[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 150 (Wednesday, September 18, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5562-S5569]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the
Senate the message to accompany S. 1790.
The Presiding Officer laid before the Senate the following message
from the House of Representatives:
Resolved, That the House insist upon its amendment to the
bill (S. 1790), entitled ``An Act to authorize appropriations
for fiscal year 2020 for military activities of the
Department of Defense, for military construction, and for
defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe
military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes,'' and ask for a conference with the Senate on
the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon.
Compound Motion
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move that the Senate disagree to the
House amendment, agree to the request of the House for conference, and
authorize the Chair to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.
[[Page S5563]]
Cloture Motion
Mr. McCONNELL. I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The bill clerk read as follows
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
disagree in the House amendment, agree to the request from
the House for a conference, and authorize the Chair to
appoint conferees in relation to S. 1790, a bill to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2020 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and
for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to
prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year,
and for other purposes.
James M. Inhofe, Shelley Moore Capito, Thom Tillis, John
Boozman, Cindy Hyde-Smith, Jerry Moran, John Cornyn,
Mike Crapo, Johnny Isakson, Joni Ernst, James E. Risch,
Roger F. Wicker, David Perdue, John Thune, Mike Rounds,
Kevin Cramer, Mitch McConnell.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call
be waived and that the cloture vote occur at a time to be determined by
the two leaders.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Tribute to Lamar Alexander
Mr. McCONNELL. Now, Mr. President, this week our friend and
colleague, the senior Senator from Tennessee, will mark a major
milestone in his State's history.
As of tomorrow, Lamar Alexander will have served as Tennessee's
Governor or U.S. Senator for 24 years, 8 months, and 15 days--more
combined years and offices than any other Tennessean.
Of course, Senator Alexander also remains the only Tennessee Governor
ever popularly elected to the Senate. He is the only Tennessee
Republican to be undefeated in six statewide primary elections. And his
2008 general election vote total of 1,579,477 votes is still the
largest ever recorded by a Tennessee statewide candidate.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement from the
Tennessee secretary of state, Tre Hargett, who has calculated each of
these political accomplishments, be printed in the Record following my
remarks.
As impressive as these statistics are, all of Lamar Alexander's
colleagues know that political record-setting is not what makes him
tick. Here is something he likes to say about serving in the Senate:
It's hard to get here. It's hard to stay here. So while
you're here, you might as well try to accomplish something.
Well, he certainly lived out his own advice. During Senator
Alexander's very first term, he got 70 Senators to support his
bipartisan America COMPETES Act to help our country stay competitive
with the rest of the world. He even persuaded the Democratic and
Republican leaders to join forces as the principal sponsors. When it
was enacted in 2007, everyone knew who the chief engineer had been.
Senator Dan Inouye said at the time:
I wish to commend my colleague, Senator Alexander, for his
broad and very intricate history of bipartisanship. If all of
us in this body follow this process in all major legislation,
this would be a historic session. . . . I thank the Senator
from Tennessee very much.
That was Senator Dan Inouye from Hawaii.
Then in 2012, after being elected three times by his peers as
chairman of the Republican conference, Lamar did something that is not
often done around here: He gave up that power and his future ambitions
for elected Senate leadership in order to ``spend more time working to
achieve results on the issues I care the most about.''
Since then, not coincidentally, there have been a steady stream of
important new laws dealing with those very issues. Time after time,
Lamar has taken the lead, often as the principal sponsor or chief
engineer. He has worked behind the scenes. He has collaborated across
the aisle to get things done. He hasn't often stepped into the
spotlight himself, but he has almost always been the key driving force.
As chairman of the Senate HELP Committee, he worked with Senator
Patty Murray to fix No Child Left Behind. President Obama called it ``a
Christmas miracle,'' and the Wall Street Journal said it was the
greatest devolution of power to States in a quarter-century. The
Nation's Governors and the National Education Association recognized
Lamar with awards. We are dealing with a rare public servant who can
literally win plaudits from the Wall Street Journal editorial board and
the Nation's largest teachers union at the same time.
In 2013, Senator Alexander was one of a group of Senators who
revamped Federal student loans with a new market-based interest rate to
save hundreds of millions of dollars for students attending college.
In 2016, he and Senator Murray sponsored the 21st Century Cures Act.
It is landmark legislation that I was proud to be involved with and
view as the most significant law of that entire Congress.
In 2018, again with Senator Murray, he offered the landmark Opioid
Crisis Response Act. President Trump called it ``the single largest
bill to combat a drug crisis in the history of our country.''
Last year, working with Senator Hatch, he was the chief engineer of
once-in-a-generation legislation to ensure America's songwriters are
paid fair-market value for their work.
For the last 5 years, as chairman of the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Subcommittee, he has worked with Ranking Member
Feinstein to deliver record funding for our National Laboratories,
funding to keep America No. 1 in supercomputing, and 6 years of full
funding for inland waterway infrastructure.
This is quite a distinguished record, and this is far from all of it.
I have heard that Senator Alexander explains to Tennesseans that they
can think of Congress like a split-screen television show. On one side
are the dramatic public fights, the partisan showdowns, but on the
other side, he explains, you see huge bipartisan majorities working
diligently on issues that directly affect the daily lives of millions
of Americans. Well, that side of the screen is where you will find
Senator Alexander. In fact, he is a star player.
