as anybody
in the world. But when we have a tax code that is holding us back, it
is unfair. It is our responsibility as Members of Congress to fix it,
and that is what we have done. We should have done this sooner, but now
that we have done it, I think we will see continued good results, as we
have talked about today. We are going to see the opportunity for more
investments in American workers, in American jobs, in American
families, and in American businesses, and that investment will pay off
for all of us.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Immigration
Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, today I was honored to be invited to the
White House and included in a small meeting with President Trump, and
it was very clear that I was invited to the White House to stand firm
with President Trump today. We talked about immigration, and today I
was proud to stand with our President.
We have been crystal clear. Chain migration must end, period. Any
solution to our current immigration crisis that the U.S. Senate will
consider must include ending chain migration. Before I talk about the
details of what chain migration is, I want to put it in perspective.
Our immigration crisis today has been longstanding. We had a law
written in 1965 and other changes in 1986, but it has really not been
since 1991 that there has been any meaningful immigration change.
Three times in the last 11 years, well-intended people in this body
and in the House have done a yeoman's job of trying to solve the
comprehensive problem of immigration in the United States--without
success. Here we are, again, right now, facing a deadline that the
President has put on, and rightfully so. We have a sense of urgency.
[[Page S160]]
The President has done a couple of things. He has defined the scope of
the problem, and he has defined a sense of urgency for the people in
Congress.
The legal immigration system right now is broken, but to deal with
that, we have to deal with our entire immigration system in pieces. The
reason I believe most past efforts have failed is that they tried to do
a comprehensive solution.
Today, we are breaking it into three areas. One is our legal
immigration system, and the next step might be our temporary work
visas. Today, we bring in about 1.1 million legal immigrants a year,
and I will talk about how that relates historically. But we issue about
2.2 million temporary work visas a year. Then the third issue is, of
course, the people who are in the United States illegally.
President Trump had a meeting 2 days ago at the White House. In that
meeting, he had Democrats, Republicans, Members of the House, and
Members of this body, the Senate, and he drove consensus in that
meeting.
It was very interesting that he had the media in there for almost 60
minutes for an open dialogue, and we heard from all people in that room
about their position on these topics. I thought it was very interesting
that the President had the courage to put this issue in front of the
American people and create an air of transparency that we have not had
on this issue in decades. In that meeting, he drove two conclusions:
one, a scope of the problem and, two, a sense of urgency.
The scope is very simply defined as this: We have to address the DACA
situation. The President has given Congress the date of March 5 to come
up with a solution for these individuals who are in the country
illegally--but not of their doing.
The second issue is border security. We know that border security is
a national security issue as much as it is an immigration issue. The
good news is that we know that illegal crossings of our southern border
are down dramatically this year just because of a couple of reasons.
One is the enforcement of current law, and the second is an
understanding around the world that we are going to deal with this
issue.
The third piece of the scope is chain migration. Any solution to the
DACA situation or the legal immigration situation must include
addressing the chain migration issue.
Then the last is this archaic diversity visa lottery we have in the
United States that was related to at least one of the terrorist
attacks, and chain migration was involved in both of the terrorist
attacks we have recently experienced here in the United States.
With regard to DACA, the first item on the scope is that we know we
have a March 5 deadline. There is a growing consensus in this body of
how to deal with that, and there is great latitude on the part of
Republicans in this body to deal with that in a way, with our
Democratic partners here, to get a consensus bill that solves this once
and for all.
The second is border security. Here, with the President's leadership
and in these recent meetings with Democrats and Members of the House,
there is a growing consensus that we can deal with the national
security issues related to our southern border. We don't need a 2,000-
mile wall, as even the President of the United States has said just
this week. But there are things we need to do, and we need to do them
quickly.
The President today said that his goal is to get this done this year.
Coming from the real world, I know that is possible. This President,
who comes from the real world and is an outsider to this community here
in Washington, knows that is possible, and I think he is going to hold
us accountable to that.
The third area I mentioned before is chain migration. I will say more
about that in a minute.
The fourth is the diversity lottery. This diversity lottery has not
served us well. It is not the number; it is the way it is being
handled. We know there is fraud, and we know this is a loophole
terrorists are now using to put people in their chain inside the United
States.
There is a growing consensus on these four items of this scope that
the President has defined, and we had a consensus in that room 2 days
ago in the White House. There is consensus that we can get to a
solution within the timeframe here, but let me be very clear. Any
deal--whether it is in business, sports, or certainly in politics--has
to have some symmetry. Therefore, any solution for the DACA situation
must include a solution for our chain migration crisis.
