[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 50 (Thursday, March 22, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1919-S1931]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TARGETED REWARDS FOR THE GLOBAL ERADICATION OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I understand that the Senate has
received a message from the House to accompany H.R. 1625.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is correct.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate the message
to accompany H.R. 1625.
The Presiding Officer laid before the Senate the following message
from the House of Representatives:
Resolved, That the House agree to the amendment of the
Senate to the bill (H.R. 1625) entitled ``An Act to amend the
State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 to include
severe forms of trafficking in persons within the definition
of transnational organized crime for purposes of the rewards
program of the Department of State, and for other
purposes.'', with an amendment.
Motion to Concur
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment
to H.R. 1625.
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 the Senate amendment to H.R.
1625.
Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Susan M. Collins, Lamar
Alexander, Pat Roberts, Orrin G. Hatch, David Perdue,
Lindsey Graham, Thom Tillis, Lisa Murkowski, Shelley
Moore Capito, Richard Burr, Mike Rounds, John Hoeven,
Rob Portman, John Boozman.
Motion to Concur with Amendment No. 2217
Mr. McCONNELL. I move to concur in the House amendment to H.R. 1625,
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 the Senate amendment to H.R. 1625,
with an amendment numbered 2217.
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. 2218 to Amendment No. 2217
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 2218 to amendment No. 2217.
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. 2219
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to refer the House message on
H.R. 1625 to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to
report back forthwith.
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 on H.R. 1625 to the Committee on
Appropriations to report back forthwith with instructions,
being amendment numbered 2219.
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.
[[Page S1920]]
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 2220
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 2220 to the instructions of the motion to
refer H.R. 1625.
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 my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 2221 to Amendment No. 2220
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 2221 to amendment No. 2220.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike ``4'' and insert ``5''
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Health Insurance
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the Senator from Washington knows the
deep respect I have for her, and we have worked together on some
important legislation on our committee when we have had differences of
opinion, including on the 21st Century Cures legislation and No Child
Left Behind. Yet I have to say, with all due respect, the last 7 months
of working with the Senator and the Democrats on trying to fix the
Affordable Care Act, as they have asked us to do, has been the most
frustrating time in my 16 years in the Senate.
For example, she made three points.
One is that the Democrats were unhappy that we had reduced taxes and
repealed the individual mandate. We know they are unhappy about that,
and we know it raised individual rates somewhat, maybe as much as 10
percent. OK. That was last year. So what are we supposed to do--not
work to reduce rates? We continue to work to reduce rates.
According to the Oliver Wyman experts, the proposal Senator Collins
and I have put on the floor, which is basically a combination of
bipartisan proposals, would reduce rates by up to 40 percent, taking
into account what we did in the tax bill. The CBO, the Congressional
Budget Office, said it would reduce rates by up to 20 percent. That is
the first point.
I understand the Democrats don't like to cut taxes, and they don't
like to get rid of the individual mandate, which is a tax on a lot of
poor people, but they have to get over that at some point. If you think
it raised rates, let's cut rates. We have a proposal to cut rates on
plumbers and songwriters who pay for their own insurance by 40 percent.
So that is not a very good excuse for blocking this rate decrease.
The second thing is, the distinguished Senator from Washington said
the Collins-Alexander proposal interferes with preexisting condition.
It does not. Only someone who hasn't read the bill carefully could
think about that for a moment. I mean, we deliberately made sure the
proposal we would present would not disturb the essential health
benefits, which most of us would like to do, and most of them would
not. It does not change the preexisting condition requirement.
It does codify the proposals the President made on short-term
insurance, at the suggestion of the Democrats, who were afraid the
President might be able to do some things. What we were trying to do
was limit what he could do, to say the States have the responsibility,
and to make sure the consumers knew what they were buying. After all,
the short-term plans, which the Democrats don't like, can only be done
if States choose to do them. They were afraid the President might do
them, so we made sure he could not. So that is not an issue.
The third thing is in terms of the Hyde amendment. Now, the Hyde
amendment is a very simple amendment. Usually, when you oppose
something, you just stand up and say: Look, this is the reason I am
opposing it. You may disagree with me or you may not, but this is my
reason.
This is the only reason the Democrats are blocking this 40-percent
rate reduction. They have said so publicly and privately. That is it.
That is the only reason. They don't like applying the Hyde amendment to
health insurance in this bill. If they don't, fine. That is their
prerogative. I respect that. I don't question their motive, and I don't
question their right to do it. I would just like for them to stand up
and say that is what they are doing. Then they can explain to the
American people what sense that makes.
We have been working for 7 months to develop this proposal that
includes two parts. One is fundamentally the Alexander-Murray proposal
that Senator Schumer said every single Democrat would vote for, and the
other part is 3 years of reinsurance at $10 billion a year. That is it.
Those are bipartisan ideas. The only issue is, shall we also apply Hyde
to it?
What we have planned to do for the last several months is to put it
in this bill that we are voting on today, the omnibus bill, to which
the Hyde language has applied since 1976. What that means is, the Hyde
language is a compromise. It says you may not use Federal funds for
elective abortion, but it makes clear that States, individuals,
churches, and nonprofits may pay for elective abortions. That is the
compromise. We counted them up. The Hyde language applies to more than
100 Federal programs that the Democrats will be voting on today.
The Democrats will be voting today on applying the Hyde language to
the National Institutes of Health, but Senator Murray is saying they
can't apply it to a 40-percent health insurance rate reduction. They
will be voting to apply the Hyde language to community health centers,
but she is saying, no, they can't apply it to a 40-percent health
insurance rate reduction. They are going to be voting to apply it to
the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program--that is for all of us
who get insurance, all the Federal employees--but that they can't apply
it to a health insurance rate reduction. We are going to apply it to
Federal family planning grants under title X, but for some reason, we
can't apply the same law to a health insurance rate reduction. I can go
down that list, as I did earlier, but I will not read the whole thing.
There is the VA, global health programs, the Ryan White school-based
health centers.
The Democrats have voted for Hyde protection hundreds of time. What
the Democrats are arguing is, when they had 60 Senators here and
President Obama and a Speaker of the House named Pelosi, they passed
the Affordable Care Act, and they watered down Hyde for the purposes of
the Affordable Care Act. They want that language. No Republican has
ever voted for that language in the Senate. The Democrats have voted
hundreds of time for Hyde.
How can we continue, how can we expect to make any progress in fixing
the Affordable Care Act if the Democrats will not apply the Hyde
language to any funding under it? I don't see any prospect for it.
I don't like the insinuation that I have walked away from anything.
Most of the Republicans are usually willing to work with the Democrats,
and I have spent hundreds of hours. I walked over to the Senator on the
night we failed on repeal and replace and said: Let's do something. We
had long discussions. We had hearings to which half the Senate came.
Everybody was just cheering. It was like going to summer camp. Why
don't we do more of this? So we did it, and we came up with something
the Democratic leader said everybody could vote for over there. Then
they got mad about the tax cut. OK. They can be mad but not forever,
maybe.
So we came up with a cure for that. We got a 40-percent rate
reduction despite what we did in the tax bill. All we want to do is to
apply to this health program the same health program that every
Democrat who votes for this bill
[[Page S1921]]
will be applying to every other health program today. If they will not
do that, how can they stand up and say they expect to make progress on
fixing the Affordable Care Act? I don't know any way to do it.
I am as willing as anybody to try to work things out here, but I am
no magician. I greatly respect the Senator from Washington and enjoy
working with her, but on this issue, I think we have reached an
impasse. They have yet to give us any language at all that applies to
the Hyde language. All of their suggestions are saying: We want to do
what we did when we had 60 Senators, a President of the United States,
and Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. Well, they may want to, but that is the
one time that ever happened, and here we are today--with no one
objecting on the Democratic side.
I mean, should I offer an amendment to take the Hyde language out of
applying to the National Institutes of Health? Why don't they offer to
take it out of family planning grants under title X? That should be
just as offensive as applying the Hyde language to health insurance.
I don't understand this. They have been scrambling around all day.
The staff has been putting out memos. They are making up things. They
are misleading, and they are misreading. They are making excuses. There
is only one reason. They are blocking a 40-percent health insurance
rate decrease for the plumber who is making $60,000 and paying $20,000
for his insurance. We could cut that $20,000 insurance to $12,000 over
the next 3 years. That person is hurting, and the Democrats are
blocking that. They will say: We will apply Hyde to everything else but
not to the rate decrease for that plumber. I don't understand it, and I
don't see any way to make any progress on it as long as they take that
position.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kennedy). The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I want to make three points in response
to the objection that was raised by my friend and colleague from
Washington State.
The first is timing.
According to the Senator from Washington, we have all the time in the
world. Regrettably, that is not true.
Starting next month, insurers are beginning their calculations on
what rates they are going to charge for insurance policies on the
individual market next year. They are also making the decision as to
whether they are even going to sell in particular counties across this
country. There is already not much competition, so the time is urgent
for us to act. Those rates get approved by the State insurance
commissioners, and they are published on October 1. So the idea that we
have tons of time to take care of this problem is just not accurate.
Indeed, as Senator Alexander just said, the chairman of the HELP
Committee, the HELP Committee has spent months on these concepts, has
worked really hard on these issues, and has had extensive hearings and
roundtables and discussions. The one thing we do not have is time, and
that is why the National Association of Insurance Commissioners has
urged us to act on this bill.