Senator Alexander has announced he won't seek a fourth term in 2020.
While the end of his time here may be in sight, I am confident the
catalog of his hard work and leadership is nowhere near complete just
yet. As chairman of HELP, he and Senator Murray have reported the Lower
Healthcare Costs Act to the full Senate. They are working together to
reauthorize and update the Higher Education Act. He and Senator
Feinstein have produced an appropriations bill--passed by the
Appropriations Committee--that would provide a fifth year of record
funding for the National Laboratories, a sixth year of full funding for
our inland waterway infrastructure, and the resources to keep America
No. 1 in supercomputing. And there is almost certainly more to come
over the next year and a half. Lamar's service reminds us that there
are many ways to be a transformational leader in this body.
As a young man, I was an intern for Senator John Sherman Cooper of
Kentucky. He was never an elected leader but was always regarded by his
colleagues as a leader because of his willingness to do what he thought
ought to be done. Senator Cooper once said to me:
I not only represent Kentucky, I represent the Nation, and
there are times you follow, and times when you lead.
In fact, two of the three Senate office buildings are named for
Senators who were never elected the leader of their party's caucus.
Lamar Alexander is just that kind of leader.
We are proud to celebrate this milestone as Senator Alexander notches
more combined years as Senator and Governor than anyone else from his
State, but even more, we recognize the example the Senator has set for
all the rest of us. It is just like he says:
It's hard to get here. It's hard to stay here. So while
you're here, you might as well try to accomplish something.
Congratulations, my friend.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
September 17, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Alexander: I am writing to congratulate you on
your record years of
[[Page S5564]]
service to Tennessee. On September 19, 2019, you will have
served more combined years as either Governor or United
States Senator from Tennessee than any other Tennessean. This
is a milestone that illustrates your dedication to public
service and to Tennesseans.
September 19, 2019, marks your 9,024th day in office as
either Tennessee Governor or U.S. Senator from Tennessee.
Your 24 years, 8 months, and 15 days of service will then
surpass the previous longest serving Governor and United
State Senator from Tennessee, Isham Harris.
This is just one of your many elections records in the
state. You are the only Tennessee Governor ever popularly
elected to the United States Senate. You have won more
Tennessee Republican statewide primary elections--six--than
any other Tennessean. And your 2008 general election vote
total--1,579,477 votes--is the largest vote total ever
recorded by a Tennessee statewide candidate.
I congratulate you on this, and your many other, great
accomplishments and I thank you for your service to our great
state.
Sincerely,
Tre Hargett,
Secretary of State.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, it is such an honor to be here
following Leader McConnell and talk about the achievements of our
State's senior Senator and recognize his wonderful work, not only in DC
but also in Tennessee. I want to touch on just a few of those
highlights and the importance to our State.
For me, being a State senator involved in our community, coming to
serve in Congress, and now serving in the Senate with our senior
Senator is something that is a wonderful experience.
The majority leader just mentioned that our senior Senator will
retire at the end of next year. Of course, we are all going to miss
seeing him around Capitol Hill. Senator Alexander has really
distinguished himself as a man who is committed to Tennessee tradition
and to helping Tennessee find prominence on the global stage.
Anyone who has ever entered Senator Alexander's office knows that he
is a music lover. What they may not know is that he is also both a
classically trained pianist and a pretty good gospel and country
pianist. He has even performed on the stage of the Grand Ole Opry, and
rumor has it that he really rocked the house the night he was there.
His love of music and of Tennessee's musicians has caused him to work
tirelessly in these efforts.
In the House, I started a songwriters' caucus. He did likewise in the
Senate, bringing the issues that confront our Nation's performers into
the Senate, finding solutions, and, as the leader mentioned, passing
and being instrumental in the crafting--not just the passing--of the
Music Modernization Act. He was honored just this week by the Nashville
Songwriters Association International, which gave him the White Hat
Award. This is an honor that he and I share.
It is important to note that the White Hat Award has only been given
15 times in the 52 years of that organization's history.
As Governor--then Governor, now Senator Alexander opened the doors to
automobile industries, including Saturn, GM, Nissan, and auto parts
producers, which solidified Tennessee's place in the global economy. As
Senator, he has focused on improving Tennessee from the inside out,
giving priority to practical concerns. He led the charge on healthcare,
education, and, as the leader mentioned, the opioid crisis. He has
supported teachers, stood up for working moms, and enacted tax policies
that kept more money in the wallets of Tennesseans.
Today, I rise to honor a leader, a friend, and, I have to say, the
team captain for our annual Crockett Cup baseball game. And they were
the winners. They are the holders of the Crockett Cup.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
S. 1790
Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I rise to urge this body to protect the
Constitution, to defend the separation of powers, and to prevent an
unauthorized, unconstitutional war with Iran.
The Constitution is clear. Under our article I powers, the
Constitution spells out that Congress shall have the authority to
declare war.
The Founders debated which branch of government should be given the
solemn power to wage war. Entering into battle had been the personal
prerogative of Kings, and Kings had shown that they would bankrupt
their countries and risk lives because of self-serving, power-seeking
feuds.
Therefore, our Constitution's Founders placed the decision to go to
war with the people's representatives. They wanted any decision to wage
war to reflect the will of the people. They deliberately rejected
giving this most consequential decision only to the President.