We must continue working with the President. He is holding us
accountable. He is moving at a business pace, but to do that, we really
have to talk about chain migration. I understand there are other areas
that we have to talk about, as well, but there is a lot of
disinformation about what it really is.
Chain migration is nothing more than a law put in place in 1965 to
allow legal permanent residents and U.S. citizens to sponsor people for
U.S. citizenship. It was put in place in 1965. It has been updated a
little bit. But today, a legal permanent resident--for the most part,
this is someone who has come in qualified in our legal immigration
system, who goes through a 5-year waiting period, who eventually can
apply for U.S. citizenship. While they are a legal permanent resident,
almost immediately they can sponsor spouses, minor children, and
unmarried adult children. That is current law.
Once they become a citizen--and this is true of any U.S. citizen,
whether they were a recent immigrant or were born here; a U.S. citizen
can sponsor their parents, their spouses, minor children, unmarried
adult children, married adult children, and siblings
The issue around this is pretty simple. We have a chart here which
shows that in 1965, when this law was put in place, approximately
300,000 U.S. citizens were brought into the United States in that year
under this system. Last year, we had, roughly, about 1.1 million. We
had a high of somewhere close to 1.3 million. But we can see, this is a
geometric progression that increases unbounded. It is not really the
number here, but it is the balance that we have lost.
What happens, and the criticism I have as a business guy looking at
this, is that the individuals who determine who future immigrants are
going to be are current and recent immigrants.
We don't have many guidelines. We have a country cap system which
says that most countries have a percentage of the total they have to
have, and they can't exceed that. But there is no real cap here, such
that if all these numbers were maximized, then over time you would see
this number go up geometrically.
We have a second chart that shows this and demonstrates that over a
very short period of time, the numbers can increase dramatically, as we
have seen in the last 40 or so years.
There have been studies on this. Princeton has a study which says
that right now, based on recent history, any immigrant who comes in
sponsors somewhere around 3.5 future immigrants within a short period
of time. We don't know what the 3.5 immigrants do when they get
sponsored and become citizens or legal permanent residents, but if you
extrapolate this out--let's say we start with 2 million as a starting
point. They become citizens and they sponsor--let's just say the number
is 3. In the first iteration, now we have 6 million people sponsored by
the original 2 million; then the second iteration goes from 6 to 18;
and in the fourth iteration we are at 54 million people. So all of a
sudden, as you can see, there is no limit here, other than the country
caps, and the country caps do not limit the total number. They limit
the mix.
What is wrong with this system? The problem, as I said just now, is
that future immigrants are determined by current immigrants without any
regard to their ability to participate in the system.
The second one is that because you can bring parents in, immigrants
who come in under this system and become U.S. citizens can bring their
parents in, and all of a sudden, now we have an aged population coming
in--not a younger population--and they then draw social services on an
already bankrupt system.
Chain migration is not based on skill or the ability to participate
in the current economic situation in the United States. Last year, we
brought in 1.1 million immigrants. Of that, 140,000 were immigrants who
were related to the worker; 70,000 were the workers, and the other
70,000 were their immediate family. So we can see that over 950,000
people were derivative iterations of what I am talking about.
[[Page S161]]
The third thing is that if chain migration is not stopped, it
continues to incentivize future illegal immigration because of what you
can do once you get here.
Chain migration is another problem with the DACA situation because if
you permit a pathway to some sort of legalized situation in the United
States for the DACA population, you end up with a situation where those
people who are then legalized can sponsor their parents. The problem
with that is, the DACA population is not violating fair law, but their
parents have.
The last issue I will bring up is, the national security issues are
profound. We have seen two national security incidents just this past
year related to chain migration and the diversity visa lottery. There
is more than enough evidence to show this has to be addressed.
Again, any symmetric deal on immigration has to include, I believe,
the four points the President talked about the other day. We have to
deal with the DACA situation. We have to deal with our border security,
and that means building a wall. We have to deal with the chain
migration issues, and we have to deal with this diversity visa lottery.
The President demands it. The American people demand it. Today, as a
matter of fact, over 80 percent of America believes we need to deal
with the DACA situation. Likewise, 72 percent of people in America
believe the immigration law should be the worker, the spouse, and their
immediate minor children only--72 percent. I can't think of another
issue that has come before this body where we had those sorts of
agreements in the American population.
The President wants results. He has charged leadership in this body
and the House and those of us who have been involved in this for some
time to get to it. There is a March 5 deadline looming. Some people say
there is a January 19 date that has to do with funding the government.