The second is the concept that somehow this bill has brandnew
concepts in it. The only thing that is new is the amendment that was
just filed by the Senator from Washington State. I have no idea what is
in that. It was not shared with me. To my knowledge, it was not shared
with the Senator from Tennessee. I have no idea whether it covers cost
savings reductions that help our lowest income people pay their copays
and deductibles. I have no idea what it does to silver-loading, whereby
insurers jack up the prices of silver plans in order to draw down more
Federal dollars. I have no idea what it does on a whole variety of
issues because I have never seen it.
By contrast, the language of the Collins-Alexander proposal was
shared with the minority. Indeed, I have had several discussions with
the Senator from Washington State about the language, and all of the
concepts in our bill have been debated. Hearings have been held on
them. They have been talked about extensively. They are not new. There
was a change in the reinsurance provisions, which I authored with my
friend and colleague, the former State insurance commissioner from
Florida, Senator Nelson, and that was to add a third year to the
reinsurance.
I would have thought my Democratic friends would have been thrilled
with that--a third year. That was at the suggestion, I would say, of
Congressman Costello and Congressman Walden in the House.
We also put in a Federal backstop so every State could be assured of
the benefits of reinsurance in the next year, even if they had not had
time to file the application for a waiver under section 1332. Again,
that is a concept my Democratic friends were pushing for us to include.
It was one that I, frankly, had reservations about, but that is in
there. So those are two changes in the reinsurance that our Democratic
colleagues, I would think, would be applauding because it helps to
drive down rates.
Third, I hear from my Democratic colleagues that this is an enormous
change in the application of the Hyde amendment because it applies to
commercial insurers. That is just not true. The Hyde amendment already
applies to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. That is the
insurance program for 8.3 million Americans who are Federal employees,
spouses, or family members of Federal employees, or retired Federal
employees--8.3 million. How does the Presiding Officer think that
program is administered? The answer is, it is administered through
commercial insurers like Blue Cross Blue Shield, United Health
Insurance, and many others. This is not the first time, and the
language actually for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program is
more strict than what is in the bill we have proposed. So the idea that
this is some new approach is just not accurate.
The Federal Government spends about $1 trillion on healthcare through
various programs--its share of Medicaid, Medicare, VA programs, the
Children's Health Insurance Program, the TRICARE Program, the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Program. It is about $1 trillion. Guess what.
That is 100 times more than the amount that is covered in this bill--
100 times more. So this is not a new concept in any way.
The reinsurance provisions and the cost-saving reductions have been
discussed for months in the HELP Committee, both formally in hearings
where, by the way, there was widespread support for them and in
informal roundtables and in Senator-to-Senator discussions.
Make no mistake about the stakes here, if we do not act--and it
appears, due to the objection on the Democratic side, that we are not
going to act--insurance rates will go up on October 1. That is going to
hurt everybody who has to buy insurance who wants to be insured and has
to buy through the individual market because they don't get insurance
through the workplace. That is going to hurt very low-income people.
That is also going to hurt those who receive no government help at all
and do not have employer-provided insurance because they are self-
employed.
Why don't we want to take advantage of this opportunity to decrease
insurance rates by as much as 40 percent over the next 2 years?
Do you know how welcome that would be by the people in my State of
Maine? Maine is a low-income State. We don't have Microsoft
headquarters in the State of Maine. We are a low-income State. We need
insurance rates to fall. This bill would do it. Oliver Wyman, the well-
respected healthcare consulting firm, has verified that rates would
fall. The CBO says premiums would be less, and Oliver Wyman says 3.2
million more people would be insured. Surely--surely--this should be a
goal we can all embrace.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me say to my colleague, the chairman
of our committee, the Senator from Tennessee, through the Chair, that I
greatly respect the rapport I have with him, the working ability we
have shown time and again through issues like Cures and ESSA and all
the bills we have worked on and will continue to work on. I have that
respect and admiration for him, and I want him to know I will continue
to do that because I believe in legislating, and I know he does as
well. I share that respect.
To the Senator from Maine, through the Chair, I would also say I have
a lot
[[Page S1922]]
of respect for the Senator from Maine and her passions and her goals on
this as well. I say to both of them, this is an issue I care about
deeply. I would not have sat down with any one of them to work on a
bipartisan solution to the dilemma we found ourselves in throughout the
last year as repeated decisions were made that undermine the security
of people in terms of their ability to afford quality healthcare and a
marketplace that was increasingly seeing uncertainty. I believe in
those goals, and I know they do as well.
I remain committed to getting this done. I agree timing is
everything, and we have been working on this since September. I regret
the actions that were taken that we were not able to put this forward
in September or December, and we are here now at this point.
I will state, as to the language that has been added, obviously and
clearly, there is a real divide on how it is read, how it is
interpreted, and how it could be applicable. That is our objection. I
say to my colleague, my chairman, through the Chair as well, that we
had offered him language on Friday that did indeed deal with the Hyde
amendment. No one here said we cannot have that, but we have language
that exceeds, in my opinion--I know that is not shared on the other
side--but in my opinion extends well beyond into the private
marketplace, where I think there is a line the people would not
support, and I certainly can't myself.
In addition to the other language dealing with people's ability to
protect their preexisting conditions, we clearly have a divide on how
that is interpreted, but that does not preclude our ability, if we
agree on the goal of stabilizing the marketplace and ensuring that we
can do the CSR payments, that we can do the reinsurance program the
Senator from Maine has championed, and rightfully so--and I hope we can
all agree that moving on from here, we would return to that bipartisan
proposal, not partisan proposals, and move to get this done.
I thank the Chair.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, first of all, I think the session led by
Senator Alexander and Senator Collins on the cost-sharing has been very
helpful and shows the impact that would have if we went forward with
it, but I want to talk about the funding bill itself.
The first and foremost thing this bill does is it makes critical
investments to keep Americans safe. It is the largest annual defense
increase year-to-year in 15 years. It provides a pay increase for those
who risk their lives in service to us. When we send our men and women
who are willing to do that job in harm's way, we ought to do everything
we can to ensure that they have every possible advantage. We don't want
Americans to be in a fair fight. We want Americans to be in an unfair
fight because we have stacked the fight in favor of people who are
defending us.
We lost the advantages we had over the last 10 years. We clearly have
not funded the military at the level it needed to be funded. We haven't
provided the training dollars. We let the equipment get old. I would
like to think I have consistently been on the other side of that
debate.
We see what happens when we lose that advantage. We lost 80 personnel
this year and last year, 2017, in accidents--in training accidents and
other accidents--where people are asked to do too much for too many
hours without enough training on the kind of equipment they are going
to be using. We had 80 people lost in those accidents--four times as
many people as were lost in combat. We can't continue to let that
happen.
That is what this bill does. It turns the page after a decade of
inadequate funding, a decade of diminished readiness, a decade of
training that wasn't what people should have been expected to have
before they were expected to do the things we asked them to do.
This bill makes the equipment better, it strengthens our military
defense, it strengthens our missile defense, it funds new weapons
systems, and invests heavily in measures designed to counter the
threats such as ISIL and North Korea.
It begins to upgrade U.S. military strength with funding increases
for shipbuilding, for aircraft procurement and maintenance. Some of the
aircraft we make--the Growlers and Super Hornets--in Missouri, and
there are lots of small suppliers that are a part of that readiness
chain that are jeopardized when we decide we are not going to keep our
equipment up-to-date or repaired.
This bill has a pay raise for the military men and women that they
deserve. It also deals with veterans. In my State, we have 500,000
veterans. I am proud to see this bill provides a record level of
Veterans' Administration funding but also continues down the path of
being sure veterans have more choices. There is no reason to drive by
three hospitals that are really good at something that the veterans
hospital you are going to may not be as good at. There are things
veterans hospitals should be better at than anybody else. They should
be better at post-traumatic stress. They should be better at IED
attacks, where eyes and limbs are hurt. Always the veterans hospitals
have been as good as anybody on prosthetics when people have lost legs
and lost arms. That is part of what veterans uniquely are likely to
have happen to them more than others. There is no reason to assume they
should be as good at kidney dialysis or open-heart surgery. There is
every reason to assume, if they want to go somewhere that really is
good at this that is closer to where they live, they should be able to
do that.
This bill funds either the construction or the repair and backup of
almost 100 miles of the wall that the President talked about at the
border.
It provides the money to keep the Guantanamo Bay detention facility
open. It has the Fix NICS component, particularly with Federal
agencies. It was a shock to me and others, as we have looked into this,
that so many of the problems with reporting to the background check
system have been through Federal agencies and the military failing to
report the kinds of things that clearly would be reported if they had
happened in a civilian environment. Fix NICS does that, providing
incentives for States to figure out how to make their reporting better.
This includes the Hatch and Klobuchar safe schools language that
talks about how to stop school violence, early intervention, military
mental health awareness. In my State, at least, we have been leaning on
something called mental health first aid, where teachers and others who
work with young people are not turned into psychiatrists or
psychologists but in a fairly intensive, but short, period of time are
given some of the key things to look for to then try to connect that
young man or woman with the kind of help they need.