Yet, despite the clarity of the Constitution, President Trump
insists--without any equivocation--that he does not need congressional
approval to engage in military hostilities against Iran, and now,
instead of working with the U.S. Congress, he is publicly deferring to
the royal family of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Our President said we
are waiting for Saudi Arabia to say ``under what terms we would
proceed.''
When discussing retaliation for the attack on a Saudi oil-processing
facility, our President has praised the Saudis as good customers who
``[pay] cash.''
President Trump explained further as follows:
[T]he fact is that the Saudis are going to have a lot of
involvement in this if we decide to do something. They'll be
very much involved, and that includes payment. And they
understand that fully.
Does this Congress think the patriotic men and women of our military
are mercenaries at the service of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? I reject
that idea completely. When a President is threatening a military attack
because of a foreign King's oil interests, it is well past time for
Congress to assert its institutional authority.
Congress needs to make it clear: The President cannot begin a war
with Iran without coming here first, coming here to the Congress.
In June, we voted on a bipartisan amendment to the National Defense
Authorization Act that prohibited any war with Iran unless authorized
by Congress.
Getting a vote on the Udall-Kaine-Paul amendment was historic, and a
bipartisan majority of Senators voted to support our amendment that
day.
The House of Representatives has sent us its NDAA, which includes a
bipartisan provision prohibiting war against Iran without congressional
approval. The NDAA is now going to a Senate-House conference committee.
The conference committee must adopt our amendment that prohibits
unauthorized war against Iran.
Since our vote in June, tensions with Iran have not subsided; they
have only increased. The threat of miscalculation and unauthorized war
has only gotten more serious. This week, the President, on Twitter, is
threatening that the U.S. military is ``locked and loaded'' on behalf
of the Saudi Kingdom.
Iran's behavior in the region is highly problematic, but Saudi
Arabia's oil interests do not determine whether the United States goes
to war. Congress determines that, Congress and Congress only, based on
our national interests.
Rather than threats of war, the right move is active diplomacy to
lower tensions in the region.
We are at this point in the Middle East because of the Trump
administration's failed policies. Its unilateral withdrawal from the
Iran nuclear agreement, its maximum pressure policy, its abandonment of
diplomacy--these policies are only causing more chaos in the region and
doing nothing to advance U.S. interests.
When the President unilaterally withdrew from the Iran agreement in
May 2018, against the advice of his military and intelligence Chiefs,
he promised he would get us a better deal.
The deal we had in place secured for the United States and the world
an Iran that would not develop nuclear weapons. It was a deal that had
strict verification requirements and a deal his advisers and outside
independent groups said Iran was complying with.
[[Page S5565]]
It has now been 16 months since the President tore up that deal and
said he could get us a better one. Well, the President's supposed deal-
making prowess has only produced increased tensions, bringing us to the
brink of war.
In June, we were 10 minutes away from an attack that likely would
have cost Iranian lives. Even after that aborted strike, the President
threatened Iran with ``obliteration like you've never seen before.''
Now we are ``locked and loaded.''
While it is a positive development that John Bolton is no longer
whispering in the President's ear--urging regime change in Iran--this
mercurial President could get us into a war before we know it, but
these are my own views about the President's foreign policy. I
understand others in this body do not share them, including others who
voted to support this amendment previously.
I want to underscore that this is not about what you think of the
President. This is about defending the separation of powers as outlined
in the Constitution, and this is about standing up for the will of the
American people. The American people do not want another endless war in
the Middle East.
While our military is the most capable on Earth, no conflict with
Iran would be easy. Iran has twice the population of Iraq and is four
times the size. Even so-called targeted strikes could escalate into a
much wider war.
Make no mistake, our amendment retains the President's authority to
defend against any attack upon us. While the chief complaint from
opponents of the amendment was that it tied the President's hands from
attack, this is a false argument. The amendment expressly reserves the
President's powers to defend the Nation. The Department of Defense's
rules of engagement remain in place. The President's full authority as
Commander in Chief to repel an attack and defend the Nation remains
intact.
If there are still concerns, we can continue to consult experts and
refine language in conference. That is part of the regular order, but
the Defense bill must prohibit an unauthorized war with Iran.
For too long, Congress has abdicated its constitutional duty to
decide matters of war and peace. We have hidden from the hard votes. We
have allowed the Executive to fill the vacuum.
We in this body need to step up to the plate and assume our
constitutional responsibilities. This is not about partisan politics.
This is not about tying the hands of the President in defense of our
country. This vote is not even about whether you think we should or
should not go to war against Iran. Even if you think military action on
behalf of the downed drone or Saudi oil is justified, the place to
debate and make that decision is on this floor in this Congress. It is
not the decision of one man in the White House.
I am making this call to our conferees: Affirm the Constitution.
Affirm our sworn responsibility to uphold the Constitution. Affirm that
our men and women in uniform will not be sent off to risk their lives
in war unless the people's representatives make that somber decision.
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. DURBIN. 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.
Authorization for Use of Military Force
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, Members of the U.S. Senate and House of
Representatives face many votes on many subjects. Most of them you vote
on and forget very quickly. There are some you will never forget. At
least two votes that I cast here 18 years ago are on that list in terms
of my Senate service.