I personally believe the two have nothing to do with each other, but we
want a sense of urgency. The President has demanded it. We need it.
We know there are going to be other steps. This is not the last step
to this problem. We know we have to deal with how we bring people to
the United States. We need a balance. Of course, we want to continue to
be the open arms of the world today in terms of welcoming people to our
shores. Just look at what is written on the Statue of Liberty. Who can
argue with that? At the same time, we have to have a balance. Right
now, we don't bring in people who are contributing to the economy, for
the most part, and we are eliminating--we are not bringing in people
who can contribute. All we are asking for is a dialogue to bring
balance back to that system.
I am excited to be a part of this dialogue because I believe we have
a unique, historic opportunity with people on the other side and people
on this side who generally have hearts that are not that dissimilar
with regard to how to deal with the DACA population, how to deal with
the Dreamers population, how to deal with future immigrant populations
that are coming to the United States. We can have those debates, and we
are having them now. I welcome input from all points. I am anxious to
get to the bottom line of this.
I will close with this. It is exciting to have leadership from the
executive branch on this issue that has put the responsibility back on
this body to come up with something that will not allow us to be back
here in the next 3, 5, or 20 years dealing with this same problem. We
have a historic opportunity. It is time to get to it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Judicial Nominations
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I have been consistently voting against
cloture motions to proceed to debate on judicial nominations, and I
would like to take this opportunity to explain why. The Senate has a
constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent on judicial
nominees, and I take this obligation very seriously.
The American people depend on the Senate to fully consider and vet
each judicial nominee because throughout the course of their lifetime
appointment, judges will issue rulings and opinions that touch each of
our lives. The process of nominating, considering, and confirming
judges should be a deliberate one. Its purpose should not be to confirm
as many judges as quickly as possible. Senators should be able to
provide input on who should sit on the Federal bench; Senators should
have an adequate opportunity to hear from third-party experts about the
records and qualifications of each nominee; and Senators should have
enough time to question and examine a nominee during a confirmation
hearing.
Insisting on a deliberate and comprehensive process is not, as some
of my Republican colleagues might argue, an effort to deny the
President his prerogative to nominate judges to lifetime appointments
to the Federal bench. Instead, this process is essential in determining
whether each nominee is qualified for the job and can separate their
personal ideology from the decisions he or she renders. For a lifetime
appointment to the Federal bench, this shouldn't be too much to ask.
Over the past year, we have observed a number of concerning issues in
the nomination and confirmation process for Federal judges that need to
be corrected. The President has essentially outsourced the judicial
selection process to two organizations with strong, ideologically
driven agendas--the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation.
The Federalist Society, for example, describes itself as ``a group of
libertarians and conservatives dedicated to reforming the legal
order.'' This is a group that has supported legal efforts to undermine
environmental protection, erode the constitutional right to choose, and
blur the lines between church and State.
The Heritage Foundation describes its mission as one to ``promote
conservative public policies.'' Over the past few years alone, this
organization, this group, has fought to undermine the Affordable Care
Act, oppose LGBTQ rights, and erode the ability of Federal agencies to
issue lifesaving regulations. It is not unreasonable to assume that
these organizations, through their close association with the White
House, expect their ideologically driven agendas to be reflected in the
nominees they recommend.
While I concur with Justice Rehnquist's assertion that no judge joins
a court tabula rasa, or as a blank slate, we should have a baseline
expectation that lifetime appointees should be able to render justice
free from their own personal ideologies. At the same time as the Trump
administration relies more heavily on the Federalist Society and
Heritage Foundation to select its judicial nominees, it is devaluing
the work done by the American Bar Association. The ABA has reviewed and
vetted judicial nominees in a nonpartisan manner for over 60 years.
With the exception of George W. Bush and now Donald Trump, Presidents
in both parties have consulted with the ABA prior to officially
nominating to the bench.
President Obama, for example, provided a great demonstration for how
this process should work. Working closely with the ABA, President Obama
routinely submitted potential candidates for scrutiny prior to their
formal nomination. After conducting their independent, nonpartisan
reviews, the ABA issued ``not qualified'' ratings for 14 candidates who
had been proposed by President Obama. President Obama followed the
ABA's recommendation and did not formally nominate any candidates rated
``not qualified.''
Under President Trump, on the other hand, we no longer wait for the
ABA to complete its assessment of nominees prior to a nomination
hearing itself, much less before the nomination. We no longer have an
opportunity to review the ABA's report and, in many cases, do not have
the chance to question an ABA representative at a nomination hearing
about its review of the nominee.
