[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 16, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S247-S265]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NO TAXPAYER FUNDING FOR ABORTION AND ABORTION INSURANCE FULL DISCLOSURE
ACT OF 2019--Motion to Proceed
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 11,
S. 109.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to the consideration of S. 109, a bill to
prohibit taxpayer funded abortions.
Cloture Motion
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk on
the motion to proceed.
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
[[Page S248]]
Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a
close debate on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 11, S.
109, a bill to prohibit taxpayer funded abortions.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S248, January 16, 2019, first column, the following
appears: Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to
a close debate on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 11, S.
109, a bill to prohibit taxpayer funded abortion.
The online Record has been corrected to read: Standing Rules of
the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the
motion to proceed to Calendar No. 11, S. 109, a bill to prohibit
taxpayer funded abortions.
========================= END NOTE =========================
Mitch McConnell, Mike Crapo, Mike Rounds, James M.
Inhofe, John Barrasso, David Perdue, John Kennedy, John
Thune, Thom Tillis, James E. Risch, Cindy Hyde-Smith,
Pat Roberts, John Boozman, James Lankford, Michael B.
Enzi, Roger F. Wicker, John Cornyn.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call
be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Wyoming.
Border Security
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, following the September 11, 2001,
attacks on the United States, the National Institutes of Health, which
is the Nation's medical research Agency in Bethesda, MD, needed to
secure its campus. The NIH's grounds were always open to the public
before that. Anybody could walk or drive through the 300-acre campus
and could do it freely, but in its facing heightened threats, officials
planned to restrict public access and to build a wall. It was completed
in 2005. The wall, with the black metal perimeter fence with guarded
checkpoints, became the centerpiece of NIH's new perimeter security
system. Signs were posted that said ``No Trespassing.''
On its website, NIH states that the purpose of this border barrier is
``to ensure the safety of our patients, employees, guests and
facilities.''
NIH wasn't alone in building a barrier after the attacks in 2001.
Across the street, the National Naval Medical Center, now known as
Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, also walled off its 243-
acre campus. These walls have worked. Both NIH and Walter Reed remain
safe and secure.
Now we need to deal with a security crisis at our southern border.
President Trump has requested $5.7 billion--it is about one one-
thousandth of the Federal spending. The President wants to build more
physical barriers--a proven border security solution. Thirty percent of
the border already has a secure barrier.
Congressional leaders from both parties have supported a border wall
in the past. In 2006, Senate Democrats, including then-Senator Barack
Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Joe Biden, and Senator Chuck
Schumer voted to construct a physical barrier on our southern border.
But Democrat leaders now refuse to back the President's border security
effort, prolonging the partial government shutdown that is going on
today.
Meanwhile, the Democrats and media fact-checkers are out in force to
attack President Trump. They insist there is no border crisis. The
facts are that this January 10 Investor's Business Daily editorial
says: ``Yes, There Is A Crisis At The Border--The Numbers Show It.''
First, in terms of how the numbers show it is that illegal crossings
are climbing, last year, Border Patrol stopped more than one-half
million people trying to enter the country illegally--more than 100,000
in October and November alone this past year. That is a huge increase
from the same 2 months in 2017.
Second, apprehensions don't account for all illegal crossers. The
Homeland Security Department estimates that about 20 percent of our
crossers enter, which means about 104,000 illegal immigrants entered in
2018 alone.
Third, the U.S. illegal immigrant population right now is massive.
Currently, over 12 million illegal immigrants reside here, comparable
to the entire population of countries like Chile, the Netherlands, and
Syria.
Fourth, illegal crime levels are higher than expected. The Center for
Immigration Studies has found that noncitizens accounted for more than
20 percent of Federal convictions, although they represent only 8.4
percent of the population.
Fifth, Presidents Reagan through Obama have acknowledged the crisis.
In 2005, then-Senator Barack Obama said: ``We simply cannot allow
people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented,
unchecked.'' In 2014, President Obama described the border situation as
a crisis, but he failed to fix it.
Even President Obama's last Border Patrol Chief, Mark Morgan,
supports President Trump. He was actually on television just today.
Trump didn't keep him in the job, but Morgan says that building the
wall is key to solving the security crisis, and the President should,
as he says, ``stay the course.''
Still, Democrats refuse to negotiate with this President, so we can't
reopen those Federal Agencies that have been closed for more than 3
weeks.
Here is the Homeland Security Department's latest assessment of the
southern border situation. They say that each month, 60,000 illegal
immigrants reach the border. Drug smuggling spiked in 2018, with a 38-
percent increase in methamphetamine, a 22-percent increase in heroin,
and a 73-percent increase in fentanyl. We also saw a huge surge in
arrests of dangerous criminals, including 17,000 adults with criminal
records and 6,000 MS-13 and other gang members.
In 2018, 60,000 unaccompanied children and 161,000 families reached
the border--a dramatic increase from 2017. Many were victimized on
their journey.
Border Patrol areas that have enhanced or expanded physical barriers
have actually seen a dramatic decrease in illegal traffic. That is why
the President has requested additional funds to construct more
barriers.
The facts are the facts. We have a national security and humanitarian
crisis at the southern border. The problem is the rise in illegal
entries. We need to solve it. Walls work.
The question is this: Do U.S. citizens living in at-risk border
communities deserve the same protection as NIH patients and the staff
in Bethesda, MD?
All Americans want a healthy immigration system that enforces the law
and keeps families together. Democrats shouldn't be playing politics
with border security. It is time to work together to secure the border,
reopen the government, and protect the American people.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Government Funding
Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, today is the 26th day of the longest
government shutdown in American history.
Weeks ago, the Senate voted unanimously to keep the government open.
The House has now passed multiple bipartisan bills to end the shutdown,
but President Trump refuses to come to the negotiating table, and
Leader McConnell refuses to let the Senate vote on these bipartisan
bills. As a result, over 800,000 people across this country have been
sent home or are working without pay.
Senate Democrats are here to share the stories of people whose lives
are being upended. I want to thank Senator Murray for organizing these
speeches and Leader Schumer for leading our efforts to reopen the
government.
I am speaking today on behalf of 8,200 Federal workers in
Massachusetts who have been affected, including TSA workers at Logan
airport, servicemembers, air traffic controllers, healthcare providers,
and staff at our national parks.
Janelle, one of my constituents, works at Native American Lifelines
of Boston, an urban Indian health program. This program does crucial
work helping to meet the health, dental, and behavioral health needs
for Native people in the Boston metropolitan area. It is a contract
site with the Indian Health Service, an Agency whose funding has been
cut off by the shutdown.
Janelle loves her job, and she cares deeply about the people she
serves. She doesn't want them to go hungry. She doesn't want them to
miss their appointments. She doesn't want them to be unable to fill
their prescriptions, but she worries about what will happen if the
government doesn't open up soon. A prolonged shutdown would be a major
hardship for Janelle, but it could mean a health emergency, even life
or death, for her clients.
Don, another constituent, is helping Coast Guard families in
Massachusetts make ends meet. His organization, the Massachusetts
Military Support Foundation, has distributed over 5,200 pounds of food
since the start of the shutdown. He knows that if the shutdown
continues, he will have to start draining his organization's budget,
and that could mean he will not be able to help military families
afford food supplies come September.
Janelle's and Don's stories are just two examples of how President
Trump
[[Page S249]]
is holding Massachusetts families hostage while he demands a border
wall.
Let's be perfectly clear about what the President is doing. The
shutdown is not about border security. It is not about protecting
anyone. It doesn't make us any safer that President Trump has padlocked
the doors at the Department of Homeland Security or that he is asking
our Coast Guard, our FBI agents, our airport security, and even our
Border Patrol agents to work without pay.
No, this shutdown is a manufactured crisis that the President is
using to fan the flames of racism and bigotry--all so he can distract
the American people from demanding a government that works for them.
This isn't a new playbook. It is one the Republicans and the
President have been using for years. Over and over again, they try to
pit White working people against Black and Brown people, gay people
against straight people, young people against older people, people born
in the United States against people who came here in search of a better
life--pit them all against each other so they don't band together, so
they don't demand real change.
Here is the deal: The American people are onto this twisted strategy.
They know that this government works just great for the rich and the
powerful but not for everyone else.
Across this country, people are insisting on a government that is not
just open for business but a government that actually works for them--a
government that expands healthcare coverage instead of ripping it away
from grandparents and newborns, a government that tackles the
skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs instead of selling out to giant
drug companies that put profits ahead of patients, a government that
ends the stranglehold that money has on Washington instead of stacking
the government with public officials who are more interested in lining
their own pockets than serving the public. I could go on and on with
this list.
I came to the U.S. Senate 6 years ago to fight for working families
and to tackle these problems head-on, to end a rigged system that
created two sets of rules--one that applies to the rich and the
powerful and one for everybody else.
Republicans are trying to divide Americans in order to stop us from
getting to work ending this rigged system, but we are onto their game.
The President and Republicans must end this shutdown now so that
hundreds of thousands of Federal workers can get their paychecks and
get back to work. If they don't, hard-working people like Janelle, Don,
and thousands more across Massachusetts will continue paying the price.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Taxes
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, tax filing season is just around the
corner. This has never been anyone's favorite time of the year, paying
taxes, but the uncertainty created by the current partial government
shutdown has understandably created a bit more angst than in a usual
tax filing season.
The Treasury Department and IRS have been proactive in taking steps
to minimize the burden of the shutdown on taxpayers. They recently
announced that tax season will start as planned, on January 28. The IRS
has confirmed that taxpayers can expect refunds to be sent out as usual
should this shutdown drag on. Of course, this is the right conclusion,
legally, and the right call for the taxpayers, as I had an opportunity
to tell IRS Commissioner Rettig when we spoke recently.
Congress has explicitly provided for a permanent appropriation for
the IRS to pay tax refunds. This makes common sense. A tax refund
represents the taxpayer's money--not Congress's, not the government's
but the taxpayers'--despite what some people in Congress seem to think;
that this money belongs to the government. It should be returned then
in a timely fashion and, thank God for their decision, that is going to
be the case.
With around 75 percent of individuals receiving a tax refund on an
annual basis, many have come to look to their refund to make important
purchases, whether that is to replace an old water heater, make a
downpayment on a reliable vehicle to get them to work, or just to make
ends meet generally. It would be wrong for the government to impose
undue financial strains on families across the country because Congress
and the President can't get their act together.
As we continue to work through our differences, the least we can do
is return to taxpayers their own money.
This tax season, of course, is a little different, not only because
of the shutdown but also because it is the first tax filing season
under the tax reforms and tax cuts enacted in the Tax Cuts and Jobs
Act. A lot of work has gone on to get us here. Treasury and the IRS
have been working diligently and swiftly to ensure taxpayers have the
information they need. In a little over a year, they have put out 16
proposed regulations, 2 final regulations, 45 notices, 21 revenue
procedures, and updated countless forms, publications, and other
guidance--all of this geared toward implementing the law and addressing
taxpayer questions.
Right out of the gate, Treasury and IRS went to work updating the
annual withholding tables so taxpayers could immediately begin seeing
the benefits of lower taxes in their paychecks. Of course, whether a
taxpayer had less or more withheld from their paycheck is not the final
word on whether one received a tax cut.
Also, due to changes in withholding, a smaller or larger refund than
usual may not tell the whole story. I encourage taxpayers to compare
their 2019 tax return with that of the previous year to see the
difference. At the end of the day, the vast majority of taxpayers will
see that less of their hard-earned money is going to the government.
A chief priority for the new withholding tables was, of course,
accuracy. Extensive analysis was done to help taxpayers get the right
amount withheld from their paycheck--not too much, not too little.
However, as we all know, no withholding table will ever be perfect.
Every taxpayer may be affected a little differently under the new law
based on their personal circumstances. The IRS continues to consider
whether future improvements to the withholding structure may be
necessary, which I support and will be monitoring as chairman of the
Finance Committee.
The IRS has also embarked on an extensive campaign to alert taxpayers
to check and update their withholding. This included establishing an
online withholding calculator to help taxpayers determine what, if any,
adjustments to their withholding may be necessary.
That said, there are still going to be some taxpayers who may
discover that they were underwithheld due to changes in the law and owe
taxes at the end of the year. A subset of these taxpayers could be
subject to a penalty for underpayment.
The ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Wyden, raised
this concern in a letter to Commissioner Rettig on January 3,
requesting that penalty relief be granted. I generally agree with the
ranking member and have encouraged the IRS to be lenient on penalties,
especially with this first time through a filing season under the new
tax law. If a taxpayer has underwithheld as a result of the changes in
the law, and not through the fault of their own, the IRS should
consider what actions the Agency can take to provide penalty relief,
but the issue of underwithholding due to the passage of tax reform
should not be exaggerated. Yes, as the ranking member claims in his
letter to the Commissioner, it is estimated that as many as 30 million
taxpayers may have had taxes underwithheld from their paychecks, but
what hasn't been said is that 30 million is actually only about a 3-
percentage point increase from how many taxpayers would be
underwithheld under the old law.
Moreover, just because a taxpayer was underwithheld during the year
does not automatically mean they will be subject to a penalty tax. Safe
harbors have long been in place to protect taxpayers whose withholding
is slightly off from being penalized.
[[Page S250]]
It is quite possible that some issues will arise this filing season
that we did not anticipate and will need to be fixed as we go forward.
We already identified a number of those issues, which I am hoping my
Democratic colleagues will allow us to fix to further help as many more
constituents as possible.
That doesn't detract from the fact that we have delivered real tax
relief to middle-income families, small business owners, and the family
farmer, nor does it undermine the fact that we modernized our outdated
international tax system and improved America's business
competitiveness in the global economy. Of course, that is going to
benefit the American worker.
These efforts have contributed to a strong and growing economy. The
unemployment rate is at a half century low. Wages are rising at the
fastest rate in nearly a decade. Workers, employers, and small business
owners are all more optimistic than ever.