It was 18 years ago, and just shortly after the 9/11 attack in 2001,
in which 3,000 innocent Americans lost their lives. President George W.
Bush came to Congress and asked for authority under our Constitution to
wage a war--in fact, to wage two wars. He wanted authority from the
U.S. Senate and Congress to invade Iraq and to invade Afghanistan.
There was a long debate leading up to it about why it would be
necessary for us to start a war with those two nations.
In the case of Iraq, the argument was made that Saddam Hussein, their
leader, had weapons of mass destruction that were dangerous to the
region and, ultimately, dangerous to the United States. He was a tyrant
and everyone knew it, but those threats were the ones that led many
people to conclude that the invasion of Iraq was necessary. I
disagreed. We cast that vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and 23 of
us voted no--1 Republican and 22 Democrats.
It turned out, after we invaded Iraq and took a close look, there
were no weapons of mass destruction. The real basis for the war did not
exist.
Eighteen years later, having lost almost 5,000 American lives and
spent trillions of dollars, we are still in Iraq. I don't know how this
will ever end or when our troops will finally be able to come home.
Hussein is gone, for sure, but the situation in that country is
certainly not dramatically better than it was when we invaded it. We
couldn't guarantee tomorrow what is going to happen there, whether it
will be stable or friendly to the United States after all we have
invested in, all we have lost in that invasion.
At the same time, we were debating a war in Afghanistan. To me, it
was a different proposition. The administration said: We know the
terrorists responsible for 9/11 are in Afghanistan. What is our message
to those who turn around and attack the United States and kill so many
innocent people?
So I saw Afghanistan different than Iraq, and I voted for the
military effort that was undertaken to go after the terrorist
organization responsible for 9/11, the al-Qaida organization.
It took us years to find Osama bin Laden, who was responsible for
masterminding that deadly day in our history, and to finally bring him
to justice. The fact is, 18 years later, we are still in Afghanistan
today. It is hard to explain. Thousands of American lives have been
lost there. Millions, billions, maybe even trillions of dollars have
been spent. And most people agree, the day after we leave, whenever it
is, the country will revert to what it was before we walked in. There
have been 18 years of sacrifice, 18 years of suffering, and even death,
for America's patriotic soldiers. It is a reminder about these wars
that seem like such a good idea, so necessary, the right way to
respond, and here we sit with two of the longest wars in the history of
the United States.
Now the question is, Are we preparing for another war? I hate to say
those words, but I have to be honest. What this President has done in
our relationship with Iran has brought us to the moment where we have
to ask that question: Is the President preparing to ask us to go to war
against Iran?
The first thing he did--one of the first things--was to disparage the
Iran nuclear agreement, an agreement entered into under President Obama
to stop the development of nuclear weapons in Iran. I thought it was a
good agreement. I supported it and still do. I am not making any
excuses for Iran. They are engaged in conduct around the world that is
inspiring terrorism and threatening our allies and friends. I am making
no excuses for that. But to make certain that Iran did not have nuclear
weapons in the future was the right thing to do.
We entered into this agreement under President Obama. China, Russia,
European nations, and others joined us, and we sent international
inspectors into that country. They reported back to us regularly that
there was no evidence of the development of nuclear weapons, and every
door was open to them. We had surveillance on the ground in a country
that has been largely secretive and isolated. I thought that was the
right thing to do, and I still do. President Trump disagreed, and the
United States withdrew from the Iran nuclear agreement.
Since then, there has been an escalation of tension between our two
nations, between Iran and the United States. Some of it is, clearly, a
reaction by the Iranians to sanctions that we have imposed, which have
caused great problems with Iran and their oil supply. They have
answered in kind by threatening oil tankers from other countries. It is
the kind of escalation you would expect two countries that
[[Page S5566]]
are leading up to a confrontation to engage in. Now the questions are,
Will we, in fact, go to war, and if we are prepared to, will this
President--Donald Trump--follow the Constitution of the United States?
The votes I talked about 18 years ago gave the people of the United
States, through their elected representatives, a decision-making part
of the process. Their Members of Congress voted. The question is
whether President Trump will follow his constitutional responsibility
in coming to Congress for the authority to engage in a war in Iran.
I certainly don't believe the vote I took 18 years ago, before many
of the Members of the Senate were even here, has authorized him or any
President to invade Iran. That was never even considered when we were
in that debate.
Now the question is, Will he come forward and give the American
people a voice in this process in deciding whether we are going to war?
I, for one, look at this with great skepticism and even negativity. A
war is so much easier to get into than it is to get out of. We have
proven that over and over again. Politicians who make the speeches and
rationalize these wars are usually not the ones who face combat and
death on the battlefield. That is turned over to our young women and
men in uniform who bravely fight for the causes we identify as
politicians.
I would sincerely hope what Senator Udall has brought to the floor,
to open a conversation and discussion, is really taken to heart by the
American people and, more importantly, by the White House. As Senator
Udall has reminded us, any President--this President--needs the
constitutional authority to bring this Nation into a war. Without that
authority, he cannot and should not move forward.
They point to the recent attacks on Saudi Arabia and their oilfields.
Of course, they were terrible. Whether they came from Houthi rebels in
Yemen or whether they came from Iran itself, it is terrible, but the
fact is, the United States has not signed an agreement saying we are
prepared to defend Saudi Arabia, whoever attacks them.