We have seen the serious consequences of this change in practice in
two high-profile nominations this year.
Despite having never tried a case, President Trump nominated Brett
Talley to serve the District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.
Mr. Talley was nominated, given a hearing, and listed for a Judiciary
Committee vote before the ABA could even finish its evaluation. Given
his complete lack of qualifications for the job, it wasn't
[[Page S162]]
surprising that the ABA unanimously rated him ``not qualified.''
Because he was rushed through the nomination process, we only learned
later that Mr. Talley failed to disclose that his wife works in the
White House Counsel's office. After two Republicans on the committee--
Senator Grassley and Senator Kennedy--expressed their opposition to Mr.
Talley, he, fortunately, withdrew from consideration.
We were not so lucky with Steven Grasz, who was recently confirmed to
the Eighth Circuit. Mr. Grasz was nominated and scheduled for a
Judiciary Committee hearing before the ABA could complete its review.
By the time the ABA finished its exhaustive evaluation, during which it
found him to be not qualified, Mr. Grasz was scheduled to appear before
the Judiciary Committee in less than 48 hours. This was not nearly
enough time to adequately address and assess the ABA's conclusion that
Mr. Grasz would not be able to serve as a judge without the undue
influence of his personal beliefs.
Courts are supposed to protect the rights of minorities, and it is
troubling to reflect on the ABA's conclusion that Mr. Grasz would be
unable to divorce his positions on issues like reproductive and LGBTQ
rights from the cases he will hear on the Eighth Circuit. Circuit court
judges are only one step away from the U.S. Supreme Court and deserve
to be scrutinized closely in the Judiciary Committee. Unfortunately,
last year, the Judiciary Committee overrode the objections of the
minority to hold four nomination hearings with more than one circuit
judge nominee considered simultaneously.
To put this in some historical context, the Judiciary Committee held
four such hearings in the entire 8 years Barack Obama was President,
and it held each of these hearings with the consent of the Republican
minority on the committee. During hearings on circuit and district
court nominees, each committee member generally has only 5 minutes to
question nominees--many of whom are highly controversial and deserve
maximum scrutiny. Five minutes, which includes the time the nominee
takes to respond, is not nearly enough time to engage in meaningful
dialogue about a nominee's judicial philosophy or to examine
controversial cases a nominee may have decided in the past.
The American people deserve much more as we consider lifetime
appointments to the Federal bench. I am also concerned about the
erosion of the blue-slip process, which has traditionally been a
collaborative mechanism to enable Senators to confer with the White
House on nominees from their States. Although there have been
exceptions over the years, Presidents and Senate majorities of both
parties have both respected the blue-slip process.
In 2009, the Democrats controlled the White House and had a
filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Every Senate Republican signed
a letter to President Obama urging him to respect the blue-slip
process. I would like to read a passage from that letter for emphasis.
Regretfully, if we are not consulted on, and approve of, a
nominee from our states, the Republican Conference will be
unable to support moving forward on that nominee.
Despite press reports that the Chairman of the Judiciary
Committee now may be considering changing the Committee's
practice of observing senatorial courtesy, we, as a
Conference, expect it to be observed even-handedly and
regardless of party affiliation. And we will act to preserve
this principle and the rights of our colleagues if it is not.
Because of the profound impact that life-tenured federal
judges can have in our society, the founders made their
appointment a shared constitutional responsibility.
This is the Republican conference asking the Democratic majority, the
Democratic President, and the chair of the Judiciary Committee to
observe the blue-slip process.
President Obama, and the Democratic majority at that time, upheld the
blue-slip process without exception. Last year, the Judiciary Committee
held a nomination hearing for David Stras to serve on the Eighth
Circuit despite his not receiving two positive blue-slips from his home
State Senators. This is the first time since the early years of the
George W. Bush administration that the Judiciary Committee has held a
hearing for a nominee when a home State Senator has not returned a blue
slip. If the Senate proceeds to vote on and confirm Mr. Stras, it will
be the first time since 1989 and only the third time in the last 100
years that a judicial nominee will be confirmed without having two
positive blue slips.
I, certainly, take the chairman at his word that this was a onetime
exception to the blue-slip process, but I will hold him and the
President to the same standard they demanded from President Obama in
2009.