Unfortunately, I hear increasing calls from the new House majority
pledging to erase the progress made with the tax cuts and reforms that
we enacted 13 months ago. At least one new Democratic Member has
suggested bringing back top tax rates as high as 70 percent to pay for
a wish list of far-left, Big Government programs. Such a confiscatory
tax rate targeted at a relatively small number of wealthy taxpayers
would barely make a dent in the cost of programs they wish to
implement.
Policymakers across the globe abandoned such punitive tax rates over
the past several decades for their negative effect on economic growth,
investment, and incentives to work. While tax rates at 70 percent or
higher may have been fairly common in the 1960s, today, not a single
OECD country boasts such high rates. How soon people forget about the
prolonged economic stagnation and high unemployment of the 1970s when
we last had tax rates as high as 70 percent.
I am going to detract here to show a chart. How soon we forget that
just raising tax rates doesn't automatically bring in more money. For
the benefit of my colleagues and for the benefit of the public watching
on C-SPAN, I should have had this blown up. I doubt it is going to do
much good for me to just hold up a small sheet of paper.
This goes back to the year 1955, ending in 2017. The blue line shows
the marginal tax rates over a period of about 60 years. You can see
high tax rates in the 1960s, going down, up, generally down, generally
down, staying pretty low in recent years. You can see that the red line
is the amount of money that comes in from taxes, whether you have high
tax rates or low tax rates, which kind of tells me that the taxpayers
are a lot smarter than the Congress of the United States because when
you talk about high marginal tax rates, they want you to believe more
money is going to come in. They are probably going to take the position
that if you lower tax rates, less money is going to come in. But you
see, in the 1950s top rate was 90 percent. Can you imagine Americans
being dumb enough to work hard to only keep 10 percent of their income?
No. What you do is you change people's behavior. They decide, I am
going to work only so much. Why should I work harder and give more
money to the Federal Government? You see, higher tax rates don't do
what a lot of people want you to believe they are going to do.
I would like to give a little history on this, because you kind of
think that if we have lower marginal tax rates, and Republicans are the
ones who want lower tax rates, that you would give Republicans a lot of
credit for reducing these marginal tax rates. I can remember the work
of Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey--probably at least a moderate
Democrat. He was probably as responsible as anybody in the 1980s for
reducing these marginal tax rates, because Republicans didn't have guts
enough to do it, and we might not be where we are right now. So it is
not just Republican thinking that got these marginal tax rates down. It
is not just Republican thinking that has kept this red line where it
has been for 60 years, at approximately 16 to 20 percent of gross
national product--the amount of the economy that is coming into the
Federal Government.
I hope the talk of such confiscatory taxation truly is a talk of a
few rogue Members and not representative of things to come. I wish to
think there will be opportunities for us to work together in a
bipartisan way.
I am firmly in the camp that the tax reform and tax cuts enacted by
the last Congress represent important revisions to our tax laws, but I
also understand that no major piece of legislation is entirely perfect.
To the extent there is legitimate interest in improving tax laws, as
chairman of the Finance Committee, I am going to be all ears.
When it comes to making modifications to tax reform, our first order
of business should be focused on examining how the law affects
individuals, families, and the businesses in our States that provide
the jobs and benefits they rely on. When necessary, we should work
together to take action and ensure that the law is fulfilling its
potential. A key part of this discussion should be enacting technical
corrections to the tax law--revisions to ensure that the bill does what
Members thought it did when they voted on it. Some of these are related
to just poor drafting, honest mistakes that were made.
I also hope that there will be plenty of opportunity to work on a
bipartisan basis on tax issues involving everything from education, to
renewable and alternative energy, to consumer-directed healthcare
options.
However, I fear opportunities to work together could be put at risk
should my colleagues become fixated on tearing apart tax reform, hiking
taxes, and, of course, going after the President's tax returns.
I want to put my Democratic colleagues on notice that I have no
intention of undoing structural changes implemented as part of the tax
reform. This would include the lower tax rates and family benefits,
such as the increased child tax credit and standard deductions.
I am also not interested in eliminating the cap on the deductibility
of State and local taxes, backtracking on our move toward a more
territorial tax system, or raising tax rates on passthrough business
owners and farmers or corporations, all of which provide critical jobs
and contribute to economic growth across the Nation.
For the first time in probably about 30 years, our businesses are
competitive with the rest of the world. When we have a 35-percent tax
rate--as we did for decades--on corporations, and the world average is
about 23 percent, how can we expect American corporations to compete?
We are now at 21 percent. It wasn't long after we went to 21 that we
read about China maybe feeling they were uncompetitive and were going
to have to lower their tax rates. Other countries are thinking about
doing it as well. Just like with the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s, the
United States is plowing ahead, setting a standard for the rest of the
world.
Lower tax rates, with businesses and individuals making decisions on
where they earn their money, how much they are going to spend, and how
much they are going to save, is a heck of a lot better than 535 Members
of Congress making that decision. When we make decisions about stuff
like this, they are political decisions. When most of the individual
taxpayers and the corporations of America make decisions, it is
strictly economic and does much more economic good.
Another one that I don't want to mess with is efforts to weaponize
the authority of tax-writing committees to access tax returns for
political purposes. Such an action would be unprecedented.
I am optimistic that we can continue to make progress helping
Americans improve their lives by keeping more of their hard-earned
wages, taking the chance of starting a new business or continuing to
expand an existing one--in short, building an opportunity economy. I
invite my colleagues to join me.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Government Funding
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor to join my
colleagues who were speaking earlier today about the many U.S. citizens
who are Federal employees who are impacted by the shutdown. Coast Guard
PO2 Amy-Erin Hamilton, stationed in Seattle, WA, is one of those
individuals. She is the mother of three children: Sienna, age 10;
Tucker, age 9; and Annabella, age 5. Amy-Erin is married to Dan
Hamilton, who is also an Active-Duty member.
[[Page S251]]
Amy-Erin is a shining example of the service and leadership we see in
our Coast Guard today. In December, she was given a meritorious
advancement, which is rare and an incredible honor. Despite this,
though, she is working without pay and has had to seek outside income
to support that family I just mentioned.
This is the 26th day of a Federal Government shutdown. Yesterday,
55,000 Coast Guard personnel did not receive their midmonth paychecks.
The Coast Guard Commandant issued a letter to the workforce explaining
what was happening, explaining that this is the first time that a
branch of our military has not been paid during a government shutdown.
There are 41,000 Active-Duty members, 6,200 Reservist members, 8,500
civilians, and 50,500 Coast Guard retirees. That is the U.S. Coast
Guard family. Thirty-one percent of the Coast Guard families do not
have enough emergency savings to make it through the shutdown. A junior
enlisted Coast Guard member with less than 2 years of service makes
only $23,200 a year in base pay. That is below the poverty level. Coast
Guard members are currently being deployed overseas--they could be in a
combat zone--and these members are not receiving pay.
I hope our colleagues will take into consideration this issue with
our Coast Guard families. They are working hard to provide great care
for us throughout our country and overseas. When I think about the fact
that a Coast Guard member could be deployed overseas in an area that
has seen combat, an unstable region of the world, and that they are not
even receiving the childcare subsidy and support to make sure their
families are taken care of while they are gone taking care of us, that
is just wrong.
So I come here to join my colleagues who were here earlier today on
the floor giving examples of Americans throughout the United States who
are working hard for us. It is time we work to get them their paycheck
and continue to support them so they can support us.
I know my colleague from Connecticut is here and would like to speak
as well, and I thank him for allowing me to fit in this time to talk on
behalf of the Coast Guard families.
I hope the Commandant's letter can now be seen as an example of why
we need to act. We need to act to give these Coast Guard families their
pay and to make sure we are addressing the shutdown and reopening
government.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to follow the Senator,
our neighbor from across the country. We share a common interest and
commitment to one of the great military services in this country, the
U.S. Coast Guard.
Connecticut is proud to be the home of the Coast Guard Academy and
numerous Active-Duty-serving Coast Guard men and women. Not only are we
proud of them, but we are deeply mindful of the debt we owe them. It is
a debt that is immeasurable in dollars and cents. It is a debt we owe
them for the safety and security they provide this country and the
blood they have shed in defense of the country.
Failing to pay them is a moral failure, and that is why I am proud to
be joining the Senator from Washington as well as Senator Thune in a
measure to provide payment for the Coast Guard, and I hope we will meet
this obligation as soon as possible.
We also have an obligation to other Federal workers because they are
suffering and sacrificing during this shutdown, now 26 days long.
One of them, among the workers I met just last Monday, is Adrian
Pellot. He served in the Air Force. He has worked as a behavior
detection officer for more than a decade. He is also one of the TSA
workers at Bradley not receiving pay.
He said to me:
We have no income right now. We are bleeding money. Just
day-to-day things. Food. I still have to pay the bills. The
electric company, the cell phone company--they don't care.
They are brutal. To feel like we are poker chips or leverage
is very, very infuriating. We are people--we have lives--not
just a number to throw around. I want the government to
reopen.
Nothing I say here expresses more eloquently and powerfully the
obligation we are failing to meet.
I will be proposing legislation to provide workers like Adrian
unemployment benefit compensation. States like Connecticut now must
seek approval from the Department of Labor of the United States to
provide unemployment compensation for workers who are on the job but
unpaid.
The workers who are furloughed and unpaid can receive that
compensation. The folks showing up to work, keeping us safe in the
skies, assuring that our security is met at the TSA lines, are unpaid,
and they are uncompensated out of the State workers' compensation
system, and they should be.
That is why I will propose legislation for fundamental fairness and
necessary benefits for workers like Adrian and his partner, Sarah
Small, who has been a TSA officer for over 11 years. She currently
works part time at Bradley as a TSA officer, and she is in nursing
school.
She said to me: ``It's more nerve-racking because of the fact that if
this shutdown lasts any longer, one of us is going to have to find
something.''
They are just two examples of thousands across the country. My
colleagues, every one of you has an Adrian Pellot or a Sarah Small or a
Coast Guard service man and woman or someone like them who are working
without unemployment compensation, having to pay bills, mortgages, put
food on the table. They are unable to do it because the government is
shut down.
Let us reopen the government. Let us meet our obligation. Let us do
our job, and the man down the street on Pennsylvania Avenue in the
White House ought to be doing his job too.
In the meantime, let's help them meet their bills and save them from
debts much as we do servicemembers with their relief fund; another
legislative measure I will be advocating and advancing. We owe it to
them. We owe it to the country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
March for Life
Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined on the floor by
Senator Blunt, Senator Wicker, and Senator Fischer to speak about the
importance of protecting and celebrating life.
This Friday, Americans from every State in our Nation, from our tiny
rural towns to our bustling urban cities, will gather in our Nation's
Capital to participate in the 46th annual March for Life.
Each year, I am amazed and inspired by the immeasurable strength,
compassion, and support demonstrated by the pro-life community, as
hundreds of thousands of its members come to Washington, DC, and
tirelessly work to protect the most vulnerable in our society--the
unborn.
As members of the Senate Values Action Team, throughout the year, we
are blessed with the opportunity to work with and hear from so many who
are committed to protecting human life at all stages.
I thank my colleagues for sharing this message of life today, and at
this time I would like to yield to the Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Ernst for yielding
and for her leadership in these issues.
All of us here today are here at a time when thousands of people from
around the country, including hundreds from Missouri, will be here to
participate in the annual March for Life. They see it, as we do, that
an unborn child is not a potential person, but it is a person with
potential, a whole living, distinct human being.
Polling reflects that the American people understand that in a
significant way. It is not a celebration but a powerful reminder that
we value life as people come here this time of year. More Americans are
coming all the time to support life. We just had a meeting with someone
who was going through the recent Knights of Columbus and Marist poll.
Three in four Americans say abortion should be limited to, at most, the
first 3 months of pregnancy. These numbers continue to move in the
direction of understanding that life begins at conception, and more and
more people believe that life deserves to be protected just like any
life would.
A majority of Americans oppose using taxpayer dollars to pay for any
[[Page S252]]
abortion at any time. Seventy-five percent of Americans oppose using
taxpayer dollars to fund abortion overseas. This includes 64 percent of
self-identified, pro-choice Democrats who say they are not for spending
taxpayer dollars to fund abortions overseas. Fifty-six percent of
Democrats and 80 percent of Independents comprise that as well as, as I
said before, 64 percent of pro-choice individuals collectively say they
are not for that.
Preventing taxpayer funding for abortion has been longstanding law
and has had a bipartisan consensus until just recently. Now, this is an
important issue that the country disagrees on, but the one thing we
reached agreement on is, those people who think there is nothing wrong
with abortion shouldn't force the tax dollars of people who believe it
is the most fundamentally wrong thing you can do to be used for
abortion.
So the Hyde amendment prevents taxpayer funding of abortions or
abortion coverage in various Federal healthcare programs, including
Medicaid and Medicare and the Children's Health Insurance Program. All
of those programs are, in effect, walled off from Federal support if
abortion is involved.
A bill I initially passed as chairman of the Labor, Health and Human
Services Appropriations Committee, renewed again this year the Hyde
amendment, as it has been renewed every year since 1976 and signed into
law in every year since 1976 by Republicans and Democrats in the White
House.
Recent calls to appeal the amendment, however, in the Democratic
Party platform and from a number of my friends on the other side of the
aisle, are just simply out of touch with where a majority of Americans
are and where 100 percent of the people coming here for the March for
Life are.
Instead, far from being repealed, the Hyde amendment, in my view,
needs to be made permanent, and it needs to be applied across the
entire Federal spending spectrum, as it was initially anticipated. I am
proud to be an original cosponsor of the No Taxpayer Funding for
Abortion Act, which would do just exactly that.
I also want to take a moment to recognize the efforts of what has
become one of the most pro-life administrations in our Nation's
history.
One of the first Executive orders President Trump signed was to
reinstate and expand the Mexico City policy. In fact, he wanted to
expand it to the point that he even wanted to retitle it to the
Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy. The policy prevents
Federal tax dollars from funding foreign NGOs--foreign nongovernmental
organizations--that perform or promote abortion.