We want to have a good alliance with them--it is difficult with the
current leadership--but we haven't entered into a mutual defense pact
by any means. When Saudi Arabia is attacked, we are not required to
muster our American troops in their defense. We should take care and be
thoughtful and not escalate this situation.
Senator Udall's amendment regarding Iran is a straightforward and
timely reaffirmation of what is already in article I, section 8 of the
U.S. Constitution--only the U.S. Congress can declare war. I am pleased
to join him and others in this legislative effort to reaffirm that
without the consent of Congress, no war with Iran is authorized. I hope
the Defense authorization conferees will keep this in mind.
This Congress has rubberstamped too many of the President's worst
instincts. We must not do so again and march into another war in the
Middle East. Two wars still going, still costing American lives, even
to this day, are way too many. A third war at this point is
unthinkable.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Government Funding
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am on the floor to talk about a problem
that is far too common here in Washington; that is, Federal Government
shutdowns. They don't make any sense. If we don't do something in 12
days, Congress, once again, will face an unnecessary and costly
government shutdown. We have to avoid that.
I have been through five different government shutdowns since my time
working in the George H. W. Bush White House back in 1990, and three
shutdowns just over the last 5 years. None of them worked.
I don't know anyone who likes them now because we found out that when
you shut down the government, taxpayers actually pay more, not less. It
might seem like if you shut down the government, that is good for
taxpayers, but it is actually bad for taxpayers. They foot the bill for
the backpay of Federal workers for the days they weren't allowed to go
to work, and they pay for other things, too, that they wouldn't have to
pay for if Congress did its job, got its spending bills done, and
didn't shut down the government. Delayed projects, late payment fees,
lost productivity, deferred maintenance--it all adds up. Shutdowns also
disrupt government services, of course.
By the way, it is not just the poor government programs and services
at the time--that continues. So even now, 9 months since the last
government shutdown, you have the Agencies and Departments saying:
Well, we would like to be able to process your tax return or we would
like to be able to, as I found out last week, process your 501(c)(3)--
which is a charity return to give you a nonprofit status, you can get
contributions that are deductible--but because of the shutdown, we are
still backed up. They are delayed and late. That hurts everybody.
Federal contractors, of course, are hurt. A lot of those are our
constituents, private sector individuals. Federal employees,
themselves, of course, get hurt, especially those who are considered
essential. They have to go to work even though they are not getting
paid. A lot of people, whether it is TSA personnel at the airports or
our Border Patrol down at the border, are doing their best to protect
us. Yet they are told they can't get paid, so they can't make their car
payment, their mortgage payment, or their rent. It puts them in a tough
situation. Again, it also hurts taxpayers and families and communities
all across the country.
No shutdown was more frustrating for me than the one we had most
recently. It was the longest shutdown ever. It was 35 days this past
winter, in December. During that month, we all heard firsthand from our
constituents how they were affected by the shutdown. I heard from NASA
engineers in Cleveland, OH, as an example. We have the NASA Glenn
Research Center there.
I also heard from TSA employees every time I flew. I asked them: How
are you doing? They would tell me, and it was tough--missed paychecks,
mounting mortgage payments that I talked about. In some cases, medical
bills were piling up. Morale was down. Families were hurting. Again,
even after the government opened and backpay was sent to the furloughed
workers, a lot of that damage had already been done.
What we have learned is, it wasn't just Federal workers and their
families who felt the effects of the shutdown. The economy as a whole
suffered too. The Congressional Budget Office has done some estimates
of this. After the shutdown, they estimated it had reduced economic
growth by a combined $11 billion for the fourth quarter of 2018 and the
first quarter of 2019. Not only that, but CBO--the Congressional Budget
Office, a nonpartisan group that looks at these issues--later projected
that the rate of economic growth would have been 0.4 percent higher in
the first quarter of 2019 than it was if not for the government
shutdown. That sounds like a small number, 0.4 percent, but that is a
big deal. That means economic growth in the first quarter of this year
would have been 3.5 percent, not 3.1 percent. That is a big deal. That
is billions of dollars in lost growth, not just because people weren't
working who should have been working but because there was lost
productivity in our economy and billions of dollars in lost growth just
because we couldn't figure out how to keep the lights on here in
Washington, DC.
All of this is indicative not just of the loss of purchasing power
for Federal employees but also a serious ripple effect to Federal
contractors, small businesses, and others who serve the Federal
Government.
Shutdowns have another effect. Each time our government fails to fund
itself, the public's faith in our institutions, including, of course,
in this body, the Senate, the House, the Presidency, falls even
further, not just here but around the world. It just seems crazy that
the Federal Government can't stay open. People can't get that, and I
understand why they don't get it.
Now, with the threat of another government shutdown looming just a
few weeks away, let's not repeat the mistakes of the past. The reason
our Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations looked at this issue over
the past 9 months was to learn the lessons and to get the actual
numbers to determine what the real impact was of the shutdown.
This week, the Permanent Subcommittee, of which I chair, released a
[[Page S5567]]
bipartisan report signed by me and the ranking member, Tom Carper, the
result of which is what we are reporting today. We learned that the
total cost of the three government shutdowns that have occurred in the
last 5 years alone have combined for a total of 54 days of partial or
full government closure. During those three periods of shutdown, the
pricetag to the American taxpayer was $4 billion. So the three
government shutdowns that have happened in the last 5 years, taxpayers
had to eat $4 billion--three shutdowns, $4 billion.