The equipment that could be available for better securing schools
would be available in new ways under this bill, if we pass it. Some of
that is in the education area. I am on that subcommittee with the
Presiding Officer.
The labor, the health and human services, and the education
components of the bill are strong--what we are doing for the third year
straight in healthcare research. Until this year, every time we made
that new commitment to healthcare research, after 12 years of no
increase at all, we did it with no new money. It was purely
prioritizing this as an important thing. With this year's bill, the
bill we will pass today, we will restore 22 percent of funding that the
NIH lost in research buying power in the previous 12 years, where not a
single new penny went to healthcare research beyond what they had
before--whether it is Alzheimer's, cancer, or the BRAIN Initiative. We
just simply know a lot more than we knew a dozen years ago about the
human genome, about the individual impact of cancers, about getting
your own system more aggressively fighting back, by sort of amping up
your own system's response. Your system and mine, we have a response to
those cancerous attacks, but usually it is quickly overwhelmed by the
cancer itself. It doesn't have to be that way because research has led
the way on that.
This bill is not perfect. I could go through the bill--every one of
us could go through the bill and find something in there that we
individually don't like. That is part of the legislating process.
Going back to my earlier comments, it is a different decision to be
made when you decide: I am absolutely committed to defending the
country, but I
[[Page S1923]]
am going to find something in the bill that funds that that I can be
against, so even though I can be for defense, I don't have to explain
anything I am not for.
I would rather we brought these bills to the floor one at a time. I
am lucky--I hope--fortunate to be on the special committee that was
just appointed to try to figure out a way to make the budget and
appropriations process work in a way that this might be the last time
we have all this in one bill. It didn't used to be that way. It has
been that way for about 10 years now. It needs to stop. Every Member
needs to have a right to be able to amend these bills, to bring them to
the floor one at a time or two at a time, have a real debate, and put
them on the President's desk as we pass them, not to wait until 6
months after the new spending year begins and then have one big bill
and have no real impact on what is in that bill in ways we would like
to--at least vote on having it changed.
It is not perfect. There was right-to-conscience language, where
healthcare professionals who didn't want to be part of a particular
procedure that would generally be a life-ending procedure because of
their personal conscience and faith beliefs--you would think that could
have made it in this bill, but it didn't. I would be much happier about
voting on this bill if it were there, but it is not there. So I can
find things that aren't there that I would like to see in this bill. I
can certainly find things that are in the bill that I would prefer not
to see us go forward with. But that is the process of democracy. That
is the process of legislating. You have to look at the alternatives
before you.
If we are going to make the kind of commitment to our national
defense and the men and women who defend us that this bill makes, if we
are going to make the kind of commitment to healthcare research and
school safety that this bill makes, the choice today is to vote for the
bill sometime before the continuing resolution runs out tomorrow or to
think of how you could have done this in a better way. I think we all
can think of better ways to do this.
Moving forward here, it is important that we have made a commitment
to the opioid crisis we are seeing in the country. More people now die
from drug overdoses than in car accidents. Drug overdoses have become
the No. 1 cause of accidental death in the country today.
We have $1.5 billion in flexible spending for the States as part of
the $3 billion being spent to fight the opioid crisis in the next year.
About 15 percent of that $1.5 billion is going to go to the States that
have the biggest problem. There will be some allocation to every State
because every State has a problem, but some States have bigger
problems. For the first time in this fight, with the good advice of
Senator Shaheen, Senator Capito, Senator Portman, and others, we are
factoring in a way to get more money quicker to the States that have
big problems.
There is also money for the National Institute of Health to research
new ways to respond to drug overdoses so that more people survive the
overdose and research different ways to deal with pain so that people
don't get addicted to the things they are addicted to now and either
die from overdoses or move to even more dangerous drugs. And people who
don't die from an overdose can see their lives crumble in front of them
even if they are fortunate enough to recover from the addiction they
became part of. This is a national crisis, and this bill views it as a
national crisis.
Whether it is a domestic crisis, like opioids, or an international
crisis, like our failure to defend ourselves in a way that people who
defend us would expect us to be willing to do--this is a bill that
overall deserves to be voted for. I intend to vote for it. I intend to
start tomorrow trying to have a bill next year that not only comes to
the floor in a different way but also corrects the problems that I
think could have been better served in the bill we have before us
today.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the prospect of retirement has imbued me
with a sense of urgency as I have never felt it before. With just a few
months left in office, I have an ambitious agenda that I am committed
to getting across the finish line, and with the passage of this year's
spending bill, I am grateful to be several steps closer to that goal.
In my first Senate address after announcing that this term would be
my last, I made clear my intentions for my final year in office. I
promised to be on the Senate floor, early and often, pushing the most
critical reforms of this Congress, and I have been. I promised a flurry
of legislative activity from my office, and you have seen it.
Anyone who wants to count me out doesn't know that I have a dedicated
staff determined to drive this old workhorse into the ground, and with
the passage of this year's omnibus, our efforts are beginning to bear
fruit. True to my promise in January to go big and to go bold, I have
been hard at work over the last few weeks to include in this year's
spending package a number of legislative priorities that will make a
meaningful difference for millions of Americans.
I wish to thank the majority leader, the majority whip, the Speaker
of the House, and their respective staffs for going extra lengths to
help me attach several of these signature initiatives to the bill we
will soon pass. Whether it is historic legislation to prevent school
violence and improve our background check system or bipartisan measures
to empower law enforcement and strengthen our rural communities, this
omnibus encompasses a number of policy victories that will greatly
benefit both Utah and the Nation.
Let me begin with the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act, or
CLOUD Act. This critically important legislation will create a workable
framework for law enforcement to obtain data stored overseas while at
the same time protecting providers from conflicts of law and
encouraging other countries to strengthen domestic privacy standards.
This bill is a win for law enforcement, for the tech community, and for
the Trump administration as well.
Passage of the CLOUD Act is the culmination of more than 4-years of
hard work. My first foray on this issue was the Law Enforcement Access
to Data Stored Abroad Act, or the LEADS Act, which I introduced in
September 2014. I continued my work last Congress with the
International Communications Privacy Act, or ICPA. Then, earlier this
year, I introduced the CLOUD Act with my good friends Senator Coons,
Senator Graham, and Senator Whitehouse.
Among other things, the CLOUD Act authorizes the United States to
enter into bilateral agreements with other governments to set clear
standards for requests for digital evidence. Under these bilateral
agreements, the United States agrees to lift its blocking statute on
disclosure to foreign law enforcement if the other country similarly
agrees to lift any such bar it has on disclosure to U.S. law
enforcement. Moreover, the CLOUD Act requires that any order issued by
a foreign government on a U.S. provider be subject to judicial or other
administrative review before the provider can be forced to turn over
data.
I am hopeful that the U.S.-U.K. bilateral agreement framework
outlined in the CLOUD Act will serve as a model for future agreements
between the United States and other countries. Expeditiously
implementing similar agreements with the European Union and our other
allies is critical to protecting consumers around the world and
facilitating legitimate law enforcement investigations.
The CLOUD Act gives law enforcement the tools they need to keep us
safe. So, too, does the STOP School Violence Act. We started working
with families from Sandy Hook on this bipartisan bill several months
ago. They had some great ideas for making our schools safer including
school threat assessment teams; anonymous reporting systems; and
training for students, teachers, and law enforcement to prevent future
violence. We engaged with stakeholders from the security industry about
school security infrastructure improvements. These and other evidence-
based strategies and programs to improve school safety formed the
foundation of the STOP School Violence Act.
We were refining the bill and shoring up bipartisan support when
tragedy struck at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. This certainly
increased the urgency of the legislation, and I
[[Page S1924]]
welcomed the help and advice of the families from Parkland as well.
I can't even imagine how I would react if something like that
happened to one of my children, so it has been incredible to see these
families from Sandy Hook and Parkland channel that grief and anger into
unifying action. In particular, I would like to thank Ryan Petty,
Patrick Petty, Kyle Kashuv, and so many other outstanding individuals
who shared with us their unique perspective on the issue of school
violence. Without them, this bill would not have become a reality.
Despite everything people like Kyle and the Pettys' went through,
they came in with the attitude of wanting to find common ground and
bring people together. These families from Parkland came in wanting to
make a difference, saying this time had to be different, and very soon,
they can say that they helped pass a historic bill that will save
hundreds, if not thousands, of lives.
In the spirit of keeping young people safe, I am glad we were also
able to get my Child Protection Improvements Act included in the
omnibus. The objective of this bipartisan bill is simple: to better
protect the most vulnerable in our society, namely, children, the
elderly, and individuals with disabilities.
The Child Protection Improvements Act amends the National Child
Protection Act of 1993 to make permanent a pilot program originally
created by the Adam Walsh Act. This program ensures that organizations
that serve children, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities
have access to FBI fingerprint background checks for their employees,
volunteers, and coaches. My hope is that this bill, which is broadly
supported by youth-serving organizations and law enforcement groups,
will save many lives and better protect those who cannot protect
themselves. Giving permanency to this background check program is an
important step in keeping children and the defenseless safe from
violent criminals and sexual predators who might otherwise slip through
the cracks.