I also want to call attention to the efforts the administration has
taken proposing regulations that would first of all prevent title X
family planning grantees from colocating with abortion clinics or from
promoting or referring clients for abortions. None of that money was
ever to be used for those purposes, but it is pretty hard when you are
in the same facility, funded by the same overall group, not to suggest
there is some connection.
President Trump and his administration have said that would not be
allowed. They have passed regulations to further protect the right of
conscience. In a famous letter written in the last year of his
Presidency, President Jefferson said that the right of conscience--the
right to fervently believe what you believe is the right thing--should
be the right we hold the most dear, and the President is trying to be
sure that applies in every possible case to Federal law as well.
They also voted to separate payment requirements from abortion
coverage in ObamaCare and have really continued to do exactly what the
President said he would do in these areas.
I know we all also want to encourage those who are participating in
the March for Life on Friday. Every human life matters. The advocacy of
people who come here year after year or perhaps are coming for the very
first time makes a difference.
So for the efforts of the thousands who defy the weather--and the
anniversary of the decision just happens to be in what almost always
turns out to be the worst weather we have in Washington during the
year, but that doesn't seem to deter those who are marching here or
those who are speaking to those who come here to defy the weather and
to March for Life.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. On the Senator from Iowa's time, let me join her and the
Senator from Missouri, and I associate myself with their remarks and
their support, not only for the March for Life, which will occur on
Friday, but also for the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which I
am proud to be the principal cosponsor of and which will, we hope, have
a vote on the Senate floor by tomorrow afternoon.
I was a pretty young staffer for then-Congressman Trent Lott in 1981
when I first became aware that there was such a thing as the March for
Life. I can assure you that it will be much more massive this year then
it was back in those early days when Americans were struggling with
what Roe v. Wade meant and when they weren't quite so sure about what
the science was about this practice of abortion.
As each year passes, as more and more parents see that sonogram, as
more and more grandparents--and I am a grandparent to six now; I am
buddy to six beautiful grandchildren--see the sonograms early on and we
see the feet and we see the heartbeat and we see the faces of these
children, we realize as Americans--and more and more Americans are
coming to the realization--that this is a living human that deserves
protection.
Senator Blunt was accurate in saying we have good polling. Polling is
coming around to our way. Even if some people consider themselves to be
pro-choice, when you delve down into the figures and ask them the
questions, it turns out they are not quite so pro-abortion as we might
think.
When we ask the question that the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion
bill goes to centrally--Do you support taxpayer funding for abortion?--
the polls show that 24 percent oppose and 30 percent strongly oppose. A
majority, or 54 percent of Americans--some of whom would actually check
the box and say they are pro-choice--say no, we shouldn't go so far as
to provide taxpayer funding for abortions. That is what this
legislation, which tomorrow afternoon will be considered on the floor
of the Senate, would do.
When asked another question: Should abortions be banned after 20
weeks, with the exception of risking the life of the mother? And 59
percent of Americans say yes, they strongly support that or support
banning abortions after the 20th week.
So I would say that the March for Life is working, year after year,
step after step, and I hope we get a good vote on the floor of the
Senate tomorrow.
Do I think this is going to sail through the House of Representatives
and be sent by Nancy Pelosi's House to the President for signature?
Probably not, but we make the case. We warmly welcome these marchers
for life each and every year, and we appreciate what they have done to
move the needle of public opinion and to protect those innocent people
who have no way of protecting themselves.
I see that we are joined by my distinguished colleague, the senior
Senator from Nebraska, and perhaps she might have some remarks to say.
I will yield the floor at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the thousands
of people who will travel to our Nation's Capital this week to join us
in the March for Life. Marching proudly among them will be many, many
Nebraskans--families, neighbors, student organizations, and church
groups. They are going to brave the snow and freezing temperatures to
march along the National Mall as part of a peaceful rally that draws
attention to pro-life and pro-women policies.
Since I first started my career in public service, I have supported
commonsense pro-life measures that protect women and unborn children.
All too often, women are faced with unplanned pregnancies, and they
experience condemnation instead of compassion. These women shoulder
despair, pain, and judgment when they should receive comfort,
assistance, and reassurance. These mothers should always know that they
have support as they face challenging years ahead.
In the Senate, I am proud to pledge my support for several pro-life
bills.
[[Page S253]]
This afternoon, I would like to highlight a few of them.
Once again, I am cosponsoring the Pain-Capable Unborn Child
Protection Act. This legislation would prohibit abortions after 20
weeks unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother or the
pregnancy is a result of rape or incest. Twenty weeks, as advances in
science and medical technology tell us, is the point at which an unborn
child is capable of feeling pain.
When I served in the Nebraska Legislature, we passed the first ban on
abortions after 20 weeks. Republicans and Democrats, pro-choice and
pro-life Senators, voted in its favor because it is sound policy. We
should enact this commonsense legislation at the Federal level as well.
I am also a cosponsor of the Protect Funding for Women's Health Care
Act. This bill would prevent the Federal funding of Planned Parenthood
or any of its affiliates. In 2016, Planned Parenthood received nearly
$544 million from the Federal Government. I believe that Congress must
redirect this funding to where it belongs, and that is to our community
health centers.
In Nebraska we have seven community health centers, with 44 clinic
sites all across our State. I have had the opportunity to visit these
sites, and I have seen firsthand the high-quality, compassionate care
they provide to women in need. Our patients in Nebraska would be better
served if this Federal funding were directed toward these centers and
also these clinics, which serve all Nebraskans--all Nebraskans
everywhere in our State--not Planned Parenthood.
The Protect Funding for Women's Health Care Act is another
commonsense solution that will protect life and help provide
comprehensive healthcare for women. Finally, I will once again support
the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full
Disclosure Act, introduced by the senior Senator from Mississippi.
Since the 1970s, the Hyde amendment has prohibited Federal funds for
abortions, but it requires a yearly passage through Congress. This
measure would permanently establish in statute the protections of the
Hyde amendment. These are a few of the important pro-life policies that
I am working on in the Senate.
Again, I want to welcome all of the Nebraskans who are traveling over
1,000 miles to take part in the March for Life. It is great to see the
pro-life movement building such momentum. More and more young people
are joining the cause and standing tall for this timeless value, and I
want to thank each and every one of them for their courage and for
taking a stand for what they believe in and for what science tells us.
They march not with anger or condemnation, but with love and hope.
They will be living out the direction of Mother Teresa, when at the
1994 National Prayer Breakfast she said:
A sign of care for the weakest of the weak--the unborn
child--must go out to the world. . . . then really you will
be true to what the founders of this country stood for.
So to all of the Nebraskans and to all Americans who will gather here
in Washington for the March for Life, please know that I support your
every step.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sentor from Iowa.
(The remarks of Ms. Ernst pertaining to the submission of S. 141 are
printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Ms. ERNST. 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. SASSE. 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. SASSE. Mr. President, I am going to speak again shortly from the
floor, but, very briefly, I want to associate myself with the comments
of my senior Senator, Deb Fischer from Nebraska, who just spoke and
welcomed Nebraska's pro-life students to the Capitol over the next 3
days. It is wonderful to be associated with a movement that is
fundamentally about love and is about the dignity of every baby. So I
join my senior Senator in welcoming Nebraska's pro-life students to the
Capitol and to Washington, DC, for the March for Life on Friday.
I thank the President.
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. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Government Funding
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I was just over in the Russell Senate
Office Building, and a group of freshmen from the House intercepted me
and handed me this piece of paper, this document, and asked that it be
made part of the Record of the Senate, and I have come to do that.
Let me explain that these freshmen House Members want to see the
Senate engaged in debate on how to end this shutdown of our government.
They see in their home districts across this country tremendous damage
occurring in all kinds of fashions--damage to security; damage to the
economy; damage to families trying to get a home mortgage, and they
can't get their FHA approval; damage to farmers who are seeking that
loan that is necessary to prepare for the next farming season; damage
in the preparation for next summer's forest fires.
I have been hearing about this from my home State. In Oregon, we just
had a training for fighting fires canceled. We have prescribed burns
that need to be done during the winter that are being canceled. We have
thinning, which makes the forest more fire-resilient, that is being
canceled. We have the reduction of fuels on the forest floor that add
to the intensity of fires--the removal of those--being canceled. These
just add more to the list of so many ways that folks are being affected
across the country.
I am going to share this letter with the Presiding Officer and our
colleagues. It says:
Dear Senator McConnell:
We write as Members of the Freshman Class of the 116th
Congress, an historic group that has the distinction of being
the first Congress to be seated in the midst of a partial
government shutdown.
We as a legislative branch have the power to end this
shutdown now. In December, the Senate unanimously passed
legislation that would have kept the government open. In
January, the House then passed those same bipartisan bills
and sent them to the Senate. If the Senate were to pass these
bills, we would be able to reopen the government and then
proceed to debate about immigration reform and border
security.
However, it is impossible to have a meaningful policy
discussion while the executive holds public servants hostage.
We respectfully request that you allow the Congress to work
its will and allow a vote on this bipartisan legislation to
end this shutdown so that we can end this manufactured crisis
and allow our devoted federal workers to get back to work for
the American people.
Sincerely Susie Lee, Member of Congress; Abby Finkenauer,
Member of Congress; Mikie Sherrill, Member of Congress; Mike
Levin; Jahana Hayes; Lori Trahan; Katie Hill; Ayanna
Pressley; David Trone; Ed Case; Gill Cisneros; Rashida Tlaib;
Kendra Horn; Angie Craig; Joe Cunningham; Chris Pappas; Andy
Levin; Susan Wild; Sylvia Garcia; Katie Porter; Debbie
Mucarsel-Powell; Ilhan Omar; Madeline Dean; Haley Stevens;
Greg Stanton; Josh Harder; Lucy McBath; Abigail Spanberger;
Chrissy Houlahan; Donna Shalala; Lauren Underwood; Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez; Veronica Escobar; TJ Cox, Dean Phillips;
Jahana Hayes; and then a few more people who have added their
names in script that I may not be able to read accurately.
In total, there are an estimated 46 signatures on this letter
addressed to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, January 16, 2019.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McConnell: We write as Members of the Freshman
Class of the 116th Congress, an historic group that has the
distinction of being the first Congress to be seated in the
midst of a partial government shutdown.
We as the legislative branch have the power to end this
shutdown now. In December, the Senate unanimously passed
legislation that would have kept the government open. In
January, the House then passed
[[Page S254]]
those same bipartisan bills and sent them to the Senate. If
the Senate were to pass these bills, we would be able to re-
open the government and then proceed to a debate about
immigration reform and border security.
However, it is impossible to have a meaningful policy
discussion while the executive holds public servants hostage.
We respectfully request that you allow the Congress to work
its will and allow a vote on this bipartisan legislation to
end the shutdown so that we can end this manufactured crisis
and allow our devoted federal workers to get back to work for
the American people.
Sincerely,
Susie Lee, Abby Finkenauer, Mikie Sherrill, Mike Levin,
Jahana Hayes, Lori Trahan, Katie Hill, Ed Case, Gil
Cisneros, Rashida Tlaib, Kendra Horn, Angie Craig,
Chris Pappas, Andy Levin, Susan Wild, Sylvia Garcia,
Katie Porter, Ilhan Omar, Madeleine Dean, Josh Harder,
Debra A. Haaland, Lucy McBath, Abigail Spanberger,
Chrissy Houlahan, Donna Shalala, Lauren Underwood,
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Veronica Escobar, TJ Cox,
Dean Phillips, Elaine G. Luria, Tom Malinowski, Steven
Horsford, Sharice Davids, Joe Neguse, Cynthia Axne.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, the freshmen of the House are speaking a
lot of common sense in this letter. They are saying: Here we are,
looking at bills that the Senate passed under Republican leadership and
that the House has passed under Democratic leadership. That is the
foundation for going forward. Let not the Senate leadership be the
obstruction to common sense. Let not this Chamber sit empty, sit quiet,
and sit without votes on these bills to put our government back to
work.
They want to see the Senate have the courage to take positions, to be
here and argue, to say yes or no, but we don't say yes or no if there
is no bill before us, and that must confound these 46 freshmen, who
kind of expected that after more than 200 years of organizing, we would
have a Senate that could actually operate as a legislative body, not
sit here vacant and quiet in the midst of a national catastrophe--a
catastrophe of the Trump shutdown affecting so many families.
There are 800,000 families of Federal workers, hundreds of thousands
more families of contractors, millions of Americans who simply want a
core government service so that they can proceed with their lives--a
business permit, a home mortgage, an agricultural loan, work being done
to prevent forest fires, and a compromise to our national security in
terms of our Coast Guard and our TSA agents. It makes no common sense
for us to sit here without action.
I praise the House freshmen for bringing a fresh, intense,
commonsense view to the conversation on Capitol Hill. Let their words
be heard in this Chamber.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Nomination of William Barr
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the
nomination of William Barr to be Attorney General.
Today, I want to make clear that I will be opposed to this nomination
for several reasons. I am just going to outline some of my key concerns
that really haven't been addressed much over the last few weeks.
I am specifically concerned about his view that the President of the
United States is effectively royalty, in his book, and he seems to
believe that the President is unaccountable to the laws of our Nation
or to the normal constraints imposed by the Congress. Today, I am going
to focus on what I consider to be Mr. Barr's dangerous views on
surveillance and his contempt for surveillance laws and the Fourth
Amendment.
It is my view this is not a partisan issue. There has been, for some
years, a bipartisan coalition in the Senate that has battled to protect
the privacy and constitutional rights of Americans, but Mr. Barr's
views, after I have laid them out today, ought to frighten every Member
of this Senate. What Mr. Barr has said is that whether the Congress
supports broader or narrower surveillance authorities and regardless of
whether Congress votes for more checks and balances and oversight, it
really doesn't matter. He has made the judgment, based on the
proposition which he has stated very clearly, that the President can
essentially do what he wants.