We also learned that a lot of that number comes from the loss of
productivity. Furloughed Federal workers who were prohibited from going
to work during that shutdown were owed $3.7 billion in backpay, which
they got even though they weren't working because they couldn't work.
Compounding that was at least another $338 million in other costs,
including extra administrative costs, lost revenue, late fees on
interest payments, and other costs.
On top of everything else, the workers who weren't able to come in to
work represented a combined lost productivity of about 57,000 years of
lost productivity. Think about that--almost 57,000 years of
productivity loss. Again, this is from folks who are Federal employees
who weren't allowed to work because the government was shut down but
who later got paid.
These figures, the $4 billion in costs to the taxpayers and the
56,938 years in lost productivity, are relatively low numbers. It is
actually higher than that. Do you know why? It is because although we
got figures from 26 different Agencies and Departments--and over the 9
months we did this research, we sent this questionnaire around to all
the Agencies and Departments--a bunch of them, comprising less than
half but close to half of the workforce, refused to respond to us. Why?
Because they said they didn't know how many of their workers were
furloughed. They didn't know how many of their workers were essential
employees. They didn't know what the lost productivity was. That is
equally disturbing. That included the Department of Defense, the
Department of Agriculture, the Department of Justice, the Commerce
Department, and the EPA. They wouldn't give us complete information
about employee furloughs and backpay because they said they just didn't
have the information. The cost is even higher than indicated here. We
don't know how much higher, but we know it is at least this high.
We are sending letters to the Agencies that were unable to provide
the complete financial information related to employee furloughs and
backpay to find out why and to ask them how they plan to address those
issues going forward. Over the 9 months we did this research, our
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations is not done with its work
because, in the process, we uncovered another problem, which is
Agencies not even knowing the basic information about their workforce
and what happens during the shutdown.
Our report also documents examples of how the shutdown negatively
affected the Federal Government's ability to conduct important
operations on a wide range of issues. I encourage people to take a look
at the report.
While we shut down the government over fighting about border
security--remember, that was the issue at the time, whether we are
going to have a wall or not and what kind of funds were going to go to
border security--the Department of Homeland Security had to delay
important facility maintenance, which had a serious impact on law
enforcement officer operations and safety, including at the border. The
lack of these critical maintenance and repair services actually made it
more risky, even endangered the lives of some law enforcement officers,
and made it harder to defend the border. The shutdown certainly didn't
work in that regard.
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice was forced to cancel about
60,000 immigration hearings for nondetained aliens who were scheduled
during the 35 days of the shutdown. During the 35 days, you couldn't
have immigration hearings. There were 60,000 immigration hearings
canceled. We already had a big backlog in these hearings, as some of
you have heard about, to the point that often it takes a couple of
years to have your case heard by an immigration judge. Now it is even
worse. Again, we still haven't resolved that issue. That is a problem
that is compounded so that today you have so many of these hearings
that are still outstanding.
A lot of my constituents back in Ohio were affected too. Let me give
you an example. We have a poor neighborhood in Cleveland, OH. A guy
wanted to start a deli there, which was a great idea. It is kind of a
food desert there. This deli was ready to go, ready to be put into
operation, but they couldn't get the approval by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture to use the machines to accept the SNAP benefits--the food
stamp benefits--so they had a really hard time launching. They couldn't
make much money because a lot of people in the area were SNAP
recipients. The USDA couldn't certify the machines to have it work
because of the shutdown. That one was really frustrating for me.
At the Piketon, OH, uranium enrichment plant, a lot of employees were
unsure if their healthcare premiums would be paid, despite potentially
being exposed to levels of radiation that could be dangerous to them.
At a vineyard in Lorain, OH--Lorain County is a place where there is
more wine being grown. It is exciting--this vineyard submitted six
label approval requests to the Alcohol and Tobacco and Tax and Trade
Bureau. The Alcohol and Tobacco and Tax and Trade Bureau has to approve
these labels. The owners of the vineyard were left in limbo throughout
the entire shutdown as they waited for approval. They lost sales
because in that business, it is all about the new thing. You want to
have your new label out there, your new product out there. That was
frustrating to me too. These are small business owners--again,
entrepreneurs who are taking a chance, trying something exciting that
has been a growth to business in our State, but they couldn't get
approval.
The National Transportation Safety Board stopped an investigation of
a plane crash in Wayne County, OH, that took the lives of two
individuals in January because of the government shutdown.
It doesn't just affect the border or TSA or others I have talked
about; it affects a lot of our constituents.
Ohioans applying for Customs and Border Protection Trusted Traveler
Programs had their applications suspended during the shutdown and then
faced long delays in getting their applications approved once the
government reopened because of the backlog.
Home loans across the State were unable to get processed because of
the backlogs at the IRS, where employees were still working overtime
and weekends to catch up on work as caseloads doubled. Even last week,
I talked about this nonprofit that couldn't get its 501(c)(3) status
because of the backlog, the IRS said, even though it happened 9 months
ago.
There are only a few examples here I have been able to give you.