I will continue to rigorously defend the Senate's constitutional
obligation to provide advice and consent on lifetime appointees to the
Federal bench. Until we return to a normal process through which we can
provide this kind of advice and consent, I will continue to oppose
invoking cloture on any judicial nominee, and I encourage my colleagues
to join me in this position.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Tribute to Jeff Cook
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, every week, I try to come down to the
floor and talk a little bit about my State and do a little bit of
bragging in what we call our ``Alaskan of the Week'' series. Now, there
is a lot to talk about with regard to Alaska. We would love for the
people in the Gallery and the people who are watching to come out and
visit our great State. It will be the trip of a lifetime. The scenery,
of course, is gorgeous, and the mountains are rugged, but it is really
the people who make my State so special--rugged, self-sufficient, kind,
and very generous people all across an area that is over two and one-
half times the size of Texas.
I apologize to my Texas colleagues, as they get a little upset when I
talk about that, but it is true.
Every week, we have been recognizing a group or a person who has
worked to make Alaska a stronger place, a stronger community--a State
that, I think, is the best State in our great Nation. I call these
individuals our Alaskans of the Week.
Today, I take all who are watching to Alaska's interior, to a town
called Fairbanks, AK, where about 32,000 of my fellow Alaskans live. It
is a beautiful, wonderful place. Fairbanks is hot in the summer. My
wife and I were married there many years ago. It was over 90 degrees
when we got married in August, but it is really cold in the winter. We
spent January 1, 2000--the millennium celebration--in Fairbanks with
our kids and our family. It was 50 below zero without the windchill--
cold. It is a place I love, where my wife was born and raised, where we
lived, where my in-laws still live, and the place Jeff Cook, our
Alaskan of the Week, calls home.
Jeff has been in Fairbanks his whole life. His parents moved to
Fairbanks in 1938. He went to college in Oregon, and his wife Sue was
there, but the couple moved back to Alaska, to Fairbanks, and started a
family. He is now 74 years young. He and Sue have four children, two of
whom have settled in Fairbanks, and they have five grandchildren. He is
the patriarch of not only a great family but of many community
organizations throughout Fairbanks and, really, Alaska.
Throughout the years, Jeff has had a career in real estate, in
business. He has sat on numerous boards--community boards--and been in
community groups. Let me just give a couple of examples of his
community work, of his sitting on the board of the Fairbanks Chamber of
Commerce, the University of Alaska Board of Regents, the Rotary Club of
Fairbanks, the Greater Fairbanks Community Hospital Foundation board,
the board for the State of Alaska Chamber of Commerce, the Rasmuson
Foundation board, and the boards for Alaska Airlines and Wells Fargo
Bank. This is an individual--a leader--who has been involved in his
community for decades. He is a perfect example of the community-minded
individual whom we call our Alaskan of the Week.
We could be done right here. It is a pretty amazing career--a great
example of someone who is dedicated to his State, to his country, to
his community. Yet Jeff has done a lot more. He recently used all of
his energy, all of his experience, all of his community involvement to
embark on what really has become an extraordinary fundraising campaign
to raise money for cancer research--so important for our Nation, so
important for Alaska. This became a personal issue for Jeff. Let me
tell you this story.
[[Page S163]]
Last March, he and Sue received, really, a devastating phone call
from their youngest daughter Chrissy, who is 34 and lives in Las Vegas
with her husband and 2-year-old daughter. She called to tell them the
bad news--really, the horrible news that millions of American families
hear every year--that she had been diagnosed with breast cancer and
that she had a positive match for the BRCA2 gene, which increases one's
risk of developing breast cancer or ovarian cancer.
Jeff and Sue felt powerless against this disease when they heard
this. He said: ``When you're a parent, it doesn't matter how old your
children are; you're supposed to slay the dragons and conquer the
monsters'' and protect your kids.
If that were not devastating enough, weeks later, he and his wife
made sure that everyone in the Cook family got tested. Unfortunately,
five other members of the family tested positive for this gene. They
are all being monitored now.
Here is what Jeff said: ``We couldn't conquer the cancer, but we just
had to do something.'' He said he had heard about the American Cancer
Society's ``Real Men Wear Pink'' campaign--a fundraising program that
is held in October. October, as everybody knows, is Breast Cancer
Awareness Month. About 3,000 men from across the country participated
in the program this year, the ``Real Men Wear Pink'' campaign.
So Jeff started. He started with the pretty impressive goal of
raising $5,000 for cancer research and an email list of about 70
people, most of whom were in Fairbanks. Within 90 seconds after sending
his first email, he had raised $1,000. Pretty good. Then what happened?