This nominee, in my view, poses a unique threat to the rule of law
and the Fourth Amendment. His long-held views, which presumably he
would put in practice if confirmed, threaten the very notion that
Congress or the courts have any say in who in America gets spied on. If
he is confirmed as Attorney General, he could take us back--and not
just 12 years to an era of warrantless wiretapping. As Mr. Barr himself
has made clear, he would be taking us back 40 years, to an era before
the Church Committee, when neither Congress nor the courts had any role
at all in checking or overseeing an abusive, out-of-control government.
Before the reforms of the 1970s, as has now been well documented, the
government committed one horrific abuse after another. It spied on
hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans. It spied on Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr. It spied on activists. It spied on Congress. When
these abuses finally came to light, Congress acted by passing the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which established a secret court
to issue warrants against spies and terrorists.
Unfortunately, as we now know, the government violated the law when
it implemented its warrantless wiretapping program in 2001. The program
included warrantless collection of the content of private
communications, including through warrantless targeting of phone
numbers and email addresses of people in our country. The program also
included the bulk collection of phone and email records of enormous
numbers of innocent, law-abiding Americans. All of this occurred in
secret, without warrants or any judicial oversight at all, and almost
no one--no one in the Congress, nor even most members of the
Intelligence Committee--knew anything about it.
The secrecy didn't even end when the bulk phone and email record
programs were moved under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
The Obama administration, just like the Bush administration, kept this
abusive program and the secret legal interpretations behind it from the
American people, even lying about it in public testimony.
How did these abusive and illegal programs get their start? With
secret determinations made at the Department of Justice that the law
didn't matter and that the President can do what he wants.
That brings us to Mr. Barr. His dangerous views on Executive power
have long been consistent--consistent--throughout his career, from his
writings at the Department of Justice in the late 1980s to the present,
but in October of 2003, he laid out in public testimony his position
that, in Mr. Barr's view, the President is not accountable to
surveillance laws and that the President enjoys huge loopholes in the
Fourth Amendment.
October of 2003 was shortly after Congress had passed the PATRIOT
Act, legislation that many in Congress have come to view as granting
too much authority with too little oversight, but from Mr. Barr's
perspective, the PATRIOT Act was too limiting and too constraining, and
that wasn't even the most troubling part of his testimony. Right up
front, he asked himself the question of whether the law was adequate to
fight terrorism. Here is what he said. He said he wasn't worried about
the law, and this is a direct quote: ``The critical legal powers are
granted directly by the Constitution itself, not by Congressional
enactments.'' In other words, Mr. Barr's view of surveillance is that
the laws passed by Congress do not matter. If the President wants to
violate them, it is Mr. Barr's position that he can just go out and say
he has constitutional authority and do it.
Here is a direct quote from Mr. Barr's testimony. Talking about laws
going back to the 1970s, he said: ``Numerous statutes were passed, such
as [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act], that purported to
supplant Presidential discretion with Congressionally crafted schemes
whereby judges become the arbiter of national security decisions.''
I am going to unpack that sentence for a minute. From Mr. Barr's
perspective, decades of laws passed by the U.S. Congress are nothing
but schemes--schemes. He is talking about the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, a fundamental framework of checks and balances that
Congress has relied on
[[Page S255]]
for four decades to ensure congressional and judicial oversight of
surveillance. He is talking about every modification of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act, from the PATRIOT Act to what is called
section 702, reauthorized last year, to the USA Freedom Act, which was
intended to stop the collection of millions of innocent Americans'
phone records. Whatever you think of these statutes, they are how
Congress determines the extent of the government's surveillance powers
and exercises its responsibility to protect the rights of Americans.
Mr. Barr notwithstanding, these duly enacted laws of Congress are not
mere schemes.
Worse still, it is Mr. Barr's contention that all of these laws only
purport to have any effect. The President, says Mr. Barr, has the
discretion to ignore them. By definition, if you are saying that the
President can just ignore the laws, in effect, that is a position that
is in favor of tyranny. This is as dangerous a position as I have heard
in congressional testimony. It is very similar to the language that was
concocted in the Department of Justice to justify warrantless
wiretapping--and these are the views coming from the man who might be
Attorney General of the United States.
Mr. Barr is correct that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
gives judges some say in when the government can spy on Americans. It
is a secret system, one that greatly advantages the government and
almost always precludes challenges from those who are spied on. The
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has been abused through secret
interpretations of law, but the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
does involve judges considering the Fourth Amendment rights of
Americans, and that is what Mr. Barr objects to.
Based on his own testimony, it is clear to me that Mr. Barr has
fundamental problems with the Fourth Amendment or at least its
application to anything the President might unilaterally decide
involves national security. He believes that if the government
determines there is a threat, there is no need to ask a judge for a
warrant.
The Fourth Amendment protects the rights of the people to be secure
against unreasonable searches and seizures unless there is a probable
cause warrant. That is what the Constitution says. Mr. Barr, however,
has found two very big loopholes in the Fourth Amendment.
First, he insists that if the government decides a foreigner in the
United States is ``apparently acting as a terrorist,'' then he or she
is not one of the ``people,'' and the government can just throw out the
Fourth Amendment.
Second, Mr. Barr argues that so long as the government says there is
a threat, a warrantless search is not unreasonable, and the warrant
requirement under the Fourth Amendment simply doesn't apply.
At the core of Mr. Barr's philosophy is that no one--not Congress and
certainly not judges--has any business assessing the government's
assertion about threats.
Here is another quote from Mr. Barr: These are ``assessments judges
are not competent to make or responsible for making under the
Constitution.''
For 40 years, judges of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
Court have been making these determinations, but, from Mr. Barr's
perspective, the courts are not competent to decide who gets spied on;
only the President gets that power.
Some might ask whether Mr. Barr has had a change of heart,
particularly since Congress has passed additional surveillance
authority in the year since his testimony. I hope we see in the days
ahead where he stands, whether he now believes that spying on Americans
and people in the United States has to be consistent with the laws
passed by Congress, but his 2003 testimony suggests that even new,
sweeping, bipartisan laws that have passed wouldn't satisfy him.
A little over a decade ago, Congress created section 702 of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That allows for warrantless
spying on foreigners overseas. I have said our country faces real
threats from foreigners overseas, so I stipulate that is something that
is important to the safety of the law-abiding people whom we all
represent. I have had serious concerns about the number of innocent
Americans whose communications are being swept up under section 702
collection, but at least the targets of the surveillance are overseas.
Mr. Barr would go further in his testimony, calling for the
warrantless targeting of people inside the United States. According to
Mr. Barr, there are individuals right here in the United States who
have no Fourth Amendment rights. This is an important issue today, and
it will become more important in the days ahead.
I have already stipulated that I think there are serious threats to
our country overseas. What troubles me is, as telecommunication systems
around the world become more globally interconnected, more and more
innocent Americans are going to get swept up in these searches. To me,
when you are talking--as Mr. Barr seems to be doing--that there are
individuals in our country who have no Fourth Amendment rights, that is
why I think all Senators should be troubled about these positions he
has long espoused.
There is also the matter of collecting business records, sensitive
information about Americans that are in possession of a third party.
Here, we are talking about your purchases, who you are communicating
with, where you are located at any time of the day.
Mr. Barr believes that the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to any
records held by a company or other third party, no matter how sensitive
that information is. This view has actually been rejected recently by
the U.S. Supreme Court. What Mr. Barr has been saying is actually out
of sync even with the current thinking of the Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court most recently held that the Fourth Amendment does apply
to the government's collection of location data from wireless carriers.
Apparently, yesterday Mr. Barr said he had not read that Supreme
Court decision. Colleagues. I think that ought to be really troubling
to the Members of this body. We are talking about location data.
Location data can be a personal safety and national security nightmare.
We saw what happened just last week. In 2018, the wireless companies
all made promises to me that they wouldn't make available precise
location data to hedge funds, bail bondsmen--all kinds of bottom
feeders just looking to make a buck. What happened was, in 2018, those
wireless companies said they wouldn't make that data available any
longer to these location trackers and bail bondsmen and the like, and
then last week, a bounty hunter got 300 bucks and found out those 2018
promises to me meant nothing. So last week, the wireless companies
promised again that they wouldn't make location data available to all
of these financially interested parties. I appreciate their saying it,
but I will tell you, I will believe it when I see it, because we got a
promise in 2018 that they would be serious about protecting location
data, and we saw last week that they weren't.
We have the Supreme Court now making it clear that the Fourth
Amendment applies to the government's collection of location data from
wireless carriers, but the person who is up for nomination, Mr. Barr,
has not been willing to or doesn't find it important enough to even
read the Supreme Court decision on this case.
The government's collection of business records is authorized by
section 215 of FISA, which was part of the PATRIOT Act. There are
serious concerns about 215. It was abused for years to carry out a
secret program that swept up the phone records of millions of innocent,
law-abiding Americans. Even after the USA FREEDOM Act, which was
intended to end bulk collection, it has been used to collect hundreds
of millions of phone records. All the government needs to collect these
records is to show the FISA Court that the records are relevant to an
investigation. There is no requirement for a probable cause warrant.
This important law sunsets this year, so the Congress will have a
debate about whether these authorities are too broad, whether there is
a need for more checks and balances. I see my colleague from Texas, who
also serves on the Intelligence Committee. We are going to have a
debate on it. That is the way it ought to be.
[[Page S256]]
Today, we are talking about what I consider to be dangerous views
espoused by Mr. Barr. What Mr. Barr believes is that the government
shouldn't have any court oversight at all when it comes to collecting
the records on Americans. He thinks the government should just
unilaterally issue a subpoena and collect those records and that there
would be no oversight whatever. The foundation of Mr. Barr's beliefs
when it comes to surveillance is that the President can do whatever he
wants if he believes national security is at stake.
I am going to close by simply talking for an additional minute or two
about what it will mean if Mr. Barr is confirmed as Donald Trump's
Attorney General.
Right now, the President is openly considering a declaration that he,
Donald Trump, has emergency powers to override the will of the
Congress, and he is doing this while relying on a baseless assertion
that there is a national security crisis.
Until he was fact-checked, he was making very far-fetched claims
about terrorists coming over the border. He also regularly calls
journalists ``enemies of the people'' and calls for investigations of
his political enemies.
I would oppose the nomination of anyone with William Barr's views on
Executive power regardless of who was President, but the kinds of
threats I am talking about are too serious to ignore.
Donald Trump has openly said and said specifically how much he would
enjoy unchecked surveillance power. During the 2016 campaign, when the
Russians were hacking his opponents, the President of the United
States, our current President, said: ``honestly, I wish I had that
power. I'd love to have that power.''
If Donald Trump decides that national security is at stake and
William Barr is the Attorney General, it would be Mr. Barr who might
give him that power--power he could use with no oversight from the
courts and without regard to what Mr. Barr has dismissed as ``the
schemes''--our laws--of Congress.
In case anyone thinks Mr. Barr would himself serve as a check on the
President, he has also written that that is not the Attorney General's
job. Just last year, he wrote that all Executive power rests in one and
only one person--the President--and that the President doesn't have to
convince his Attorney General that his orders are legal.
Let me be clear. The issues I have raised with respect to Mr. Barr's
views on surveillance are not kind of conjecture or possible theories.
What I have been talking about this afternoon are the views outlined in
Mr. Barr's own testimony. I hope every Member of this body will take
the time to read Mr. Barr's testimony and consider what is at stake.
There are Members in both political parties in this Chamber who have
long been concerned about the expansive surveillance authorities under
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the possible abuse of
that law. Those concerns are, in my view, small potatoes compared to
what Mr. Barr has proposed, which is that the law need not constrain
the President whatsoever. For example, some Members of this body have
expressed concern about Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants
in connection with the Russia investigation and whether all relevant
information has been provided to the FISA Court. Consider a world in
which the government doesn't need a warrant and doesn't have to justify
its surveillance to any court. Consider the possibility of abuse in
that world. That is the world Mr. Barr has testified he wants.
I also would appeal to my colleagues with whom I have had some pretty
vigorous debates over the years about surveillance and who may have no
concerns about the current framework of our laws. We can have our
disagreements about how to write the law. Here in the Senate, we do
agree that the laws passed by the Congress mean something. They are
binding, and they are not, as Mr. Barr has stated, ``schemes'' that the
President can just ignore whenever he feels like it.
This nominee has been more than clear about where he stands. He
believes that the President alone decides when there is a threat and
that when he does, he doesn't have to worry about Congress, judges, or
the laws, or the Constitution. In my view, that is a prescription for
trouble, a prescription for more abuses--abuses that Congress may or
may not even be told about. But we have been warned. We have been
warned by Mr. Barr's testimony.
I also would like to note that I have concerns about Mr. Barr that
relate to classified matters, and I am currently seeking
declassification of those matters and hope that this will be resolved
prior to any votes on the nominee.
I see colleagues are waiting.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate Judiciary Committee
began to hear witnesses on the nomination of Bill Barr to be the next
Attorney General of the United States. We heard first, of course, from
Mr. Barr himself all day yesterday and today from additional witnesses.
By any standard, Mr. Barr is an exceptionally qualified individual,
in part because 27 years ago, he was Attorney General, nominated and
confirmed unanimously--nominated by President George Herbert Walker
Bush. Under his leadership at the time, the Department of Justice
focused on some of the most important law enforcement challenges facing
our country at that time. They worked to fight violent crime and combat
the drug epidemic, both of which continue to do great harm to
communities across the country still today.
As significant as the work done under his leadership was, I was more
impressed with the fact that after 27 years, he was willing to take on
the task of becoming Attorney General once again. He said he was sort
of semiretired. He and his wife were looking forward to spending more
time with their children and grandchildren. But he answered the call to
public service, and I am grateful that he did. He knows that our Nation
needs a strong law-and-order Attorney General at the Department of
Justice.