Again, I would encourage you to look at the report. Go onto our website
for the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and take a look at it.
There are so many issues and vulnerabilities that happen in all of our
States. It is clear we need to find a way to prevent this from
happening again.
Part of the problem we face here is that this constant threat of
shutdowns has become kind of the norm. People are already talking about
it--12 days from now. Are we going to shut down or not? It has kind of
a chilling effect on our economy just to talk about it.
For the past two decades, the government has routinely operated on
temporary funding because we don't get our spending bills done.
Congress is supposed to pass 12 appropriations bills, which comprise
all the Agencies and Departments. Last year, we did a pretty good job
of getting close to the 12. You have to go back to 1997 to find a year
when we completed all 12 of the spending bills.
If we don't complete a spending bill and have it signed off by the
House and the Senate and signed into law by the President, we do these
temporary spending bills. They are called continuing resolutions. You
just kind of continue the spending from the previous year. They are
always short term.
[[Page S5568]]
So there is discussion right now of, in 12 days, having a continuing
resolution. That is a lot better than a shutdown. It is not what we
should be doing, because at the end of that CR, we will have another
impasse, likely, and that is when you get another threat of a shutdown.
It is much better to pass the actual appropriations bills.
Since 1997, we have had a total of 117 continuing resolutions to fund
the government. It used to be very rare. Now it is not just common; it
is the norm. So moving forward, I hope one thing we can all agree on is
that we should do the appropriations process, do the individual bills,
and have the debate. We are going to have differences, and that is
fine. At the end of the day, we have a vote on the floor.
Today, we tried to go to the so-called minibus, a group of four
different appropriations bills. It shouldn't be that hard. We should be
able to get these things done. I hope we can agree that no matter what,
we should not have government shutdowns.
One recommendation our report makes--again, this is a bipartisan
report coming out of our subcommittee--our report says that the
Congress should enact an automatic continuing resolution to permanently
prevent the Federal Government from shutting down, so forever not to
have shutdowns by just saying: If you don't get your spending bills
done, you will simply have a continuing resolution that is automatic.
During the shutdown in January, I once again introduced our
legislation called the End Government Shutdowns Act. It is legislation
that now has 33 cosponsors here in the Senate. That is about a third of
the Senate. It is legislation that has mostly Republicans--almost two-
thirds are Republicans. In the past, it has been bipartisan. This year,
it has not been. I hope it will become that. I have introduced this
legislation every Congress since 2010.
My hope is that we will never have to publish this kind of a report
again that talks about how many days we had a shutdown, what the cost
was to taxpayers--$4 billion in this case--over the last 5 years alone,
and the 57,000 hours of lost work productivity. We shouldn't have to
have these kinds of reports because we shouldn't have shutdowns. We do
need to put legislation on the floor and have a vote on it to be able
to stop it.
Our legislation is pretty simple. It says that you continue the
spending from the previous year if you can't come to an agreement, and
then after 120 days, you reduce the spending by 1 percent across the
board. Why? To give the Appropriations Committees--the people who write
these spending bills--the incentive to get to work, because none of
them, Republican or Democrat, like across-the-board 1 percent spending
cuts. They want to make their decision as to where the funding goes,
and they don't want the funding to be reduced. Then, every 90 days, it
reduces it another 1 percent. Again, it is to give them the incentive
to get their work done.
There is other legislation out there, one of which passed the HSGAC
Committee--the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee--
about a month and a half ago. It had some other elements to it--that
during a shutdown, we would be restrained from doing certain things on
the floor. The government couldn't travel, including the executive
branch. I think some of those bells and whistles that were put on it
are not great policy, but I think it is so important that we end
government shutdowns, we have to figure out a way to come together as
Republicans and Democrats to get this done.
I think we are at the point now where, if Democrats won't support the
1-percent cut, which is what they are saying despite supporting it
previously--some of them--and the House sets a bipartisan bill, then
let's look at just an auto CR, just automatically avoiding the shutdown
and continuing the spending from the previous year.
The point is, we need to figure out a way to keep the lights on and
not have these shutdowns. We need to stop missing our deadlines. We
need to stop putting our taxpayers in a bad situation where you do a
shutdown at enormous cost to them. We need to put our Federal employees
in a better position, where they are not being furloughed and they are
not being told: You have to go to work, or we are not going to pay you.
That is not fair either.
So let's pass legislation to provide for a continuation of government
spending, and let's do all we can to try to get our spending bills done
to avoid getting in that situation. I hope my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle will not allow us to fall back into this 12 days from now,
and I hope instead we will redouble our efforts to pass spending bills
on time into the future and immediately look at legislation that says:
Let's end government shutdowns forever to avoid this problem going
forward.
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. CASEY. 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. CASEY. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Healthcare
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this evening to talk about
healthcare. I will not have long remarks, but I do want to highlight a
report that was just issued last week. The report I am holding is from
the Census Bureau. The report is entitled ``Health Insurance Coverage
in the United States: 2018,'' by the U.S. Census Bureau, dated
September of 2019.
On page 2, this fairly lengthy report, which goes on for about 29 or
30 pages, has the general comparison in healthcare coverage of
uninsured numbers--those without insurance in 2017 versus 2018. This is
what it says on page 2 of the report under ``Highlights'':
In 2018, 8.5 percent of people, or 27.5 million, did not
have health insurance at any point during the year. The
uninsured rate and number of uninsured increased from 2017
(7.9 percent or 25.6 million).