Also among our Nation's most vulnerable are those struggling with
addiction to opioids. Opioid abuse in our Nation has reached epidemic
levels, leaving in its wake a trail of tragedy and shattered life. Few
are immune to the devastating effects of addiction. For many,
dependency begins with a painkiller prescription in the aftermath of a
surgery or serious injury. Against their own will, patients develop an
addiction to pain medication that leaves them craving more. Over time,
feeding this addiction becomes increasingly difficult, pushing many to
look for a harder fix. Some even turn to heroin, spurring a rapid
descent into despondency from which few return.
To combat this harrowing epidemic, the omnibus more than triples the
Federal resources devoted to the opioid crisis, allocating billions of
dollars to opioid prevention, treatment, and enforcement. Moreover, the
omnibus increases NIH funding to research new advances in healthcare
and medicine, as well as alternative pain management options. My home
State of Utah is a leader in this field, and this bill will give
researchers the resources they need to continue to break new ground. In
short, this legislation is a symbol of hope for millions across the
country whose lives have been ravaged by the opioid epidemic.
In addition to helping Americans whose lives have been upended by
addiction, I am also committed to helping Westerners who are struggling
in our rural communities. That is why I worked long and hard to include
in this year's omnibus a 2-year extension of the Secure Rural Schools
program, or SRS.
The SRS program is absolutely critical to rural, forest counties in
Utah and across the West. As the timber industry has declined in our
country, rural counties with high presence of National Forest System
lands face significant hardships in maintaining schools and essential
infrastructure. Fortunately, with the extension of SRS, hard-working
county leaders will be able to improve road maintenance, fund law
enforcement, and keep our schools and libraries open.
The SRS program, as well as programs such as PILT, are a boon to
families across the State of Utah. Of equal importance are our defense
programs. Utah has some of the most patriotic people in the country,
not to mention thousands of veterans and Active-Duty servicemembers.
That is why I have always done everything in my power to support the
warfighter, so I am pleased that this bill includes a much-needed 2.4
percent pay raise for our troops, the largest in 8 years. What is more,
the legislation we are set to vote on today has the largest increase in
defense funding in over 15 years, with a $61 billion increase over last
year's levels. This is especially good news for my hard-working
constituents at military installations throughout the state.
What I have mentioned thus far is by no means an exhaustive list of
the legislative victories included in this year's omnibus, but also
worth mentioning are initiatives to build research capacity at the
National Institutes of Health; make childcare more affordable for
America's hard-working families, expand TIGER grants to facilitate
transportation projects across the country, strengthen the Economic
Development Administration to bolster rural communities, and support
evidence-based education programs for our Nation's youth. On each of
these initiatives, I worked closely with stakeholders and everyday
Utahns to ensure that their perspectives would be heard and their needs
would be met.
I am pleased with the work we have been able to do on this bill. Like
any compromise, it is far from perfect, but it's undeniably good, and I
can confidently say that the bills included in this legislative package
will have a lasting effect on the lives of thousands of Utahns and
thousands more across the country.
Now, some have criticized the process of passing this legislation,
criticizing the fact that lawmakers have not been able to read the
omnibus from beginning to end. I take serious issue with this
criticism. True, the omnibus is large, but every bill included therein
has been thoroughly vetted over the course of several months and, in
some cases, several years, so the assertion that we are passing a bill,
the contents of which are unknown, is completely disingenuous. We know
exactly what is in this omnibus because it is the culmination of all
our hard work this Congress. This is a common vehicle for passing
vetted legislation, and anyone who tells you otherwise is playing
political games.
Let me just conclude by saying that, with the time I have left here
in the Senate, I plan to leave everything on the field. For me, 2018 is
not a victory lap but a sprint to the finish, and I plan to finish
strong.
Mr. President, I submit this statement on behalf of myself and
Ranking Member Wyden. The provisions of the House amendment to the
Senate amendment to H.R. 1625, showing the text of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2018, before the Senate for debate today includes
technical corrections to legislation enacted prior to 2017. These
provisions are important to provide clarity to taxpayers and to the
administration of the law. I and Ranking Member Ron Wyden have asked
the staff of the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make
available to the public a technical explanation of this legislation.
The technical explanation expresses the congressional understanding
and legislative intent behind this important legislation. It is
available on the Joint Committee's website at www.jct.gov. It is
document JCX-6-18, ``Technical Explanation of the Revenue Provisions of
the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1625 (Rules
Committee Print 115-66),'' March 22, 2018.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about title XI of
divisions S of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, H.R. 1625.
Title XI of Division S, the Fair Agricultural Reporting Methods Act, or
the FARM Act is identical to the text of S. 2421, which was introduced
on February 13, 2018, and which was referred to the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works, where I serve as ranking member. I am
proud to be an original cosponsor of S. 2421.
The Environment and Public Works Committee held two legislative
hearings on the text of S. 2421. The first was on S. 2421 as
introduced, in the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight
on March 8, 2018. The second
[[Page S1925]]
hearing was held by the full committee on March 14, 2018, on a
committee draft of legislation, the ``Agriculture Creates Real
Employment (ACRE) Act.'' The text of S. 2421 was included in the
committee draft of the ACRE Act, as section 3.
S. 2421 exempts most farms from the hazardous substance release
reporting requirements under section 103 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, CERCLA, for
air emissions from animal waste, but leaves intact reporting
requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Act, EPCRA. The FARM Act also preserves reporting requirements and
enforcement authority under State and local laws, as neither CERCLA nor
EPCRA would preempt such requirements.
As I said during those hearings, I believe our country's
environmental laws serve our entire Nation, including our farmers,
quite well, but I recognize that sometimes environmental requirements
can be complex and confusing to those who farm, especially when these
rules suddenly change.
This is what happened in April 2017 when the DC Circuit Court of
Appeals invalidated an EPA rule from 2008, which exempted all farms in
the Nation from reporting requirements for hazardous air emissions from
animal waste under CERCLA.
That same rule also exempted many farms from reporting requirements
under section 304 of EPCRA, but left in place reporting requirements
for large concentrated animal feeding operations, known as CAFOs. This
is because EPA received numerous comments from local officials and the
public in support of having farms report these emissions. Since January
2009, EPA has required large CAFOs to report their emissions of ammonia
and hydrogen sulfide from animal waste under section 304 of EPCRA.
With the court's decision to vacate the 2008 rule, all farms that
exceeded releases of 100 pounds in a 24-hour period of ammonia or
hydrogen sulfide were now subject to reporting requirements under
section 103 of CERCLA and under section 304 of EPCRA. Farms had no
experience with CERCLA reporting, because the 2008 rule exempted all
farms from reporting under section 103 of that statute. The FARM Act
provides a statutory exemption to the reporting requirements under
section 103 because the DC Circuit found that EPA did not have the
authority to exempt farms from these releases. This restores the CERCLA
reporting exemption under which farmers have operated since 2009.
Reporting requirements under EPCRA have been quite different. As I
noted before, the Bush administration chose to only exempt some farms
from reporting releases of extremely hazardous substances from animal
waste under section 304 of EPCRA, and since 2009, large CAFOs have been
successfully reporting these releases to their State emergency response
commissions and to their local emergency planning committees. The DC
Circuit vacated the rule that exempted farms that weren't large CAFOs
from EPCRA reporting requirements under section 304.
One thing I worked hard on with Senators Fischer and Barrasso as we
were developing the FARM Act was to ensure that, at the same time we
exempted farms from hazardous substance reporting requirements under
section 103 of CERCLA, we chose to make no changes to how extremely
hazardous substances should be reported under EPCRA. We heard testimony
from multiple witnesses during both of our hearings on this point,
namely that this legislation did not change reporting requirements for
releases of extremely hazardous substances under EPCRA. We also heard
testimony from a local government official about the ways that he and
his constituents would use the information in these reports.
Another important aspect of the FARM Act is that it in no way
modifies any of EPA's response or remedial authorities under CERCLA,
nor does it in any way limit or reduce liability associated with a
release from any facility, which of course includes farms. This fact is
made explicit in section 3 of S. 2421 and in section 1103 of H.R. 1625,
division S, title XI.
I want to thank Senators Fischer and Barrasso for working with me and
agreeing to not amend EPCRA in S. 2421, and similarly in title XI of
division S of H.R. 1625. That was critical for many Members on the
Democratic side who have repeatedly heard concerns from State and local
officials, the public health experts, and other members of these
communities who have the right to know about what is in their air.
Finally, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a
Congressional Research Service memorandum titled ``Supplemental
Analysis: Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act/FARM Act (S. 2421).''
As I have already noted, the text of the FARM Act in division S, title
XI, of the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1625, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, is identical to S. 2421.
Therefore, the analysis contained in the CRS memo on S. 2421 applies
equally to the language in the omnibus. There is additional analysis on
the FARM Act by CRS that is part of the hearing records on S. 2421 and
on the ACRE Act.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Congressional Research Service Memorandum
March 13, 2018.
To: Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Attention: Kusai Merchant.
Hon. Cory A. Booker, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory
Oversight
Attention: Adam Zipkin.
From: David M. Bearden, Specialist in Environmental Policy
Subject: Supplemental Analysis: Fair Agricultural Reporting
Method Act/FARM Act (S. 2421).