When he spoke at his confirmation hearing more than 2\1/2\ decades
ago, he said:
The Attorney General must ensure that the administration of
justice--the enforcement of the law--is above and away from
politics. Nothing could be more destructive of our system of
government, the rule of law, or the Department of Justice as
an institution, than any toleration of political interference
with the enforcement of the law.
He repeated that commitment yesterday, and I think the need for that
sort of strong statement is more important today than ever.
I believe Attorney General Barr will be a good Attorney General,
assuming what is one of the most challenging positions in the Cabinet
because you are a political appointee but you are also the chief law
enforcement officer in the country. That sometimes can be difficult to
navigate.
As the nominee noted, doing the job and doing it well sometimes
requires being prepared to burn your political capital in order to
preserve the rule of law. I believe this is the most fundamental
quality of a good Attorney General, and having a leader at the helm of
the Department of Justice with the right temperament and a fundamental
understanding of this responsibility is critical now and forever. In
recent years, we witnessed some Attorneys General carrying out actions
that repeatedly toed that political line, sometimes crossed it.
Under the Obama administration, the Department of Justice began to
veer increasingly away from the impartial administration of law and
toward politics. That shift undoubtedly occurred at the hands of
President Obama's Attorneys General who were in the driver's seat
during his administration, Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch.
Both Holder's and Lynch's conduct has come under a great deal of
scrutiny--even now, after they have left--and for good reason.
For example, under then-Attorney General Holder, there was something
called Operation Fast and Furious in which the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms and the Department of Justice purposefully
allowed the illegal sale of firearms in Mexico in the hopes of being
able to track them. Unfortunately, there were a number of casualties,
including Border Patrolman Brian Terry, who was killed with one of
those firearms in 2010. Attorney General Holder never accepted
responsibility
[[Page S257]]
for Brian Terry's death or ever admitted that allowing these guns to
walk into Mexico, into the hands of some criminal organizations, was a
terrible mistake.
Under his watch, the IRS targeting controversy occurred in which
politically aligned groups applying for tax-exempt status faced
official oppression based upon their political affiliation.
Then, of course, more recently, let's not forget then-Attorney
General Lynch's handling of the Clinton email scandal--something even
James Comey, the FBI Director, objected to--along with her famous so-
called tarmac meeting with former President Bill Clinton when his wife
was under an active FBI investigation. The conduct of both Holder and
Lynch undermined the public's confidence in the impartial
administration of justice and law at the Justice Department.
Under the leadership of my friend and our former colleague, Jeff
Sessions, the Department of Justice has begun to right the ship and
again separate politics from the impartial administration of the law,
and I am confident that Mr. Barr will continue to do the same.
During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Barr reaffirmed that politicians
should not interfere with criminal investigations, and he likewise
committed not to interfere with the special counsel's investigation. He
assured us that his allegiance will be to the rule of law, to the
Constitution, and to the American people, and that, above all else, he
will work to protect the professionalism and integrity of the
Department of Justice and the thousands of dedicated public servants
who work there.
Not only is Mr. Barr exceptionally qualified for the job, he is
prepared on day one to step in and lead with distinction.
The Senate unanimously confirmed his nomination to three different
positions at the Department of Justice, and I hope we can work
expeditiously to get this fine man to the Department of Justice once
again.
I thank Mr. Barr and his entire family for agreeing to bring his
talents and his temperament to the Department of Justice at a time when
those qualities are so desperately needed, and I look forward to voting
yes on his nomination.
Remembering Herb Kelleher
Mr. President, on another matter, I want to share a few words about
the passing of one of the airline industry's most unconventional and
most successful executives. That would be Herb Kelleher, who cofounded
Southwest Airlines.
Herb was born in 1931 in New Jersey, and his young life and early
career kept him on the east coast. He graduated from Wesleyan
University and New York University School of Law and served as a law
clerk for 2 years at the New Jersey Supreme Court and then joined a law
firm in Newark. But as fate intervened in this promising young lawyer's
career, he met his wife Joan, a native Texan, and they decided to move
to the Lone Star State, something he later referred to as the greatest
business decision he ever made.
Building America's largest domestic airline carrier was never on
Herb's to-do list. In the late 1960s, he was an attorney in San
Antonio, when one day his client approached him with an idea about a
low-fare airline serving three Texas cities. Tired of spending so much
time in the car traveling between San Antonio and Houston and Dallas,
he believed they could make point-to-point intrastate travel faster and
much cheaper by flying, and also cheaper than other airlines.
Getting their innovative idea off the ground wasn't easy. These men
who founded Southwest Airlines slogged through years of legal battles
before the airline operated its first flight. Their vision not only led
to the creation of a budget airline but also drove down the cost of
their competitors, as competition will do.
To maintain their edge, Southwest tried some interesting ideas along
the way. After another airline ran an ad calling Southwest a cheap
carrier, Herb responded by filming a commercial where he wore a brown
paper bag over his head and promised that the airline would gladly
provide one to any customer too embarrassed to be seen flying on
Southwest Airline.
At one point, to compete with the low fares of other airlines,
Southwest started a program to keep customers, and they said: You can
either pay the lowest fare or pay full fare and get a full premium
bottle of liquor in the process. Well, apparently it worked, and for a
short time, I am told, Southwest was the largest liquor distributor in
the State of Texas.
I think one of the most distinctly Herb Kelleher stories is of a
battle called ``The Malice in Dallas.''
In 1992, Southwest Airlines and another company realized their
slogans--``Plane Smart'' and ``Just Plane Smart''--were similar. Rather
than settling the matter in court, they settled it by holding a public
arm wrestling match.
The 61-year-old, with the cigarette fixed between his teeth, gave his
much younger competitor a run for his money, but he couldn't pull off a
win. At the end of the match, the two men made donations to each
other's chosen charities. They agreed to share the slogan and called it
a day.
Each of these stories has Herb Kelleher written all over it. He was
known for his gregarious personality, his incredible work ethic, and
his penchant for the nontraditional, not to mention his affinity for
Wild Turkey.
I first met Herb when I represented him in a lawsuit early in my
legal career in San Antonio. He had a larger-than-life personality, and
it was a pleasure to know him.
We can all learn a lesson from Herb about the importance of working
hard, treating people with respect, and not being afraid to have a
little bit of fun along the way. His entrepreneurial spirit was
credited with democratizing the skies by disrupting the airline
industry, and I believe he was one of the most consequential leaders in
American aviation, and we have all benefited from that.
So I join Herb's wife Joan, his children, his grandchildren, his many
friends, and, of course, his beloved Southwest Airlines family in
mourning the loss of this larger-than-life figure.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Menthol Cigarettes
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I also mourn Herb's loss. It is odd that I
would be here to protect his ability to have that cigarette in his
mouth as he was negotiating.
I rise today to discuss the recent announcement by the Food and Drug
Administration to move forward with a ban on menthol cigarettes. This
announcement, to say the least, is surprising. In an administration
claiming to decrease regulation on the American people, this
announcement works completely counter to that goal--increasing
regulation and decreasing the choices for adult consumers in America.
Making matters worse, the announcement comes from an Agency that the
American people trust. They trust them to make decisions based upon the
most sound and reliable science available. Unfortunately, the FDA has
not provided a sound scientific argument to move forward with the ban
on one type of product that Americans consume understanding fully the
risk.
On November 30, 2018, I raised this concern with the Food and Drug
Administration. As a part of their announcement, the FDA claimed that
their regulatory actions are based on information released by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC.
When I asked for the data supporting this menthol decision, I was
informed that this data would be made available later this year. I also
asked the FDA to explain to me whether the Agency has determined that
menthol cigarettes make more children try smoking or whether these
products make it more difficult for children to stop smoking.
I pause here because I am sure the Presiding Officer is remembering
that it is illegal for people under 18 to purchase tobacco products.
The FDA simply informed me that the information I requested would be
part of a proposed rule available for stakeholder comment.
Now, I think you would agree that it is highly unusual for a science-
based Agency to refuse to provide the data informing its regulatory
decisions to a seated Member of the U.S. Congress. This should set off
alarm bells. Any product regulated by the FDA might
[[Page S258]]
fall into this category of ``no Member of Congress being able to
know.''
Well, it may seem odd, but the FDA regulates 25 cents of every dollar
of the U.S. economy--no wonder it takes so long and costs so much for
new drugs and devices to come to market.
As a result, I did my own research. The chart behind me, with 2017
data from the CDC, shows that children's use of traditional menthol
cigarettes has decreased 3 percent since 2011. Let me say that again.
Since 2011, usage by youth in America of menthol cigarettes has reduced
from 5.8 percent to 2.5 percent.
This data runs counter to the need for increased regulation and
decreased choices for consumers and calls into question the FDA's own
decision.
In 2009, Congress debated the regulation of tobacco products. I was
here for the entire debate and was an active participant in the
dialogue. I alone provided over 16 hours of remarks on the Senate floor
so that my colleagues understood my concerns with this type of
legislation and to ensure, quite frankly, that the voice of North
Carolinians was clearly and deeply understood in the U.S. Senate.
One issue discussed during that debate was actually the banning of
flavors in cigarettes, including menthol. Congress struggled to come to
a consensus on this issue, offering many iterations at the time of the
legislation, taking different approaches to the ban of any, all, or
none of the flavors available in cigarettes at the time.
Ultimately, the decision was made for the FDA to thoroughly study the
effects of menthol cigarettes.
The Agency issued its report in 2011 and commissioned a third-party
entity to study the science behind menthol cigarettes, for which a
report was issued in 2013.
Now, what resulted from the results of that study?
For the remainder of President Obama's terms in office, which ended
in 2016, their FDA never attempted to move a menthol ban. Why? Because
the results of that information--that scientific data--did not
substantiate what, in fact, that would accomplish.
In the 5 years since the publication of these studies, the science
has not changed to justify the ban of an entire product category by the
FDA.
Each year, the CDC issues the latest data from the National Youth
Tobacco Survey. This survey asks about 20,000 children about their
tobacco use, and it has been conducted since 1999. This survey covers
details of middle and high schoolers' use and exposure to a variety of
tobacco products, and it includes specifics on the use of different
product categories, like traditional cigarettes and e-cigarettes, as
well as data on the percentage of survey participants who tried
menthol.
The CDC data shows that there has been a 12-point decrease in the
percentage of children trying traditional cigarettes since 2011.
Let me state that again.
The CDC's own data shows that there has been a 12-percent reduction
in the percentage of children trying traditional cigarettes since 2011.
Now, this is good news. The use of cigarettes among children is
decreasing, showing that our education and our public health efforts
are, in fact, working.
As I mentioned before, the survey shows that the use of menthol
cigarettes by children has also declined, decreasing 3 percent since
2011.
Even the FDA's own data shows the decline in children's use of
traditional cigarettes.
Now, this chart I have basically shows that traditional cigarettes
have fallen 12 percent since 2011, compared to the latest survey data
of 2017. It is probably difficult for some to see, but the red arrow
pointing down certainly indicates a decrease. The red arrow pointing up
shows an increase. Now, that should be alarming, and it is an area that
we will talk about in a second.
But the solution here is simple. Data released by the CDC and the FDA
provide a clear marker that the FDA's focus should be on areas where
children's use is increasing rather than in areas where we are already
making significant progress.
I might pause and say that if a product is illegal for somebody under
18, I don't know how you ban a product and believe that it wasn't
already banned if it was illegal.
The FDA's decision does not pass the commonsense test. It is time for
the FDA to focus on the things where there is an increase for children.
I give them examples: marijuana, opioids, fentanyl, meth. We have
debated it on the floor of the Senate. While we are looking at one
thing and the FDA has got us focused on it, look at how many children's
lives are devastated in this country--again, with illegal products.
One can only conclude by what we are doing, which is banning menthol,
that we are emulating Canada. Several years ago they banned menthol,
and last year they legalized marijuana. That may be the route we are
on. I am not sure. Nothing surprises me anymore in Washington.
June of this year will mark the 10th anniversary of the Tobacco
Control Act, which provided the FDA regulatory authority over tobacco
products. The law gave the FDA broad authority to regulate these
products and was intended to provide a path forward for innovative
products--tobacco products, as well--placing hope in advancements in
research and development to provide new options for American consumers
that are down the continuum of risk for those individuals who choose,
potentially replacing their use of combustible cigarettes with
electronic ones.
The FDA does not have a single governing regulation for the review
and the approval of the products Congress put under its regulatory
watch. Almost a decade after enactment and more than $5 billion later,
the FDA has failed to issue one foundational regulation governing the
viable review of any tobacco product.
Let me state that again. Almost a decade after enactment and $5
billion later, the FDA has failed to issue a foundational regulation
governing the viable review of any tobacco product. This failure would
be unacceptable from any other regulated industry. The Center for
Tobacco Products receives hundreds of millions of user-fee dollars each
year and is still falling behind the other product review centers at
the FDA. The FDA has a responsibility to develop clear rules of the
road for innovation and potentially less harmful tobacco products--some
of the very products that are under scrutiny today because they are in
regulatory limbo 10 years later. The Agency has had ample time to act
and, instead, focused its efforts and resources on banning a legally
marketed product without the data to support their own actions.
I urge my colleagues to take a serious look at the FDA's decision to
ban menthol cigarettes. The FDA chose to decrease choices for the
American consumer while their counterpart, the CDC, continues to show a
decline in children's use of menthol cigarettes. These two Agencies
should, in fact, be in alignment, using the CDC's highly regarded
public health data to fully inform the FDA's approach to regulate these
products. The information it released on November 18, 2018, shows a
steep increase in the use of all tobacco products. However, the FDA has
not provided the data to show that traditional cigarettes have
contributed to this increase from 2017 to 2018 in any way or that
menthol played a part in this increase. If it had--I will take you back
to the original chart--we would see a significant change in the trend
line of menthol usage of youth.
I would bet my colleagues today that when you get to 2018, you will
continue to see a decline in menthol. It begs the question of whether
the leadership at FDA is making decisions with any regard for years of
public health data, coming at the cost of choices for the American
people.