The community of Fairbanks, of Alaska--really of the whole country--
started opening up to his plea. Donations kept coming in. The more
donations he received, the more Jeff worked at raising funds. Many of
the people he knew were donating, but what happened? Strangers from
across Alaska and from across the country started to send money for
this very worthy cause of breast cancer research--often with heartfelt
stories of their loved ones, of their own struggles with cancer, or of
those of their kids. Someone from a small town in New York State sent
him $250.
As the weeks passed, he began to pay attention to how he was stacking
up against others across the country. Jeff is a competitive guy. He is
very successful. When he reached No. 10 in the country in terms of
fundraising for this very important matter, he told one of his friends
there was no way he could beat the No. 1 person ahead of him who had
raised $30,000--no way. That was a high number. Now, Fairbanks is not a
very big city, and the other people on the list above him were from
much bigger cities from across the country and had what he thought were
larger connections and larger networks. Yet his friend told him:
``Don't underestimate yourself, Jeff.'' After he read that, he said:
``Okay. I'm going for broke.'' This is what he did.
He was all in. He started fundraising everywhere. When it was all
said and done, on this campaign, Jeff Cook, from Fairbanks, AK--a town
of a little over 30,000 people in Alaska's interior--was the No. 1
fundraiser in America for breast cancer research this year--No. 1. In
terms of the American Cancer Society's ``Real Men Wear Pink'' campaign,
Jeff Cook raised over $120,000.
If my colleagues were down here, I would ask them for a round of
applause.
That was for the entire country. Think about that. We come down to
this floor a lot and debate cancer research, medical research--very
important. Here is one individual in America who raised over $120,000
through his own energy and passion and for the love of his daughter.
This is a testament to Jeff's perseverance, but it is also about the
good people in Fairbanks, throughout Alaska, and really throughout the
country.
As Jeff said, ``It says so much about our community. There was such
an outpouring of love, goodness and generosity. That was the most
touching part of [this entire experience].''
What else did Jeff learn? He learned that his daughter Chrissy, who
underwent chemotherapy and a double mastectomy, is stronger than he
ever imagined. She is recovering well, but she is still in recovery.
I am going to humbly ask my colleagues and those who are watching
here and those who are watching on TV to put a prayer in for Chrissy
and other cancer victims like Senator Hirono, who was just on the
floor. Put them on your prayer lists as they are in recovery--all of
them.
I want to end with a big thanks to everybody in Alaska and across the
country who are part of the ``Real Men Wear Pink'' campaign who are
literally raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for breast cancer
research.
I thank Jeff, of course, for not underestimating himself but for
another--another--mission well done as a community leader in Fairbanks
and throughout Alaska.
Congratulations for being our Alaskan of the Week.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I would have joined Senator Sullivan in a
round of applause. I thank him for sharing that inspiring story.
Funding the Government
Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon just to talk very
briefly about the real-world impacts of the decisions we are going to
make in the next week or so regarding the future of the budget and to
really implore my Republican colleagues here, most especially the
Republican leadership, to get this job done and not put us on another
continuing resolution. This is not a theoretical or a rhetorical
exercise; this is about people's lives and our failure to do our job--
our failure to pass a budget and to extend lifesaving programs, like
the Children's Health Insurance Program. It is not about politics, and
it is not about headlines. It is not about point scoring. It is about
making people's lives better.
I really just want to share three stories from Connecticut to talk
about the impact of the decisions that we are going to make with
respect to the Federal budget. Let me first talk about this often
esoteric-sounding concept of parity. One of the most important things
that we are discussing is how many additional dollars are going to be
in the budget for 2017 and 2018 versus in the prior fiscal year.
There seems to be fairly widespread agreement that we are
underresourced when it comes to the Department of Defense. We have a
multitude of kinetic challenges that are presented to the United
States. A group of us just got briefed, once again today, by our
military leadership on the scope and extent of the North Korean threat.
I agree with many of my Republican colleagues that we need to increase
funding for national security, but national security is not just housed
in the Department of Defense. National security is also about making
sure that our families are secure and that our communities are secure.
We believe that we should increase funds for the Department of
Defense, and we should also make sure that our schools have teachers.
We should also make sure that we have cops on the streets. We should
also make sure that our bridges aren't falling down. That is national
security as well. It is not too much to ask to make sure that our
security is taken care of internationally and domestically as well.