This memorandum responds to your request for a more
detailed discussion of the analysis presented in a CRS
memorandum provided on March 7, 2018. CRS prepared this
earlier memorandum to respond to your initial request for an
analysis of amendments to the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in the
Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act or ``FARM Act'' (S.
2421), as introduced on February 13, 2018. As discussed in
the March 7th CRS memorandum, S. 2421 would exempt air
releases of hazardous substances emitted by animal waste at
farms from reporting requirements under CERCLA, and would
have a bearing on the applicability of reporting requirements
under Section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).
This supplemental memorandum elaborates upon the analysis
presented in the March 7th CRS memorandum to outline
circumstances in which the emergency notification
requirements in Section 304 of EPCRA would apply under
current law, and the bearing of S. 2421 on the applicability
of these requirements to air releases emitted by animal
waste. The March 7th CRS memorandum provides additional
background information in support of this analysis, and
offers a broader examination of how S. 2421 would define the
terms ``animal waste'' and ``farm'' for purposes of the bill.
I hope that this supplemental memorandum is helpful to
address your questions about circumstances in which EPCRA may
continue to apply if S. 2421 were enacted. If you need
further assistance from CRS in consideration of this
legislation or related issues, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Section 304 of EPCRA
As explained in the March 7th CRS memorandum, Section 304
of EPCRA outlines three situations in which the reporting of
releases of extremely hazardous substances or hazardous
substances into the environment is required. In each
situation, the person responsible for the release must notify
the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) and the
appropriate Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) that
covers the local jurisdiction where the release occurs. Two
of these situations are contingent upon the release being
subject to notification under Section 103 of CERCLA for
reporting to the National Response Center! The third
situation is not contingent upon reporting under CERCLA. The
three situations covered in Section 304 of EPCRA are as
follows.
Section 304(a)(1) requires notification of releases of
extremely hazardous substances listed under EPCRA, if the
release would require notification for hazardous substances
under Section 103 of CERCLA.
Section 304(a)(3) requires notification of releases of
other hazardous substances that are not separately listed as
extremely hazardous substances under EPCRA, if the release
would require notification under Section 103 of CERCLA.
Section 304(a)(2) requires notification of releases of
extremely hazardous substances
[[Page S1926]]
listed under EPCRA (but that are not subject to notification
under CERCLA), if three criteria are met.
In this third situation, releases of extremely hazardous
substances listed under EPCRA would require notification
under Section 304(a)(2), if the release:
(A) is not a federally permitted release as defined in
Section 101(10) of CERCLA;
(B) is in an amount in excess of a reportable quantity that
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated
under Section 302 of EPCRA; and
(C) ``occurs in a manner'' that would require notification
under Section 103 of CERCLA.
S. 2421
S. 2421 would amend Section 103(e) of CERCLA to exempt
``air emissions from animal waste (including decomposing
animal waste) at a farm'' from reporting to the National
Response Center regardless of the quantity of the release of
hazardous substances in air emissions. The bill would not
amend Section 304 or any other provisions of EPCRA. Although
S. 2421 would not amend this statute, the bill would have the
effect of eliminating reporting requirements under Section
304(a)(1) and Section 304(a)(3) of EPCRA for air releases of
hazardous substances emitted by animal waste at farms, in so
far as the terms ``animal waste'' and ``farm'' are defined in
the bill.
Both Section 304(a)(1) and Section 304(a)(3) of EPCRA are
contingent upon reporting required under Section 103 of
CERCLA. Exempting a release from reporting under Section 103
of CERCLA thereby would have the effect of exempting the same
release from reporting under Section 304(a)(1) and Section
304(a)(3) of EPCRA. The April 2017 court decision referenced
in the March 7th CRS memorandum (Waterkeeper Alliance, et
al., v. EPA) described this statutory relationship in terms
of ``a release that triggers the CERCLA duty also
automatically trips the EPCRA reporting requirements in
subsections (1) and (3)'' of Section 304.
S. 2421 would not have a bearing on the reporting of
releases of extremely hazardous substances under Section
304(a)(2) of EPCRA though, as this provision is not
contingent upon reporting required under Section 103 of
CERCLA. If the exemption from CERCLA in S. 2421 were enacted,
the applicability of Section 304(a)(2) therefore would remain
the same as in current law. An air release of an extremely
hazardous substance emitted by animal waste at a farm would
be subject to Section 304(a)(2) if all three statutory
criteria for reporting were met.
An air release of an extremely hazardous substance emitted
by animal waste would satisfy the first criterion in Section
304(a)(2)(A) if it were not a federally permitted release.
Section 101(10) of CERCLA defines the term ``federally
permitted release'' to mean releases regulated under other
specific laws. Section 101(10)(H) authorizes a federally
permitted release for ``any emission into the air'' subject
to a permit, regulation, or State Implementation Plan,
pursuant to the Clean Air Act. CRS is not aware of the use of
these authorities to regulate air releases emitted by animal
waste upon which a federally permitted release presently
could be based. If such air releases were permitted under the
Clean Air Act, the releases would be exempt from reporting
and liability under CERCLA as a federally permitted release,
and thereby exempt from reporting to state and local
officials under Section 304 of EPCRA.
An air release of an extremely hazardous substance emitted
by animal waste would satisfy the second criterion in Section
304(a)(2)(B) if the quantity of the release were to exceed
the quantitative threshold for reporting that EPA designated
in federal regulation pursuant to Section 302 of EPCRA. For
example, EPA separately listed ammonia and hydrogen sulfide
(substances commonly emitted by animal waste) as extremely
hazardous substances, and designated 100 pounds released
during a 24-hour period as the threshold for reporting under
Section 302 of EPCRA. Air releases of ammonia or hydrogen
sulfide emitted by animal waste in excess of 100 pounds
during a 24-hour period therefore would satisfy this second
criterion in Section 304(a)(2)(B).
An air release of an extremely hazardous substance emitted
by animal waste (e.g., ammonia or hydrogen sulfide) would
satisfy the third criterion of Section 304(a)(2)(C) of EPCRA,
if the release were to occur in the same manner as a
``release'' that would require reporting under CERCLA. As
outlined in the March 7th CRS memorandum, the term
``release'' in CERCLA is relatively broad with respect to the
manner in which a hazardous substance may enter the
environment, including spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring,
emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping,
leaching, dumping, or disposing into the environment. The
term ``environment'' is defined in Section 101(8) of CERCLA
to include surface water, groundwater, a drinking water
supply, surface soils, sub-surface soils, or ambient air.
Section 329 of EPCRA defines the terms ``release'' and
``environment'' similar in scope to CERCLA. The federal
regulations promulgated under Section 304 of EPCRA reflect
these statutory definitions. Both CERCLA and EPCRA generally
treat emissions into the ambient air as releases into the
environment.
In implementation, EPA has treated the phrase ``occurs in a
manner'' in EPCRA Section 304(a)(2)(C) to mean the nature of
the release in terms of how a substance enters the
environment, not that reporting is required under Section 103
of CERCLA. Otherwise, Section 304(a)(2) would be rendered
meaningless in covering releases of extremely hazardous
substances that do not require reporting as hazardous
substances under CERCLA, while requiring reporting under
CERCLA at the same time.
The March 7th CRS memorandum observed that the exemption
from reporting under Section 103 of CERCLA in S. 2421 may not
necessarily exempt releases of separately listed extremely
hazardous substances from reporting under Section 304(a)(2)
of EPCRA. The applicability of this provision to a particular
release would depend on whether all three statutory criteria
outlined above are met. Regardless of these criteria though,
Section 304 in its entirety may not apply to air releases
from animal waste at farms if the Trump Administration's
interpretation of the exemption for substances used in
routine agricultural operations is not challenged. S. 2421
would not have a bearing on this exemption.
Also as noted in the March 7th CRS memorandum, potential
reporting requirements under state or local laws may continue
to apply regardless of an exemption in federal law, as
neither CERCLA nor EPCRA would preempt such state or local
requirements.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
recognized for such time as I may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this is going to be kind of a strange
statement to make. I have great regret that I am going to have to vote
for this bill when it comes up--and I am talking about the spending
bill--and I don't like it.
I went through a lot of years as being--in fact, since I have been
here, I have been ranked with the three most conservative Members every
year--more times than anybody else has. I am looking at this right now,
and I was listening to some of my colleagues who are concerned about
the spending, and no one is more concerned than I am about the
spending. We have a problem, though, that a lot of people don't
understand.
I have been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for 24 years in
the Senate, and I was on the same committee in the House before that,
and I have never seen anything like this. We went through things back
in the Carter administration where we had a hollow force, and then
Ronald Reagan came along in 1980, and we rebuilt our military.
Everybody knows that. They knew what was happening. A hollow force is
not good. A hollow force means we can't really fight a war. Certainly
we can't do two contingencies simultaneously, as has been our policy
for a long period of time. And that is what we got into back then. Now,
this hasn't happened since 1980.
I chair one of the subcommittees, and we had the vices in--this was
at the end of the Obama administration--and the four vices of the
services all said the same thing: We are in a position now where we
have a hollow force like we had back in the late seventies.
The public doesn't know this, and our press doesn't talk very much
about this. They talk about all the problems that ring the bells and
sell the newspapers and all of that, but they don't want to talk about
the military. This is the reality of what we are faced with right now.