This argument comes down to whether you believe Americans have a
right to choose. As long as I am an elected official, I will advocate
for adult consumers to have these choices.
I realize this is the floor of great debate, and I am not scared to
have a debate on whether tobacco is a legal product. As long as it is a
legal product, why would we encumber the consumer with choice when, in
fact, we see a trend line like this as it relates to youth?
So I say to the FDA and I say to my colleagues: Don't hide behind our
children and tell us that is the reason, because the data doesn't
support it. The data says that what we are doing in education, what we
are doing as parents is convincing the next generation
[[Page S259]]
that this is not a product they want to use. But when you ban menthol
cigarettes, you take many adults who choose to purchase and to use a
legal product with full understanding of the risk and tell them: No, we
are going to eliminate the choice of this product.
That is wrong. It is wrong for Congress to do; it is wrong for a
regulatory Agency to do; and it is a blemish on this administration to
announce that they are reducing regulation when, in fact, they are
going out and instituting some of the most onerous regulations on
America's consumers, the American people who choose.
I urge my colleagues to become educated on this. I will give them an
opportunity on multiple occasions for the balance of this year to hear
more about this industry.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). The assistant Democratic
leader.
Government Funding
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, last Saturday was a historic day in
Springfield, IL, my hometown. It was the biggest snowfall in one day in
our city's history. I spent that Saturday not shaking hands with my
constituents but shaking hands with my shovel, trying to shovel snow
away. It was a historic day in Springfield but, sadly, it was a
historic day for America too.
Saturday marked the longest shutdown of the U.S. Government in the
history of the United States. As of today, the shutdown has continued
for 26 days. Day by day, the harmful effects of this government
shutdown are getting worse. Alarmingly, the President seems not to
really understand or appreciate the real-life impact this shutdown is
having on many Americans.
In all, more than 8,000 Federal workers in my home State of Illinois
are going without a paycheck during this shutdown--8,000 people who are
concerned about paying their bills, as most working families are. These
are hard-working Americans.
I want to show you a photo of one of them. He happens to be a friend
of mine. His name is Toby Hauck. This is Toby here. Toby is a veteran
of the U.S. Air Force. His job in Aurora, IL, is to make sure that my
plane, when it arrives at O'Hare, lands safely. Toby Hauck is an air
traffic controller. Air traffic controllers have some of the most
important and most stressful Federal jobs in America, and this shutdown
is a kick in the gut to Toby Hauck and all of these air traffic
controllers.
Many air traffic controllers, like Toby, are already working 6 days a
week. I am not happy to report that. Pushing them to the limits of
physical exhaustion isn't in the best interest of safety when it comes
to our aircraft, but because of staffing shortages, that is what they
are faced with, working 6 days a week. The shutdown is making staff
shortages in the air traffic control facilities across the United
States even worse.
The shutdown has closed down the FAA academy where new air traffic
controllers are trained and has stopped training in each facility to
implement new procedures and new equipment.
Toby's father and grandfather, incidentally, served in the U.S.
military, as he did. This picture depicts his great son and Toby's
granddaughter. I wanted to bring another point home. Toby's son is
deploying overseas this month. Toby and his wife will be looking after
their 2\1/2\-year-old granddaughter during the 10-month deployment.
Toby's lack of a paycheck since December 31 of last year adds stress to
an already hectic life.
Toby says:
Veterans are very proud of our heritage and what we have
done for the country. And those of us who continue to serve
the Federal Government as Federal employees continue that
pride throughout their careers.
Toby says:
We are hardworking, proud American employees doing a job
for the American public that is essential as an air traffic
controller. It's not acceptable as a veteran, as a federal
employee, as an air traffic controller to use my profession
and my livelihood as a political football.
Toby doesn't stand alone as a veteran working for the Federal
Government. Veterans are some of the hardest hit Federal employees of
the Trump shutdown. Today as many as 250,000 Federal workers and
Federal contractors are going without pay during the shutdown.
According to the Office of Personnel Management, as of the end of
fiscal year 2016, veterans represented 31 percent of the Federal
workforce. This is more than a 5-percent increase since 2009, when
President Obama encouraged veterans to apply for employment with the
Federal Government to boost the hiring of men and women who served our
country in uniform.
In Illinois, we have 50,000 Federal workers, and almost 28 percent of
them are veterans. More than one-quarter of all veterans working in the
Federal Government also have a Department of Veterans Affairs
disability rating.
For example, if SNAP, the food stamp program, runs out, 38 million
Americans could lose their food stamp benefits. That includes veterans
living in households that participate in SNAP. You don't think about
that very often, do you? Do you mean there are veterans on food stamps?
The figure has averaged about 1.4 million veterans a year between 2015
and 2017, according to the Census Bureau. Illinois is home to nearly
50,000 veterans who are beneficiaries of food stamps and HUD rental
assistance programs on an annual basis as well. So the very programs
that are going to be hampered, slowed down, and stopped because of the
Trump shutdown affect veterans across my State of Illinois and across
the Nation. About 1,150 contracts under the project-based rental
assistance program have lapsed, with hundreds more scheduled to expire
because of this shutdown. People are suffering around the country.
Federal workers are suffering. Their workers are suffering and
veterans are suffering because of this Trump shutdown. More than
380,000 Federal workers have been furloughed; 450,000 or more are being
forced to work without pay. These are hard-working Americans like the
TSA officers I met last week at O'Hare and met just a few days ago when
I flew to St. Louis Lambert Airport. They go to work every single day,
and their job is to make sure that dangerous people don't get on the
airplanes with you, your children, and your family. They can't afford
to have their paychecks held hostage by a manufactured crisis.
These families of Federal workers have bills to pay. A worker at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Cynthia Colquitt, is going without a
paycheck after serving 26 years as a Federal employee. How hard is it?
She is a single mom, and she says, quite honestly: I get by paycheck to
paycheck. She has never missed a mortgage payment; she is very serious
about those things. But now she is worried the shutdown will impact her
credit rating if she doesn't have a paycheck to pay her bills on time.
Shutdowns not only hurt our Federal workers, but the impact is also
felt by small businesses around the country that rely on the business
of Federal workers and the government. This shutdown is hurting our
economy and only adding to economic uncertainty. Remember what happened
in December? If you happen to have a retirement account with
investments in stocks, you noticed that December was a pretty horrible
month. There was an 8.7-percent drop in the stock market in December--
the worst December for the stock market since 1931, during the Great
Depression.
The CEO of JPMorgan Chase is now warning that if this shutdown lasts
another several weeks, it could reduce our Nation's quarterly growth to
zero. The victims of the shutdown will not be the Federal employees; it
will affect the entire economy because the input into the economy--the
things they buy and pay for--will be diminished.
Just why are we in this mess? Well, as the President said several
weeks ago on camera in the Oval Office, it is his shutdown and he is
very proud of it. He said that he was going to hold the hard-earned
paychecks of Americans hostage in an attempt to fulfill his campaign
promise to build a wall on the southern border of the United States, a
concrete wall, as he described it, ``from sea to shining sea,'' which,
incidentally, he promised would be paid for by the Mexicans.
Let me say that again. All of the pain of this shutdown is caused
because the President made a campaign promise to build this almighty
wall. Well, we know something about walls. They don't work very well.
We know it
[[Page S260]]
might have been a great response several hundred years ago to build a
wall--not so much today. There are better ways to make America safe,
other than building a wall. Yet the President said: It is my wall or a
shutdown.
If we have a debate about border security, I want to be a part of it,
but we shouldn't do it while holding the Government of the United
States hostage. Every day of the government shutdown is another day
that President Trump is harming innocent Americans, preventing hundreds
of thousands of Americans from getting their paychecks and millions
more from getting access to vital Federal services.
We should reopen this government and we ought to do it this afternoon
and we can. One phone call from the President to Senator Mitch
McConnell, Republican leader of the Senate, is all it takes. Nancy
Pelosi, the new Speaker of the House, has already passed the spending
bills to open the government. She did it last week. She sent them over
here. They are sitting at the desk up here. We are not touching them
because Senator McConnell said: I am not going to solve this problem
until the President gives me permission. A little reminder to my
colleague Senator McConnell, under the Constitution, we are a separate
branch of government. We don't wait for a permission slip from the
President of the United States to do the job we were elected to do.
Today we had a vote earlier, and I looked at the other side of the
aisle and talked to a number of my Republican colleagues. I wasn't a
bit surprised to find so many of them fed up with this government
shutdown. They want it to end today, and so do I. Then we can sit down
and negotiate border security and do it the right way, not with a gun
at our head--I should say, a gun to the head of 800,000 Federal
employees. Let's reopen the government and then continue to negotiate.
House Democrats have given us the bills we need to do that. Now it is
up to Senator McConnell. Will he come forward through that door onto
the floor, call these bills, and end this shutdown before 5 p.m. today?
He could. He has the power to do it. He can pass the spending bills.
He warns us that President Trump may not sign these bills. Well,
Senator McConnell has been around the Senate for decades. He has been
around so long that I am sure he is familiar with our Constitution. Do
you know what? If the President vetoed these spending bills, we have
the constitutional authority and opportunity to override his veto--to
come up with 67 votes in the Senate, two-thirds in the House to
override any Presidential veto. I think the votes are there, and I
think that is the reason Senator McConnell is afraid to call the bills.
It is time for the Senate to act. Let's not wait for a permission
slip from President Trump. Let's do what we were elected to do. Let's
spare Toby Hauck and 800,000 Federal employees, including many
veterans, the hardships their families are facing.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
National Defense
Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise to discuss the state of our
national defense. First, I want to recognize the brave Americans who
were killed in a suicide attack in Syria today. Our deepest sympathies
are with the families of those killed and the injured. We are so
grateful to these Americans for their service and for their sacrifice.
As I enter my seventh year on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I
can't help but reflect on our past successes. I am proud of what we
have accomplished by working together to fulfill the first
responsibility of our Federal Government to provide for the common
defense. Together, we have continued the committee's longstanding
bipartisan tradition of working to strengthen our military, and we have
been effective on a variety of fronts.
We have provided our brave men and women in uniform with the
resources they need to carry out the missions we give them every year
through the National Defense Authorization Act.
Importantly, for the last 2 years, Congress and the administration
have worked together to rebuild the Department of Defense and reorient
it to today's threats. As the administration's National Defense
Strategy correctly identifies, the primary challenge to U.S. interests
today comes not from terrorist groups but from Russia and China.
In recognition of this fact, Congress increased funding to restore
readiness and expand force structure from near-historic lows. While
progress has been made, significant challenges remain.
The bipartisan support for increased defense spending must continue,
and Congress must ensure our service men and women have the necessary
training and equipment for the great power competition that defines the
current geopolitical landscape. As part of this effort to ensure our
military is prepared for the new threat environment, we must continue
modernizing our nuclear forces.
Once again, this Congress I will chair the Armed Services Committee's
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, and this issue will be my top
priority. Since the end of World War II, our nuclear deterrent has
formed the bedrock of our Nation's security. With Russia and China
increasingly seeking to challenge U.S. interests and to reshape the
geopolitical landscape in their favor, the unique role our nuclear
forces play in deterring conflict and preventing war is becoming
increasingly important.
Meanwhile, our warheads and delivery systems age toward obsolescence,
as does the infrastructure that maintains our deterrent. Many of these
systems have aged far beyond their designed lifetimes. They cannot be
sustained indefinitely. Put simply, as our nuclear deterrent becomes
more important to our Nation's defense, the need for nuclear
modernization only grows.
This conclusion is echoed in the administration's National Defense
Strategy, its Nuclear Posture Review, and the bipartisan National
Defense Strategy Commission, which described nuclear modernization as a
``critical imperative.''
The previous administration, under President Obama, also recognized
the need for modernization and began an effort to recapitalize our
nuclear forces. Right now, major programs are underway to replace our
legacy systems. This includes the B-21 bomber, which will replace the
B-52 and B-2 bombers, and the long-range standoff weapon, which will
replace the existing nuclear-armed, air-launched cruise missile. The
ground-based strategic deterrent is replacing the Minuteman III
intercontinental ballistic missile. Finally, the Columbia-class
submarine will replace the Ohio-class submarines that are currently in
service.
The command and control networks on which our nuclear forces rely are
also in need of replacement, as is the scientific infrastructure that
maintains our stockpile of aging warheads.
In some cases, such as with the production of plutonium pits--
essentially the cores of our nuclear weapons--we must reconstitute lost
capabilities. Adding to the challenge, as a result of decisions to
delay and defer funding, there is no margin for error in the schedule.
This is the position we find ourselves in. Our existing platforms are
simultaneously aging out just as their replacements are scheduled to be
ready. Something General Selva, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, refers to as just-in-time modernization. That means any
delay, any error, could put at risk our ability to field an effective
nuclear deterrent in the future. We cannot allow that to happen. In the
face of growing threats, our deterrent must remain strong.
As chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I understand I
carry the solemn responsibility to make sure the nuclear forces that
have deterred conflict, safeguarded our livelihoods, and preserved our
Nation's power for decades continues to protect the next generation of
Americans. While U.S. Strategic Command is located in Sarpy County, NE,
it is a national asset with a global mission--over 180,000 soldiers,
sailors, airmen, marines, and civilians are working every day around
the world in support of the command's mission.
During this Congress, I am looking forward to working with my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this key priority and
continuing our work in providing for a strong national defense.
Thank you.
[[Page S261]]
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Government Funding
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, we are 26 days into President Trump's
completely unnecessary government shutdown--26 days of pain and
uncertainty; 26 days of missed paychecks and missed bills--26 days, the
longest in our country's history.
I have heard from so many constituents in my home State of Washington
who have been impacted by this shutdown. These are heart-wrenching
stories of workers who do not know how much longer they can make it
without a paycheck. Members of our U.S. Coast Guard--the very men and
women who stand ready 24/7 to make harrowing rescues and keep our
country safe--didn't get paid yesterday. They did not get paid
yesterday, marking the first time ever that servicemembers have not
been paid because of a shutdown.