Let me give you a perfect example of how you can't just plus-up
defense spending and leave the rest of the budget unattended to. We
love defense spending in Connecticut. Why? Because we make a lot of big
ticket items for the Department of Defense. We make the helicopters at
Sikorsky. We make the jet engines at Pratt & Whitney. We make the
submarines at Electric Boat.
We are proud of all of them, but let me tell you what happens at
Electric Boat if you plus-up the Defense Department at the expense of
all of the other discretionary accounts. We are going to be building a
lot more submarines over the next 10 years. We are now building two
fast attack submarines a year. We are going to start building the new
ballistic submarines, the Columbia class, and Electric Boat needs to
hire 14,000 employees over the next 10 years. Much of that is because
their workforce is older, and so they are going to have a lot of
retirements. They have to find 14,000 new employees over the next 10
years. If they can't, we cannot make the submarines in the United
States, or we cannot make the parts that go into
[[Page S164]]
the submarines in the United States. Either the job will not get done,
or the work will happen somewhere else in another country. You can't
assemble the submarines anywhere other than at Electric Boat, but those
parts will go to foreign companies rather than American companies.
The way in which we are going to fill the 14,000 jobs is through the
Department of Labor. The Department of Labor has a partnership with an
organization called the Eastern Connecticut Manufacturing Pipeline.
That is a public-private partnership that seeks to train hundreds of
individuals in the skills necessary to build the submarines. They
received 4,500 applications over the past year. They can't place all
those people because they only get a certain amount of funding from the
Department of Labor, but they were able to train 500 new workers for
Electric Boat, putting them right into those jobs that are necessary to
build these submarines. The problem is the money for that program is
running out, and with another CR, they can't get renewed funding for
that program. So if you plus-up the Defense Department without
increasing funding for the Department of Labor, you can't get the stuff
that you want to build for the Department of Defense because you can't
get the workers in order to fill the contracts.
If you don't renew this contract, if you don't renew this funding
agreement with the Eastern Connecticut Manufacturing Pipeline, the work
will not get done, and the jobs will go overseas. I just want my
colleagues to understand that this isn't some philosophical belief that
we need the same amount of money in the Department of Defense as we
need in the rest of the budget. It is practical. It is practical
because we need domestic economic security, but you also can't execute
the Department of Defense contracts without funding in the rest of the
budget.
Second, let me talk to you about the real-world implications of not
funding the Children's Health Insurance Program. You know that
healthcare more than any other issue has become a political football.
Democrats toss it to the Republicans, and Republicans toss it back to
Democrats. Yet there is no other issue that is more personal than this.
If someone doesn't have healthcare for their family, nothing else in
their life can happen.
I want to share one story. These letters and emails are flooding into
our offices with respect to the real-world impact of not funding the
Children's Health Insurance Program.
In Connecticut, letters have gone out to families whose children are
insured through CHIP, telling them that by the end of this month--that
is 20 days away--they lose their insurance. So here is what Tara from
Washington, CT, writes. She said:
Despite our full time employment--
She works as a small business manager, and her husband is a full-time
electrical apprentice--
my husband and I do not make enough money to buy health
insurance for our children in addition to our other mandatory
expenses.
She explains that her children go to daycare, which costs $1,800 a
month, which she says is more than their mortgage plus taxes and
insurance.
To go back to her letter, she says:
This is where the [Children's Health Insurance Program]
comes into play in our lives. I cannot even begin to tell you
the anxiety I faced when I was pregnant with my daughter,
crying every day because I didn't know how we were going to
make ends meet. Thank God for a family friend who happened to
be an insurance agent. She told us about [CHIP] and suddenly
some of that anxiety was quelled.
We have been blessed to have [CHIP] in our lives.
I say CHIP. She says in the letter HUSKY. HUSKY is the name of the
CHIP program in Connecticut.
We have been blessed to have [CHIP] in our lives. Last
month my daughter got RSV and was prescribed a nebulizer. Two
weeks ago, my son caught it from her and that developed into
a double ear infection and pink eye, requiring two expensive
medications. The co-pays and premiums are manageable though
and they got the care they needed.
I read in the [local paper] this weekend that letters were
going out to parents of children . . . telling them that
their coverage will end on January 31, 2018.
She is writing this in December.
We are a week away from Christmas, and what should be a
happy time of year has now turned into stress and depression.
How am I going to get insurance for my kids? My daughter
turns two on February 10th, how am I going to pay for her
well visit? I can't just skip it, they won't allow her back
into daycare.
I cannot believe the dysfunction going on in this country.
I cannot believe tax cuts for the wealthy have taken
precedent over the health of my kids. . . . What is Congress
doing to ensure their continued healthcare?