General Dunford is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He said
that we are losing our qualitative and quantitative edge in America.
That means we have two great forces out there--one Russia and one
China--and they are passing us up. Right now, both China and Russia,
with the artillery pieces they have on tanks, can fire eight rounds a
minute. Do you know how many rounds we can fire with ours? Four rounds
a minute.
We got ourselves into a position where we had our ground brigades of
the U.S. Army--this was at the end of the last administration--of our
ground brigades, only 30 percent of them could be deployed.
I don't like to sound like I am being partisan when I talk about
Barack Obama. I respect him in one area, and that is, he was admittedly
a very proud
[[Page S1927]]
liberal, and proud liberals don't care that much about a defense
system. They think that if all countries will stand in a circle and
hold hands and unilaterally disarm, all threats will go away. So we
went through that, and people didn't seem to care.
There is this myth out there that somehow we are stronger than
everybody else, that the equipment we have is better than anybody
else's. During that same timeframe, our air brigades--only 30 percent
of those were working. The marines who use the F-18s--62 percent of the
F-18s couldn't fly. One of the things that happen when the military
goes down--the first thing that goes down is maintenance, and then, of
course, you have modernization, and that is where we got way down
behind.
Don't take my word for it. Right now, we have 27 Members on the
Senate Armed Services Committee, and they understand this. They know
where we are on this, but a lot of the other people don't. They have
their interests. If they had a strong interest, they would probably be
on the committee, and they are not.
Secretary Mattis said:
Our competitive edge has eroded in every domain of
warfare--air, land, sea, space, cyberspace--and is
continually eroding. America has no pre-ordained right to
victory in the battlefield.
That is Secretary Mattis, who is the Secretary of Defense.
Army General Allyn said:
We've had most of our modernization programs on life
support for the last several years. Currently, our
modernization is 50 percent of what it was in 2009.
This is a good quote, too. This is from Navy Admiral Moran. So this
is not just me saying this; this is where I got the information about
the Hornet fleet. The Hornet is the F-18. He said:
For our entire Hornet fleet . . . we have 62 percent that
are not flyable. More than half. We're double where we should
be in non-flyable aircraft.
General Walters said:
I can tell you today we cannot [fight two conflicts]
simultaneously.
That is supposed to be our policy, that at a minimum--ever since
World War II--we would be able to and have the capability of fighting
on two fronts simultaneously. We can't do it.
General Wilson:
We're at about 50 percent readiness today, across the Air
Force. We [were] . . . the smallest Air Force ever in 2016,
when we bottomed out at 310,000.
I could go on and spend a lot of time talking about this, but I can't
find anyone in the military who disagrees. That should be a foregone
conclusion if our own military--they are the ones who are responsible
for protecting my 20 kids and grandkids from enemies.
I just got back from the South China Sea. We have a lot of really
good allies there. We have the Philippines, South Korea, Guam, Japan,
and Taiwan. They have been our top allies, but do you know what is
happening in the South China Sea? China is out there doing something
totally illegal. They say that they are reclaiming land. They are not
reclaiming it because they don't have it to start with. They are
creating land that is out there in the seaways that we need to defend
America and to keep our commerce going, and they are building islands.
Right now they are up to over 3,000 acres of islands. This is China we
are talking about. What are they doing over there? They have runways.
They have rockets. They have military equipment. There is nothing there
except military equipment. It is almost as if they are preparing for
world war III.
So where are our allies? We talked to our allies. They are
embarrassed because they are not sure whose side they are going to be
on. In fact, it is almost as if they put this in on purpose, where you
would have the Secretary of Defense or the Minister of Defense, in
whichever of these countries I mentioned, on one side saying ``Well,
you know, the threat is not all that great,'' and the other one is
saying ``Yes, you have to do something because the world is coming to
end.'' Well, they are on both sides of this issue.
It is fascinating. It is almost as if they got together, and they are
doing it by design. Has this ever happened since World War II in our
country? No, it hasn't. That is where we are right now.
We have problems that are facing our military; they are very real.
This is something that has to be fixed. This bill corrects a lot of
these things. We have defense now up to $700 billion. I am going from
memory here, but I think the last request that came from President
Obama was $548 billion. This is $700 billion. We are rebuilding. We are
trying to address the threats from both Russia and China.
By the way, I want to mention that there is one other threat in that
same area where we were, in North Korea. I am sure everyone knows who
Kim Jong Un is. He is the head guy of North Korea. Something happened
on November 28. On November 28, he fired a rocket that had a range that
could reach the United States of America. It could certainly reach
where we are today. Some people say that can't be true. All they can
say is--they fall into two areas of disagreement. They say: Yes, he has
the range to reach us, but he couldn't carry a payload. We have no idea
what payload was on this rocket that he sent. Let's assume there is no
payload at all. It would be a matter of days before they make that up.
Then they said that he couldn't reenter. Reentry is always a problem
because to reenter you have to come in and have some level of accuracy.
So you can't reenter there without accuracy.
Well, what difference does it make if they have a weapon that could
take out a city the size of St. Louis? It doesn't really matter where
it lands, so that is a hollow argument. The power is right there.
I have to compliment our President. I hesitate doing it this way
because a lot of people don't understand. Remember when Kim Jong Un
made the statement in which he said: Ah-ha, on November 28 I showed
that I could reach the United States of America, and therefore I have a
button I can press, and I could take out an American city--or words to
that effect.
Instead of the policy of appeasement that we had for 8 years prior to
this President coming in, this President said: Yes, and I have a
button. It is bigger than yours. Ours works, yours doesn't, and we will
blow you off the face of this Earth. That doesn't sound diplomatic does
it? It is not. That is what is good about this President. He is not
afraid to stand up and be strong. The policy of appeasement hasn't
worked. It has never worked.
So what happened? Hours after he made that statement to Kim Jong Un,
Un called South Korea and said: You know, we have changed our mind. We
are going to send people to the Winter Olympics.
Wow, that is a major change. I can remember saying that in one of our
own committee hearings, and even our own Intelligence Committee said:
Well, he didn't really mean it. It was just a matter of days after that
when he called and said: We want to negotiate, sit down and talk to
President Trump, and we will even put things on the table, like
denuclearizing. This is going to happen.
That is another threat. What I am trying to get across is that those
threats are there. In my opinion, that is something that is actually
working.
In this bill, we have $700 billion. We have $61 billion over the
enacted levels of fiscal year 2017. We have a 2.4-percent pay raise for
our kids out there. We have $11.5 billion for missile defense.
One of the areas where I was most critical of the last budget that
was put together by President Obama was missile defense. If there is
ever any time in the history of this country where we have to have
missile defense, this is it. They are out there right now. They have
the capability; they have missiles that will reach us. We need missile
defense.
We have ground-based interceptors. I was just in Alaska the other
day. They now have 44 ground-based interceptors up there. What is
really interesting about that is we had 44, and then the last President
came in, and he knocked that down to 32, I think it was. Then, as soon
as this President came in and looked at it, he went back to 44. Now we
are looking at 20 more.
Is that going to give us the redundancy to protect my 20 kids and
grandkids from somebody coming in? Well, it is a lot better than it
was, and we are getting all kinds of new equipment in order to try to
knock down--the big mistake we made in this country was when we were
planning to put ground-based interceptors in Poland, in
[[Page S1928]]
the Czech Republic, and a radar there that would protect the eastern
half of the United States and Western Europe. That was already started
when Obama came into office. In his first year, he pulled that program
down.
One of the persons whom I have always liked over there is Vaclav
Klaus. He was the President. When I was over there, I could remember so
well saying: We have to have your cooperation, the Czech Republic, to
protect America.
He said: Are you sure? If I do this and I outrage Russia, they are
going to be angry and take every step against us they can. You will not
pull the rug out from under us?
I said: Absolutely, we are not going to pull the rug out from under
you.
That is the first thing Obama did when he got into office. That is a
problem we shouldn't have.
The threat is there. We are trying to meet the threat. This bill
meets that threat. It gets us back to the amount of money that should
have been left in missile defense. It is in there right now.
We have another $11.5 billion for missile defense, and it is a 44-
percent increase from 2017. The O&M budget right now is increased. The
total budget is going to be $238 billion. That is to offset the losses
today that the O&M budget has created.
This budget that we are going to be voting on is a big budget. Those
of us who are going to be voting for it are getting criticized. I will
say this: The liberals all like it. They like to spend money.
Conservatives don't. I don't like to do it.
That is all in this bill--57,100 troops over Obama's 2017 cut. We
were not going to have--anyway, this is why we absolutely have to do
this.
I look and I see that it would be nice if we had the comfort of
believing that America is still the strongest out there, that we have
everything we need, but we don't.
So let's look at what we are going to be doing. The Army, from a high
point of 566,000 soldiers during the surge in 2007--Obama reduced it to
just over 460,000. Thirty-three percent of the brigade combat teams
didn't work. The aviation combat teams didn't work. We are on the road
to recovery on this because we did a supplemental. We all remember
that. But it is this budget that is going to bring us back, and we will
end up having our military in the position that the American people
think it is in right now.
I was on a TV show just a few minutes ago, and they said: Well, you
know, with all this debt that is coming with this, and you are talking
about the military--isn't that a good tradeoff?