There are small business owners who don't know when their SBA loans
will come through; people who are dedicated to our national parks--our
national treasures--who are in despair as they hear about trash piling
up and irreparable damage being done; people waiting in lines at
airports; people worried about food inspections; worried about losing
their homes or their cars or their jobs. Entire families, entire
communities are impacted, uncertain, and scared.
In my home State of Washington and in every State in this country, I
have come to the floor time and again to share these stories, along
with many of my Democratic colleagues. We have called on Republican
leaders to stand with us, stand with their constituents, and schedule a
vote to end the shutdown. All it would take is a vote. We know it would
pass, and we can move it through the House and send it to the
President.
S. 109
What have Republican leaders done, instead of scheduling a vote to
help workers and families and small business owners and our economy;
what have they done, instead of standing with their constituents to
reopen this government and end this madness? Well, they have done what
they have always done when they don't know what else to do. They
scheduled a vote to attack women and their healthcare.
I almost couldn't believe it when I heard it. This government is shut
down. People are hurting. They want solutions. They want the government
to open, and Republicans are going to vote to effectively ban abortion
coverage. That is the business on the floor.
Instead of voting to pay Federal workers, they are trying to tell
women what kind of health insurance they can or can't have. Instead of
working to make sure our airports are secure, they want to undermine
women's access to the healthcare they choose. Instead of ending the
chaos and dysfunction and getting our country back on track, they want
to chip away again at every woman's constitutionally protected right to
make her own healthcare decisions. Instead of working with us to end
the shutdown and then having a debate on border security or anything
else they want to talk about, they are planning a vote that will not do
anything but tell women across the country what they already know:
Republicans in Washington, DC, think they know better than you about
your healthcare.
Let me be clear. They don't.
This is disgusting. Women and men across the country are not going to
stand for it. We can vote right now to open the government. We can vote
right now to help our workers and our families. We can vote right now
to end governing by Presidential tantrum. If Republicans don't do
this--if they choose, as they have, to attack women and to throw their
healthcare under the bus instead of doing their basic jobs--then the
people across this country are going to see exactly where they stand--
not with them, not with their families, not with their constituents,
and certainly not with women.
I urge the Republicans to end this madness--to pull this anti-women
health vote--and to, instead, schedule a vote to reopen the government.
That is what we should be focused on. That is what Americans want us to
do. We need to end this. Let's reopen the government, not attack women
one more time.
I yield the floor.
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. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cramer). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
March for Life
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, more than 100,000 people and families will
join together in the March for Life in Washington that is going to take
place tomorrow. They will brave the cold--there is supposed to be sleet
and bad weather--for one simple reason, to give voice to the voiceless,
the unborn, our most vulnerable among us but are still deserving of the
right to life.
Jeremiah 1:5 says:
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
Before you were born I sanctified you.
To everyone who comes to the March for Life, know that we hear you,
and we are standing with you, just as we have in the past.
This is not a new topic, not for me to speak on either. Twenty-five
years ago, I came down to tell a story. At that time, I was in the
House. This has been going on for a long period of time. I came down
here to tell the story of Hannah Rosa Rodriguez. This is a quote from
1992:
Mr. Chairman, there is a big misconception regarding abortion and the
issue of women and their right to protect their bodies. It is not that
right that I object to but the right that is given them to kill an
unborn fetus--an unborn child.
I want to share with you a story that my colleague Chris Smith told
me some time ago on this floor. That was 1992.
Ana Rosa Rodriguez is an abortion survivor. This is another group of
people we haven't talked about very much on the floor. At birth, she
was a healthy 3-pound baby girl, except for her injury; she was missing
an arm. Ana survived a botched abortion.
Her mother attempted to get an abortion in her 32nd week of pregnancy
when she was perfectly healthy--8 weeks past what New York State law
legally allows. In the unsuccessful abortion attempt, the baby's right
arm was ripped off. However, they failed to kill Ana Rosa. She lived.
Pro-life supporters agree that nightmare situations like the Rodriguez
case are probably not common, but abortion-related deaths and serious
injuries occur more frequently than most people are aware.
It is amazing that we can pay so much attention to issues such as
human rights abroad and can allow the violent destruction of over 26
million children here at home. We are fortunate that Ana was not one of
those children. She survived.
That was 1992, but today we still don't have Federal protections for
the babies who survive the brutal abortion process. I am working with
Senator Sasse, who is leading the effort this year to reintroduce the
Born Alive Abortion Survivor Act, which would ensure that a baby who
survives an abortion will receive the same treatment as any child
naturally born premature at the same age, without prescribing any
particular form of treatment. That is just morally right, and I don't
see how anyone could vote against something like that. We will find
out.
Just a few years later, in 1997, I was on the floor of this body, the
U.S. Senate, with my good friend former Senator Rick Santorum, to try
to pass the partial birth abortion ban and end the horrific practice of
late-term abortions. I remember how active Senator Rick Santorum was at
that time, a real leader in the pro-life cause. I spoke then, 1997, on
the floor:
I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for yielding time. I think he
made one of the best presentations I have heard on the floor of this
body. I want to say that, when he deals with the facts, he is dealing
with the facts but, you know, we are also dealing today with
perceptions.
I tried to make a list of those things I have heard over and over.
There is a lot of redundancy on this floor, but there are some things
that have not been stated. I would like to share a couple of those with
you.
[[Page S262]]
I am going to do something that is a little unusual because I am
going to read some Scriptures to you. It is not totally unprecedented
in this body. In fact, I have done it many, many times. The
distinguished Senator from West Virginia does it quite often.
I was talking about Bob Byrd. We remember Bob Byrd. He is deceased
now, but this was 1997, and he read Scriptures every day on the floor
of this Senate.
So I would like to read a couple of Scriptures, just for those who
care. Anyone who does not, just don't listen.
First of all, I have used this a number of times. Jeremiah 1:35 says:
``Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I
sanctified you.'' The 139th Psalm, no matter which interpretation you
use, makes it very clear when life begins. Life begins at conception.
Then I was, not too long ago, at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.
I had been to the museum in Jerusalem, and I found the same thing was
printed on the last brick as you are going through. This is Deuteronomy
30:19. It said: ``I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against
you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing;
therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live.''
Last, I am also concerned that something that is as dramatic and as
significant as this issue is going to go unnoticed; that maybe there
are Senators out there who are not really into this issue, and they
might want to vote the party line or they might want to say, well,
maybe there aren't as many of these procedures out there, so they just
really are not knowledgeable on the subject. So I will read Proverbs
24:11-12:
Rescue those who are unjustly sentenced to death; don't
stand back and let them die. Don't try to disclaim
responsibility by saying you didn't know about it. For God,
who knows all hearts, knows yours, and He knows you knew.
That is pretty specific.
Mr. President, I was listening to the Senator from Massachusetts who
said it does not do any good if we pass this because the President is
going to veto it anyway.
That was actually in 1997. The President, if you remember, at that
time, I advised the chairman, was Bill Clinton.
But I suggest to you that the President may not veto it, and if he
does veto it, maybe some people will come over who were not here a year
ago on this side of the aisle.
See, this was 1997. It was pretty close back then. It could have gone
either way.
One individual at the time was Ron Fitzsimmons, who just last year
insisted that the number of partial birth abortions were a relative
handful now admits: ``I lied through my teeth.'' He was lying. So if
the President is predicating his decision to veto this ban on the basis
of what was told to him by Ron Fitzsimmons, there is every reason to
believe he could turn around on the issue. I suggest also that we are
talking now not just about a procedure but a culture.
I have a very good friend by the name of Charles Colson. We all
remember Chuck Colson. He is the guy who started the Campus Crusade for
Christ. He gave these remarks upon winning the prestigious Templeton
Prize for a contribution to religion. Listen very carefully. He puts it
all together, not isolating one procedure or one issue. He said:
Courts [like to] strike down even perfunctory prayers, and
we are surprised that schools, bristling with barbed wire,
look more like prisons than prisons do. Universities reject
the very idea of truth, and we are shocked when their best
and their brightest loot and betray.
Celebrities mock the traditional family, even revile it as
a form of slavery, and we are appalled at the tragedy of
broken homes and millions of unwed mothers. The media
celebrate sex without responsibility, and we are horrified by
plagues. Our lawmakers justify the taking of innocent lives
in sterile clinics, and we are terrorized by the disregard
for life in blood-soaked streets.
I think that puts into context what we are now approaching--that it
is not just a normal type of abortion.
I have a great deal of respect for one of the most intellectual
Members of this body. Keep in mind that this is 1997. His name is
Patrick Moynihan--a very good man. He is from New York. Not many people
know that he actually lived in his early years as my neighbor in Tulsa,
OK. Again, at that time, nobody knew it until I mentioned it.
He was a self-proclaimed pro-choice Senator. He said: ``And now we
have testimony that it is not just too close to infanticide; it is
infanticide, and one would be too many.''
That is Patrick Moynihan. He is thought of and respected as one of
the great liberal scholars of this body.
This is where we get the numbers game. I heard it said on the floor
many times that we are talking about maybe 1 percent or that maybe
talking about those who are in the ninth month may be an infinitesimal
number, but in fact, one is too many. It was said on the floor that we
may be only talking about 200 lives being taken during the normal
delivery process. That is when a baby is given a natural birth and,
yet, they take the life by using this barbaric procedure. We have all
kinds of documentation that it is being done in the ninth month and
during the normal birth process. They say only 200--only 200 lives are
taken.
I agree with Patrick Moynihan. I am totally in a different philosophy
than he is, but one is too many.
I am from Oklahoma, and some of you remember that we lost 168 lives
in the Murrah Federal Office Building bombing. This was the largest
domestic terrorist attack in American history. Did anybody say that is
only 168 lives that were lost in Oklahoma City? No, the entire Nation
came with compassion and mourned with us.
One life--I agree with Senator Moynihan--is too many.
One other issue that has not been discussed in this debate this
year--keep in mind that is 1997--is that of pain. Rather than go into
it--I do not think anyone refutes the fact that a small baby, if that
baby is certainly past the second trimester, feels pain every bit as
much as anybody who is in here, as any Member of the U.S. Senate would
feel pain.
There was a study conducted in London, and I have the results here,
but I think everyone understands that this is something that is very
real--that these babies do feel pain.
My junior Senator gave an excellent speech on the floor, and he
talked about all of these issues in a different way, but he is doing it
currently, and we are talking about now quite a number of years ago.
I have a picture of a good friend of mine with me. His name is Jase--
James Edward Rapert.
Back when people our age were having babies--I am talking about
myself now. Kay and I have been married 59 years. We have 20 kids and
grandkids. We know a little bit about this. Back at that time when they
were having babies, they wouldn't even let you in the hospital, let
alone the delivery room.
When my daughter Molly called up and said, ``Daddy, the time is here;
could you come over,'' I went over to the hospital, and she said: Would
you like to come into the delivery room?
I said: Yes, I would.
I saw for the first time what many of you in this room have seen and
many of the women have experienced firsthand. I was there when this
little guy was born. It is hard to describe to some of the men here who
have not been through that experience of seeing this wonderful life
begin, and I can remember when, in that room where the delivery took
place, it occurred to me that when baby Jase, my grandson, was born,
that is the moment when they could have used this procedure inflicting
all of the pain you have heard described so many times: going into the
cranium with the scissors, opening the scissors, sucking the brains
out, and the skull collapses.
That is pain, and there are individuals who want to keep a procedure
like this legal. If you did that to a dog, they would picket in front
of your office. Somehow, we have developed a culture that puts a
greater value on the lives of critters than human life. I watched baby
Jase being born. I suggest to those of you who are concerned about
choice that this is really the choice. It is either that choice or this
choice, and these choices we are facing today.
This is something on which I agree with the Senator from
Pennsylvania. I was talking at that time about Rick Santorum.
We should not be having to talk about it. To think that 100 years
from
[[Page S263]]
now they may look back and talk about that barbaric society that killed
their own young, and here we are just trying to save a few lives from a
very painful death. Nonetheless, that is the issue we are faced with
today.
I gave that speech in 1997 and again in 1998 and year after year
until we won the battle and finally ended the practice of partial-birth
abortion in 2003--a ban that was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2007.
There is still much more that needs to be done to end abortion on
demand culture.
President Trump gets this. He was the first sitting President to
speak at March for Life, and his administration has made real progress
to advance the pro-life agenda. He has reinstated the Mexico City
policy. We remember what that was. It was the one that bans taxpayer
money from funding abortions abroad and directed the Justice Department
to formally investigate Planned Parenthood.
President Trump also directed the Department of Health and Human
Services to expand religious and conscience exemptions to protect
individuals' religious liberty.
I am working in Congress to end the practice of abortion on demand
that strips opportunity away from unborn babies and deprives them of
the right to life.
This week I have joined my colleagues in introducing five commonsense
bills--this is taking place right now, as we speak--in addition to the
Born Alive Abortion Survivors Act, by Senator Sasse, which I mentioned
earlier in this presentation. The No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act,
working with Senator Wicker, would establish a governmentwide statutory
prohibition on taxpayer subsidies for abortion and abortion coverage--
simple enough. I am pleased that Majority Leader McConnell has set up a
procedural vote for this bill today.
There is the Life at Conception Act, which Senator Paul has, which
would recognize that life begins at conception.
The Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, led by Senator
Blackburn--one of our brand-new freshman Senators--would prohibit title
X family planning funds. Those are taxpayer funds now being used to
subsidize abortions.
You might be wondering how that is different from the one just talked
about. Here is how. Every year, Planned Parenthood receives nearly $60
million from the American taxpayer through title X family planning
program. The program is intended to assist low-income women with family
planning services. Unfortunately, this money is being used to subsidize
massive organizations that engage in abortion activities, such as
Planned Parenthood, and we need to stop that.