This story is repeated literally millions of times over all across
this country. People went through the holiday anxious and depressed
because they were convinced that we weren't taking seriously the
healthcare of their kids. When we debate the budget, it has to have
attached to it a long-term, if not permanent, extension of the
Children's Health Insurance Program because there are families just
like Tara out there who are doing everything we ask them to. She is
full-time employed, her husband is full-time employed, and they can't
afford health insurance for their kids without CHIP.
Let me talk to you about the importance of making sure that we get
the right amount of disaster funding to Texas, Florida, and in
particular Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico matters to us in Connecticut
because we have the largest percentage of our population with Puerto
Rican roots than any State in the country. We are so proud of that. The
Puerto Rican community in Connecticut is vibrant, economically and
culturally, powerful politically, involved in our cities and towns and
in State government.
The Governor of Puerto Rico has requested $94 billion for Maria
recovery and rebuilding, and I am just back from Puerto Rico. I can
report to you that the island is still in crisis. One hundred days
after the hurricane hit, more than half of the country--half of the
households--still don't have electricity.
If that were happening in Connecticut, Alaska, or Louisiana, there
would be riots in the streets, but for some reason it is acceptable in
Puerto Rico. We are 100 days after the hurricane, and we still haven't
approved a disaster recovery package, and the Trump administration is
nickel-and-diming the island.
I walked through the poorest, most densely populated neighborhood in
San Juan, the capital of the Commonwealth. They have no power. Mold is
growing in these homes because they can't dry out the moisture without
electricity. Kids are enduring more frequent and more intense bouts of
asthma. People are dying because they can't refrigerate their
medication or keep their ventilation equipment running. This is what is
happening in the United States of America. We need to authorize
significant, robust funding for Puerto Rico and for Texas and Florida.
We need to do it now.
We need to do it now because the day that I arrived on the island--I
think it was January 2--it was reported to us that there was the
highest volume of people leaving Puerto Rico since the hurricane--on
that day, January 2. The exodus is getting more intense. More people
are leaving, not less. Why? Because they don't think we are committed
to rebuilding the island. Puerto Ricans don't think that Congress is
serious about putting back on the electricity. They waited 1 month.
They waited 2 months. They waited 3 months, and then they said: Enough,
we can't put our kids in these conditions.
They started leaving in record numbers. They were leaving right off
the bat, but they are now leaving in record numbers. While most of them
are coming to places like Florida, many of them are coming to
Connecticut. Why? Because when they make that move, they often go first
to stay with friends. Because we have such a compassionate, large
Puerto Rican community in Connecticut, many of these families are
coming to Connecticut.
So let me just give you a couple of the numbers here. We asked our
school systems to try to keep a rough track of how many new Puerto
Rican students are showing up. Our cities are small in Connecticut. We
don't have a city that is much bigger than 100,000. In Hartford, they
have 388 new Puerto Rican students--``new'' meaning having come since
the hurricane from the island. Waterbury, CT, has 268. New Britain, a
very small city, has 213. Bridgeport has 179. These are kids who are
glad to have shelter and schooling in Connecticut, but they don't want
to be in Connecticut. They came under duress. They came to Connecticut
as refugees. They want to be back in Puerto Rico.
[[Page S165]]
The stress that this is putting on the schools is serious. We are in
a budget crisis in Connecticut. Schools have already had their funding
cut from Hartford. Yet these schools are now having to staff up to deal
with this influx of students from Puerto Rico. We are glad to do it. We
see it as our obligation, and we know that these kids will be a part of
Connecticut's strength. But it is not easy to do when we haven't
authorized any money to help States like Connecticut to deal with this
influx of students. At McDonough Middle School in Hartford, these kids
are thriving, but they have had to set up a new immersion lab to handle
all these kids coming in. They have had to hire new staff to teach
English as a second language. These are schools that were already
seeing their funding hemorrhage from the State government.
The impact is real on McDonough Middle School. The impact is real on
Tara and her family from Washington. The impact is real for an
important supplier in our industrial base, Electric Boat. If we just
continue to push CR after CR, these families, schools, and companies
will not succeed. This isn't about political headlines. This isn't
about numbers on a page. This is about real-world impact for
businesses, families, and schools.
So let's get the job done. Let's write a budget. Let's at least agree
to the overall budget numbers. Let's fund the Children's Health
Insurance Program. Let's get Puerto Rico, Florida, and Texas everything
they need. News flash: That is our job.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
____________________