I said: You can't trade off something when you see the threat that is
out there, which is unprecedented in the history of this country, and
you have 20 kids and grandkids to protect. No, that is not a good
tradeoff.
I am hoping that those individuals who are conservatives--and I can't
imagine that anyone on the Senate Armed Services Committee who deals
with these issues on a daily basis would not want to get in there and
make America strong again. We can do it, but if you don't vote for
this, it is not going to be done. That is the great fear that I have.
I hope the conservatives out there--I know for a lot of us, ratings
always happen. You cast a vote, and they say: Ah, that is spending a
lot of money. We are going to rate against you. Again, it is a
tradeoff. It is defending America. That is the one thing we should be
doing.
I would give anything if we could just pull that element--all that we
are doing for the military--out of this budget and do it individually.
Let me stand up here and read the riot act about what is happening in
this country, the debt that is accumulating, but, unfortunately, I
don't have that option today.
We have one vote where we can do it. That is going to be the vote
that we do, hopefully, tonight. I am not sure when it is going to be. I
just ask my colleagues to understand the threat facing our country--in
my opinion, the greatest threat we have ever had.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Tribute to Gabrielle Batkin
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, we are here today to discuss what we call
an omnibus bill. I know that ``omnibus'' is another funny-sounding word
that we use sometimes here in Washington, but it simply means a bill
that covers a lot of topics.
There are provisions in the omnibus legislation that deal with
everything from homeland security to the environment to veterans and
science, just to name a few. It is particularly fitting that we are
discussing an appropriations bill that covers such a wide range of
topics, as I come to the floor to recognize the service of a member of
our staff who has worked on most of the policies covered in the omnibus
legislation--maybe all of them.
Gabrielle Batkin, seated to my left, will probably wish that I wasn't
doing this right now, but there is no doubt that she deserves to be
recognized for her more than 20 years of hard work in the U.S. Senate.
For as long as I have known her, Gabrielle has been an incredibly
gracious person--kind, easy with praise, making sure that her own staff
and the staff across the aisle were appropriately recognized for their
efforts. Now I think she deserves some recognition of her own.
To all of the young staff members who may be watching this right now
or to those who aspire to be staff members of the Senate someday, I
would present Gabrielle Batkin as a shining example of what it means to
be an exceptional staffer and a true public servant.
Every now and then we hear the term ``nameless, faceless
bureaucrat.'' This is not a nameless, faceless bureaucrat. This is a
beautiful public servant. She works tirelessly and really believes in
making government work better for the people that it serves.
Gabrielle and I first started working together back in 2014, when she
came to lead my team on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs Committee when I served as its chairman. Then, a little over a
year ago, she seamlessly transitioned to her current role as staff
director for the minority on the Environment and Public Works
Committee. This encapsulates just a fraction of her service.
For over a decade, Gabrielle served as an appropriations staff member
to former Senator Barbara Mikulski. I think she was the No. 2 person on
Barbara's appropriations team. Gabrielle started on the Appropriations
Committtee's Subcommittees on Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development and then moved on to the Commerce, Justice, and Science
Subcommittee, where she handled everything from NASA to the grasses on
the Chesapeake Bay.
Before that, she served in the office of the late Senator from New
Jersey, Frank Lautenberg. She also worked on the House side for
Congressman Frank Pallone from New Jersey and also served on the Senate
Budget Committee.
Gabrielle has worked on everything from blue crabs to the Hubble
telescope to cybersecurity and Central America. Those who know her will
confirm that few people can shift between issues or committees as
gracefully as she does, while also delivering results every step of the
way. The day-to-day functions of the Federal Government are possible
because there are people like Gabrielle Batkin who toil away behind the
scenes making sure the hard work gets done for the American people.
She has been a tenacious and effective leader on my staff, but she
also has what I like to call the ``heart of a servant.'' Even as the
boss, Gabrielle is in the trenches when things get tough or hectic
around here, and she always takes time to make sure that those who work
hard for her are doing OK. Her incredible work ethic, combined with her
humility, means that she can be briefing Members of Congress on complex
policies one minute and helping an overwhelmed junior staffer staple
packets the next. That is just who Gabrielle is.
No matter how stressful her high-pressure career in the Senate was,
Gabrielle never let it take her away from her most important job; that
is, being the mother to three young men who are up in the Galleries
tonight:
[[Page S1929]]
Henry, Will, and Charlie. She has always said to me: ``My most
important job is being a mom,'' and she is a darn good one. All of her
family are up in the Galleries--not all of them, but some of the most
important ones--her three sons and her husband Josh of 20 years and her
sister Erin, who is, I understand, not just a sister but a great
friend, a great aunt, and just a wonderful support system for Gabrielle
during the times she has needed it.
I want to thank the three boys and Josh for sharing your mom and your
wife with all of the people of our country, and I want to thank Erin
for being just a terrific sister and supporter.
A few years back, Gabrielle brought her oldest son Henry to our staff
holiday party at the Buena Vista in New Castle, DE. At the time I was
talking with Henry, I think he was 12, and I asked him to tell us one
thing his mom taught him. Henry told us that his mom tells him all the
time that as long as they try to do their best in everything he and his
brother do, that is always good enough for her. Think about that. As
long as he and his brother do their best, that is always good enough
for their mom. She just wants to make sure they do their best.
She has always given us her best for all these years--20 years and
counting. I am immensely grateful to Gabrielle for her service to this
institution, for her service to the American people, and for her
indispensable counsel to me over the past 4 years that I have been
fortunate enough to work with her--I like to say ``to work for her.''
She is a great boss and a wonderful friend. I have learned a lot from
her and treasure her and her friendship.
While we are sad to see her go, I am excited for her new adventures
to come, and I wish her and her family--her husband Josh, and her boys,
Henry, Will, and Charlie--all the best in this next chapter of their
lives. I know her boys are her biggest fans and are so proud of the
work she has done here in the Senate. I promise you, she is going to
keep making you guys proud.
I will close with this. Every now and then throughout our lives, we
meet people and sometimes are even fortunate enough to work with them--
people who are just a joy to be with, people who make our days brighter
and our workload lighter. I know I speak for so many people when I say
that Gabrielle is just that kind of person.
We had breakfast today in the Senate Dining Room. When we walked out,
going through the Capitol Building back to our offices in the Hart
Building and the Dirksen Building, we passed so many people she knew,
people who knew her by name. I am the only person who calls her
Gabrielle, which is her real name. Everybody else calls her Gabby. The
janitors, custodians, people running the elevators, the pages--she is
Gabby to them.
Sometimes people rise to senior and leadership positions, whether
they happen to be elected or members of our staff, and maybe forget
where they came from, or maybe they are not the same person they were
when they started. She is probably smarter. She started out really
smart, but she has gotten even better informed and just a more
knowledgeable member of our team as time has gone by.
I will go back to when I interviewed her for the position of staff
director on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee
when I was chairman. We talked about growing up, going to college, and
her influences as a young woman. As it turned out, she went to school
in the Midwest, Bradley in Peoria.
I said: Did you ever work while you were going to school?
I worked a couple jobs while I was going to Ohio State. ROTC.
Midshipman. I had some help from the Navy. As it turned out, she worked
full time while she was going to school at Bradley--not that she
volunteered this, but I found out later on that she worked full-time
for several of those years that she was an undergraduate--I think at
the Social Security Administration--and carried a full load and a
straight 4.0 average. I think that is amazing. As soon as she said
that, I thought, I should be working for you, sister. But she has let
me work with her, and we have had a great time and a great run.
I know I speak for the other members of the Environment and Public
Works Committee who have an opportunity to see staff--Democrats and
Republicans--and a chance to see her handiwork and the magic she
brought to the committee. She had a good 1-plus years as a staff
director when I was privileged to chair Homeland Security, and
everybody--Tom Coburn, my colleague from Oklahoma, and a whole bunch of
other people--certainly know her work and salute her.
In the Navy, when people do an especially great job, we have two
words that we say: Bravo Zulu. I certainly say those words this evening
to Gabrielle. We also have a saying when people are ready to weigh
anchor and sail off into the sunrise and go on to their next challenge
or next assignment. We always like to say: Fair winds and following
seas. I say those words this evening somewhat reluctantly but with a
great deal of affection and respect.
Gabrielle, we love you, we will miss you, and we will leave the light
on.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are at an interesting time. We have had
months of intense negotiations, sometimes lasting all night and
throughout weekends. We have had very tough choices. We have had some
very good-faith compromises. In other words, we have actually handled
legislation the way we should.
We have reached a bipartisan agreement to fund the government for
this fiscal year and to make renewed investments in the American people
and to protect our national security.
The fiscal year 2018 Omnibus appropriations bill has $1.3 trillion in
discretionary spending. That includes $700 billion for defense programs
to support our men and women in uniform and $600 billion in nondefense
programs that will help us invest in America and support our working
families.
The bill has critical resources dedicated to combating the opioid
epidemic, to rebuilding America's infrastructure, to improving
healthcare facilities for our veterans, to improving access to
affordable healthcare for all Americans, to ensuring the security of
our elections, to supporting advances in scientific research, and to
investing in rural communities across the country.
The Presiding Officer and every Senator have rural parts of their
States, and the investments to be made in those rural communities
should be good news for every Senator.