The Protect Funding for Women's Health Care Act, led by Senator
Ernst, would prohibit all Federal funding of Planned Parenthood.
I also cosponsored the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act,
led by Senator Rubio, which would prohibit individuals from taking
minors across State lines where they have lax laws just to have an
abortion, stopping their States from having the jurisdiction.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I am cosponsoring Senator
Graham's Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would prohibit
abortions from being performed on unborn babies after 20 weeks, when we
know they can feel pain. Only five countries allow abortions after 20
weeks, including the United States and North Korea, and that is
unacceptable.
I wish to acknowledge a very important day. Religious Freedom Day is
today. It is clear that our Founding Fathers recognized and enshrined
the importance of religious liberty--one of our most precious and
foundational religious freedoms, which allowed them to live their lives
according to the teachings of the Bible.
I have long been a strong advocate of the basic human right to freely
worship, and I am glad we can take a moment today to recognize that.
Anyway, all from speeches from 1992 and 1997--it is as true today as
it was then. We are ready to start saving lives instead of taking the
most vulnerable little lives, and we are ready now.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Government Funding
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, a few minutes ago, I got off the phone with
Jasmine Tool, who is an Oregonian living with an inoperable brain
tumor. As the shutdown lingers on, I want to share her story because
she has been bearing the unthinkable consequences of her illness.
I am going to start today by asking: How can a country as rich and
good and strong as the United States of America let Jasmine Tool suffer
this way?
She is a 34-year-old mother of two young children. She lives in Lake
County, a rural community in south central Oregon. She is a public
servant, an employee of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. She has
been living with an inoperable brain tumor. The cancer has caused
related debilitating conditions. She is in and out of hospital
emergency rooms. Her digestive system is impaired. With the invaluable
care provided by a home health worker, she takes in liquids and
nutritional infusions through tubing that is plugged into her abdomen.
Because she lives in a rural area, her treatment can require long-
distance travel. That is hard to deal with when you are suffering from
the flu. Just imagine how hard it is with a brain tumor, a broken
digestive tract, and feeding tubes attached to your body that prevent
you from eating or drinking normally.
She is confronting this health challenge with remarkable bravery, and
I don't believe there is a single Member of the U.S. Senate who would
wish Jasmine's struggle on their very worst enemy.
Then comes the government shutdown.
Jasmine was due to travel to Nevada this month for treatment related
to her tumor, but last week, as she was prepared to go, she was
informed that her health insurance had lapsed. Initially, she thought
it might be--we all know with insurance--kind of a recent hiccup or
recent problem, something that could be corrected quickly.
This week, she learned that it lapsed in October--October, months
ago--and her insurance company told her that only her employer could
fix it.
Jasmine's employer is shut down. Nobody is answering the phones.
Right now, Jasmine Tool is suffering--this mother of two--and is unable
to determine what caused the lapse in her coverage or what can be done
to get it fixed.
The most immediate threat is this: Jasmine was told that her home
health assistant cannot continue to help her if she doesn't have
insurance. That means that within days this 30-year-old mom will not be
able to get the infusions she needs to stay alive.
Now, if that isn't enough, Jasmine has been failed by the government
on multiple occasions. Shortly after she went on medical leave in early
2017, she began the process of applying for disability--disability
retirement. She worked with the appropriate human resources official to
prepare the paperwork to send to the Office of Personnel Management.
She thought, as anybody would, that the process was underway and she
would hear back soon about the results of her application.
She just learned recently that the official who prepared the
documents retired without sending them in. For a year and a half, while
Jasmine fought cancer and was just hoping to get some positive news,
her disability paperwork sat in an unused office--just sat there
collecting dust.
She had to travel to that office against her doctor's orders to
finalize the paperwork once more and prevent a loss of benefits. But
the Office of Personnel Management--that is shut down too. Jasmine
hasn't been able to learn where her benefits stand.
It is too cruel already that thousands and thousands of American
workers are going without paychecks. This shutdown is making victims of
those who do public service. But consider what it is doing to this
young mother of two, a woman who is currently fighting for her life
right now.
Because of this shutdown, she can't figure out how to restore her
health insurance. She can't get the status of her disability
application. She could be cut off--I just talked to her--from her
nutritional supplements in a matter of days. That means Jasmine could
starve. That is what she just told me.
So I have been talking to people who have suffered from health
challenges
[[Page S264]]
for a long time--director of the Grey Panthers about 7 years at home. I
listened to Jasmine and I just said: How can it be that there is no
outbreak of conscience here--no outbreak of conscience here in this
Senate? How can a country as rich and powerful as ours fail Jasmine in
such a shameful way?
Our country is going to spend $3.5 trillion on healthcare--$3.5
trillion on healthcare--this year. It is not a lack of money that is
causing this nightmare for Jasmine Tool in rural Oregon.
With the government reopened, things would be different. Things would
be very different for Jasmine. There would be somebody on the other end
of the phone line to tell Jasmine what happened to her insurance, and
because of the professionalism of those in these positions, I think
they could tell her how to renew that insurance. There would be
somebody to tell her what is happening with her disability application.
Jasmine could bring back her home health aide and get the infusions she
needs to survive.
So I am asking the Senate, how can this be allowed to continue? How
can this be allowed to continue? The Senate passed a bipartisan
government funding bill by voice vote just 2 weeks ago in the previous
Congress.
I see Senator Collins. She has a longstanding interest in these
healthcare issues. Senator Sasse also, I know from our conversations,
has a heart and cares about people.
The House passed this legislation. The pathway out of this shutdown
is right in front of us if the majority leader would decide when to
bring up the legislation again, and we could do it tonight. Jasmine
Tool could get the lifesaving healthcare that she needs, based on our
conversation, by week's end, so she will not starve.
Otherwise, unless the majority leader calls it up, it seems to me the
White House has no plan to end this shutdown. So I just think it has to
end right here--right here in the U.S. Senate, where all of us say:
This cannot go on any longer.
I just spoke to a young mom in rural Oregon who is in a fight for her
life, a fight for her survival.
Colleagues who are here, I am sure Jasmine is not the only such case
in America. Jasmine Tool--my guess is, there are plenty of others in
communities across the country. Jasmine Tool does not have the luxury
of time.
I am going to go back to my office. My staff here, my staff folks in
Oregon--we are just going to be pulling out all the stops now because
it really is a matter of hours to get Jasmine the help she needs. We do
it recognizing that there is only one immediate solution: The shutdown
must end, and it must end now.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, government shutdowns are never the
answer. No matter how difficult the problem, we should never resort to
shutting down government. It harms too many innocent Federal
employees--in this case, 800,000 Federal employees and their families--
and it hampers the ability of American citizens to deal with their
government.
At the same time, we do have a problem at our southern border. We do
need to strengthen our border security and fix our broken immigration
system. We need to address the issue of the Dreamers population, those
young children brought to this country through no decision of their own
who are now, often, young adults and who are going to school or working
or otherwise serving in the military or contributing to our country.
The outlines of a compromise are evident, but in order to get there,
I believe we need to assure the President that we will seriously
consider his supplemental request for border security, a request that
includes not just funding for additional physical barriers to
supplement the more than 600 miles of physical barriers--walls,
fences--that were built during two previous administrations but also
includes $800 million to meet the humanitarian needs of those who are
crossing the border. It also includes additional funding for Border
Patrol agents and for Immigration and Customs and Border Enforcement.
This simply cannot continue. We need to come together in good faith,
reopen government for a limited period of time at least, and negotiate
a package that will strengthen security on our borders, and that is
what I would urge the President, his administration, and my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle to do.
In the meantime, we also need to get back to the work of the Senate.
That, too, is important, and today I rise to introduce a bill that
would help Americans who are struggling with high healthcare expenses.
The tax deduction for certain unreimbursed, out-of-pocket medical
expenses affects many taxpayers significantly.
Regrettably, the threshold to claim this important tax deduction rose
from 7.5 percent to 10 percent of income at the end of 2018, ending its
value for many American taxpayers who simply will no longer qualify.
Today, I reintroduce legislation, which I have sponsored with my
colleague Senator Cantwell, that would reinstate and make permanent the
lower income threshold for the medical expense deduction. Our bill, the
Medical Expense Savings Act, would once again allow taxpayers to deduct
unreimbursed healthcare costs that exceed 7.5 percent of their income.
For those who suffer from preexisting medical conditions, have
chronic illnesses, experience unexpected sickness or injuries, or
require long term care, out-of-pocket healthcare expenses can quickly
become an unbearable burden. Too many Americans are forced to choose
between medical services and other equally necessary expenditures or
they find themselves going deeply in debt.
The Affordable Care Act increased the income threshold for taxpayers
to deduct their medical expenses from 7.5 percent to 10 percent. I very
much opposed that provision of the ACA. For individuals under 65, the
increase went into effect in 2013, but for those over 65, individuals
would have been exposed to this higher threshold for the first time in
2017. Fortunately, we were able to remedy that for those over age 65.
When the ACA increase was phased in, many individuals struggling with
serious health conditions saw their financial health worsen. For
example, a 2016 study estimates that parents, including many with
limited means, already provide nearly $36 billion annually in
uncompensated medical care at home to children with special healthcare
needs, such as muscular dystrophy and cystic fibrosis.
A 2016 survey of cancer survivors showed that one-third go into debt,
and of those, more than half incurred more than $10,000 in unreimbursed
expenses.
For seniors with significant long-term care needs, the deduction
helps with the cost of home health or personal care services or, when
needed, the cost of a long-term care facility, such as a nursing home.
The deduction can also be used for other expenses that Medicare
generally does not cover, including dental treatment, vision care, and
certain transportation costs. Seniors can also use the medical expense
deduction for expenses like wheelchair ramps, installing railings and
support bars in bathrooms, and lowering or modifying kitchen cabinets
and equipment and other home modifications made for medical reasons.
These improvements can allow seniors with medical conditions or
disabilities to live at home in the safety, comfort, and familiarity of
their own home.
Some seniors find that their savings become rapidly depleted. They
may spend down their financial resources in order to receive the
services and support they require through the Medicaid Program.
According to Genworth's 2018 Cost of Care Survey, home health aide
services can cost $50,000 annually, while a private room at a nursing
home can cost nearly $100,000. By retaining a lower threshold for the
medical expense tax deduction, some families would be able to continue
to pay these essential costs themselves.
Some erroneously believe that this deduction only benefits the
wealthy, when, in fact, it is mainly lower and middle-income Americans
who have been hurt. According to AARP, nearly 70 percent of taxpayers
taking the deduction in 2014 reported income of $75,000 or less, and
nearly half reported incomes of $50,000 or less. In Maine, according to
AARP, almost 36,000 of our residents claimed this deduction in 2014,
and nearly 19,000 of these individuals reported an income of $50,000 or
less.
[[Page S265]]
That is why, during the tax reform debate in 2017, I introduced a
successful amendment that rolled back the income threshold to 7.5
percent for taxpayers to deduct their medical expenses in 2017 and
2018. My amendment expanded upon the efforts of Senators Rob Portman
and Sherrod Brown, who had worked to prevent this increase from going
into effect for individuals over 65. As I said, my amendment was
incorporated into the new tax law, and thus, for 2017 and for 2018, the
threshold for deducting these out-of-pocket medical costs was 7.5
percent of income. But at the end of last year, that expired.
The AARP and 44 other consumer groups have strongly endorsed the
effort undertaken by Senator Cantwell and me, stating that ``it
provides important tax relief which helps offset the costs of acute and
chronic medical conditions for older Americans, children, pregnant
women, disabled individuals, and other adults as well as the costs
associated with long-term care and assisted living.''
This is a step we can take to reinstate an expired tax deduction that
will make a real difference to people who are struggling with high out-
of-pocket medical costs.
I urge my colleagues to support our legislation that will help our
families cope with high medical costs by making sure that this
important deduction remains available for future tax years.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a letter from AARP dated January 15, 2019, endorsing the Collins-
Cantwell legislation.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
AARP,
Washington, January 15, 2019.
Hon. Susan Collins,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Maria Cantwell,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Collins and Cantwell: On behalf of our
members and all Americans age 50 and older, AARP is writing
to thank you for introducing the Medical Expense Savings Act
(S. 110), legislation to permanently extend the 7.5 percent
income threshold for the medical expense deduction AARP, with
its more than 38 million members in all 50 states, the
District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories, represents
individuals seeking financial stability while managing their
health care and every effort should be made to keep the
threshold for the deduction as low as possible to help
protect those with high medical costs.
The medical expense deduction provides important tax relief
that helps offset the cost of acute and chronic medical
conditions for older Americans, children, and individuals
with disabilities. For many, the medical expense deduction
can help offset high out-of-pocket expenses--expenses that
qualify include money paid for diagnosis, treatment,
equipment, long-term care services, and long-term care
insurance premiums.
The tax filers who claim the medical expense deduction have
historically been age 50 or older and living with a chronic
condition or illness. The average Medicare beneficiary spends
about $5,680 out of pocket on medical care. The medical
expense deduction makes health care more affordable for
people with significant out-of-pocket expenses.
Furthermore, older Americans often face high costs for
long-term services and supports--which are generally not
covered by Medicare--as well as hospitalizations and
prescription drugs. The median cost for a private room in a
nursing home is over $97,000 annually, while the median cost
for even more cost-effective home-based care is still over
$30,000 per year (for 20 hours of care a week). In 2013,
roughly 25.8 million beneficiaries in traditional Medicare
spent at least 10 percent of their income on out-of-pocket
health care expenses. Tax relief in this area can provide
needed resources, especially important to middle income
seniors with high long-term care and medical costs.
The medical expense deduction is a critical tool in
managing health care cost for Americans with high out-of-
pocket expenses. For these reasons, we are pleased to endorse
this legislation and look forward to working on a bipartisan
basis with you to enact this legislation into law. If you
have any questions or need additional information, please
feel free to contact me or Jasmine Vasquez.
Sincerely,
Joyce A. Rogers,
Senior Vice President,
Government Affairs.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
____________________