These investments would not have been possible without the 2018
bipartisan budget agreement that lifted the budget caps on
discretionary spending--lifted the caps for defense by $80 billion and
for nondefense by $63 billion--providing relief from the severe cuts in
both defense and nondefense known as sequestration.
The consequences of the 2011 Budget Control Act, which mandated
sequestration, have been devastating to our military and domestic
priorities. This bill is a long-awaited step toward reversing those
cuts and allowing us to reinvest in the American people.
I wish the President would actually read what is in the bill. He is
calling these investments in our country's priorities a waste. Can you
imagine--investing in the priorities of the United States of America a
waste?
This morning, he tweeted that they were ``Dem''--I suppose he means
Democrats--``giveaways.'' I would ask, Mr. President, is it a giveaway
to provide medical care for the 7 million veterans who rely on the VA?
I would ask, is it a giveaway to help the family in Rutland, VT, heat
their home during a dangerously cold winter so they can afford their
groceries? I would ask, is it a giveaway to finally take the opioid
crisis seriously by making investments in research, treatment, and
prevention?
The President slammed our efforts for budget parity, but he has since
shamelessly held press conferences to tout initiatives only made
possible by this agreement, including the sizeable new investments to
counter the opioid epidemic. Even though it was critical
[[Page S1930]]
that we put money in for that, he is now saying, of course, it was his
idea.
A budget is where you set your priorities. The President made clear
in his budget that his priorities do not rest with the needs of hard-
working, middle-class Americans. The bill rejects many of those areas
where the President wanted cuts in the needs of hard-working, middle-
class Americans. Instead, the bill sets a vision for the future of our
country. We invest not only in the wealthiest among us but in middle-
class families and those who are struggling to make their way and make
their community better.
We dedicate $18.25 billion to begin rebuilding our infrastructure.
The American Society of Civil Engineers gives our country's
infrastructure a D-plus. A lot of countries have much higher. This was
the collective grade for the roads, bridges, dams, drinking water,
wastewater, public parks, and schools on which we all depend. That is
not acceptable, not in this country, and this bill is an important,
long-overdue step toward bringing our infrastructure into the 21st
century.
The bill takes the opioid crisis seriously by investing $3.3 billion
into law enforcement, healthcare, and community efforts that we know
help to rid our country of this scourge. The time for sloganeering and
sound bites is over. I have always preferred substance over slogans,
and the time for real, effective, and meaningful investment in ending
this epidemic has arrived. Marcelle and I have met with too many
Vermonters as we go around our State who are impacted by opioid abuse,
too many neighbors and friends who are struggling to get the help they
need or to help those in need. I am glad that when I return to Vermont,
I can say that we heard them, and we delivered.
This bill strongly rejects the partisan package passed by House
Republicans in September, which would have recklessly slashed funding
for domestic priorities by $68 billion below the bipartisan agreement
introduced Wednesday. Most importantly, this bill rejects devastating
cuts proposed by the Trump administration. These included the
President's proposed cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency, which
helps ensure we have clean air and drinking water. The bill rejects his
cuts to job training, education, and childcare programs that so many of
our Nation's working families rely on. It rejects the President's
misguided proposal to slash the budget for the Department of State.
This bill also rejects the President's misguided immigration priorities
by refusing his request to hire an additional 850 ICE agents and
increase the number of ICE detention beds. It also rejects his request
to build a ``big, beautiful wall'' on the southern border--something
that reflects last century's technology. Instead of his original $1.6
billion request for 74 miles of wall, which was later increased to a
request for $18 billion to build a wall on the entire southern border,
the bill funds only a fraction of that, and it includes important
restrictions on how the funds can be used.
The bill provides $641 million for 33 miles of fencing in the Rio
Grande Valley, $251 million to replace secondary fencing, which is
already in San Diego, and $445 million for replacement of existing
pedestrian fencing. It speaks to real need, not to funding a campaign
slogan.
Incidentally, in the request, somehow the campaign promise that this
would be paid for by Mexico, and not by American taxpayers, seems to
have been forgotten.
Importantly, the bill includes language requiring the Department of
Homeland Security to use proven fence designs that currently exist on
the border instead of allowing the President to build a 30-foot
concrete wall, which would endanger our men and women who patrol the
border.
I would still like the President to tell us when and how he wants
Mexico to cover these costs because, time and again, he promised the
American people Mexico would a pay for it. Time and again, he gave us
his word. We now know that was never a promise he could keep.
One critical thing missing from this bill, though, is a remedy for
the crisis the President has created, and that crisis relates to DACA
recipients. I have watched with fury as the President has, day after
day, tweeted the Democrats are responsible for not addressing DACA.
Late last night, he tweeted:
Democrats refused to take care of DACA. Would have been so
easy, but they just didn't care.
Balderdash. For nearly two decades, I have been a proud supporter of
the DREAM Act. I included it in the 2013 comprehensive immigration
bill. I care. Democrats care. We voted for that bill on the floor of
the Senate. Republican leadership in the House refused to take it up.
Yet, after promising before Members of Congress in both parties and the
American people, making a big splash on TV, the President said he would
sign an agreement to address DACA, but then he walked away from a
bipartisan DACA and border security compromise in February.
There is no fix for DACA because the President and the Republican
leadership are not serious about getting one. I wish they would. This
Senator is willing to sit down with any Senator--Republican or
Democratic--if we can get such an agreement.
This bill does strike more than 130 poison pill riders. These riders
would have restricted women's access to healthcare. They would have
rolled back environmental protections. They would have put significant
restrictions on consumer financial protections. Had these riders stayed
in, we would not have reached a successful conclusion to this
negotiation, notwithstanding the all-night sessions of negotiating,
notwithstanding the weekends.
I do not agree with everything in this bill. When you have a package
of this magnitude, there is always going to be matters included that we
like and things on which we disagree. That is the nature of compromise,
but the Senate was designed by the Founders of this country to require
compromise. This bill represents tangible progress that is going to
benefit all Americans, and I am proud of the compromise Republicans and
Democrats reached together.
I thank my own staff. They have worked days and nights and weekends.
I am able to leave at night. They are still working well past midnight.
I was able to go to Vermont last weekend. I worked with them by phone,
but they stayed here working throughout the weekend--all hours, for
several weeks, and nonstop in the homestretch of finishing this
comprehensive bill:
My staff director, Chuck Kieffer, whose experience and depth of
knowledge has become essential to me in my role as vice chairman of the
Appropriations Committee. It was especially helpful, too, that Mr.
Kieffer's expertise was available to any Senator who asked--Republican
or Democratic;
Chanda Betourney, a native Vermonter, deputy staff director and
general counsel, who has taken with her to these negotiations her
Vermont values and her long Senate experience;
Jessica Berry, another native Vermonter, who has fought for many of
my priorities, and those of other Members in this body, in this
spending bill;
Jay Tilton, my committee press secretary, who has gotten the word out
far and wide about the importance of this bill so everybody, even
though we work all night long many times--people would know exactly
what we have been doing;
Jean Kwon, who has provided hours of support to the entire
Appropriations Committee staff.
I also thank the Democratic subcommittee clerks for their support and
their tireless efforts in crafting this bill:
Tim Rieser, Jessica Schulken, Jean Toal Eisen, Erik Raven, Doug
Clapp, Ellen Murray, Scott Nance, Rachel Taylor, Alex Keenan, Melissa
Zimmerman, Chad Schulken, and Dabney Hegg.
I also thank my dear friend, one of the most senior Republicans in
this body, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Thad Cochran.
It has been an honor and pleasure to serve with him. Senator Cochran
and I have served together since 1978. We have worked together on
appropriations matters, agriculture matters, every matter before this
body. We have traveled the world together to help carry out America's
interests. It has been a particular honor to work with him on this
appropriations bill. It is his last in the U.S. Senate. As vice
chairman, I salute the chairman. He is going to be sorely missed. I
spoke about him earlier today.
[[Page S1931]]
I thank Chairman Cochran's staff for all their hard work on this
bill. Particularly, I want to thank Bruce Evans and Fitzhugh Elder.
They both have had long careers in the U.S. Senate. They share Chairman
Cochran's dedication to this institution and his dedication to his own
State of Mississippi, and they have been a pleasure for me and my staff
to work with.
I say this to the Appropriations Committee staff--both the Democrats
and the Republicans, some who are in the Chamber today--I thank you for
the long nights and weekends you worked to get this bill across the
finish line. We could not have done it without your hard work. I hope
you will soon be able to spend time with your families and friends. I
am sure they remember what you looked like since you left to continue
this work. Certainly, we Senators know what you look like because we
have seen you practically around the clock. The work has been worth it.
Because of the tremendous work the staff on both sides of the aisle and
the leadership staff have done, I urge an ``aye'' vote on this bill.
When we can, I hope this body will give a resounding aye and send the
bill to the President.
I don't see any Senator seeking recognition, so I suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Capito). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Measure Read the First Time--S. 2629
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I understand there is a bill at the
desk, and I ask for its first reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the bill by title for the
first time.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2629) to improve postal operations, service, and
transparency.
Mr. McCONNELL. I now ask for a second reading and, in order to place
the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to
my own request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The bill will receive its second reading on the next legislative day.
____________________