And then it refers to a figure and a table.
Basically, what is outlined is a drop in the number of Americans
covered. Looking at it another way, there was an increase in the number
of uninsured from 25.6 million Americans to 27.5 million Americans--a
difference of 1.9 million. Just for general reference, I will round
that off to say that roughly 2 million people who had insurance in 2017
were uninsured in 2018. That is deeply troubling because the number of
uninsured is up, not just generally from 2017 to 2018 but more broadly.
It is a change in the trend lines where we have been for most of the
last decade.
I think it is pretty clear that the Trump administration's sabotage
of health insurance is, indeed, working. It is reversing coverage gains
that were made under the Affordable Care Act in the years after
enactment and implementation of the Affordable Care Act. We are told,
as well, that the number of uninsured children is up, so more children
were without insurance from 2017 to 2018.
Here is what one observer, whose name is Phil Galewitz, from the
Kaiser Health News said: ``For the first time in a decade, the number
of Americans without health insurance has risen--by about 2 million
people in 2018--according to the annual U.S. Census Bureau report
released Tuesday.''
That was Tuesday of last week. He goes on to cite the numbers that I
just cited.
Here is another comment from Katie Keith from Health Affairs:
Coverage losses are expected to continue in 2019. This is
due to a number of factors, including repeal of the
individual mandate penalty, the expanded availability of non-
ACA plans, and the final ``public charge'' rule.
She goes on from there.
These are people who spend their lives on the issue of healthcare.
A third commentator, Joan Alker, from Georgetown University Center
for Children and Families said: ``As a result, 4.3 million kids were
uninsured in 2018--a statistically significant increase of 425,000.''
Another commentator who follows healthcare, Matt Broaddus, from the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said:
[T]oday's Census data provide the clearest evidence yet
that Trump Administration efforts to weaken health coverage
under the
[[Page S5569]]
ACA are taking a toll. They include canceling most federal
outreach efforts for the open enrollment period for 2018
marketplace coverage, supporting new state policies that make
it harder for people to enroll or stay enrolled in Medicaid,
issuing rules to expand short-term and association health
plans . . . and creating public confusion about the ACA's
future by refusing to defend its constitutionality in a
lawsuit by Republican state officials.
Then I turn to the last reference by groups that follow this
information. I will just hold up this chart. This is a chart by the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. This chart depicts where we
have been over the decade and where we could be at the end of the
decade on healthcare. This is a reference to the uninsured rate for
nonelderly Americans. That number was over 17 percent in 2009. So 17.2
percent of Americans were uninsured at that time. The chart says it
then fell each year, especially after the Affordable Care Act's major
coverage provisions took effect in 2014. You see it starting in 2009,
and then you see the big drop. Of course, that big drop of uninsured is
good news. When that chart depicts the number going down, that is
obviously good news.
Then you see the Trump administration sabotage has begun eroding this
progress. You see it flattening out. Now, instead of a continual
diminution or decline in the uninsured number, you see kind of a
flattening out of that. Then you factor in the census report, which
documents at least for 1 year an increase in the number of uninsured.
Then the last part of the chart says: ``If the administration gets the
courts to strike down the ACA, the uninsured rate would almost
double.''
It goes all the way up to 18.7 in 2019. Of course, the last part of
the chart is a projection. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
is asserting that if a lawsuit is successful in the Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals, which we know was successful at the district court level
and is now on appeal--if they are successful, this think tank, the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, says that in 2019, the number
of uninsured could go up to 18.7 percent, surpassing where we were in
2009, when we started to pass and then implement the Affordable Care
Act, reducing substantially the number of people who were uninsured.
If you look at it this way, roughly over 6 years, the uninsured
number went from about 47 million Americans down to about 27 million
Americans. Twenty million-plus people gained insurance coverage in
about 6 years--not even a decade.
The concern I have is that efforts undertaken by the administration,
unfortunately, are seen as successful, according to the Census Bureau
numbers, because the number of uninsured is going up at a time we want
the number to go down. When you add in the lawsuit, which, in my
judgment, is more likely to succeed than not--I don't want it to
succeed; I want it to fail because I think it is an insult to declare
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act unconstitutional,
therefore destroying protections for more than 100 million Americans
and ripping away coverage from so many Americans that the number of
uninsured would skyrocket. Why would we ever go back to the days when
the number of uninsured was that high and potentially growing? Why
would we ever take any step--whether there is a lawsuit or whether it
is sabotage or whatever--to drive up the number of uninsured?
Let me conclude with a couple of headlines. The front page of the New
York Times, dated September 11, 2019 reads: ``Fewer Insured After
Attacks On Health Act.'' If you go to the inside of the paper, on page
A15 there is a longer headline that says: ``Fewer Are Insured Amid
Administration's Attacks On Health Act.''
The Wall Street Journal--a newspaper, when I last checked, that was
not necessarily supportive of the Affordable Care Act, editorially--
dated September 11, page 83, reads: ``Insured Rate Logs First Drop in a
Decade.'' That means the number of uninsured is getting larger.
I would say in conclusion that we need to sound the alarm about the
threat to healthcare, sound the alarm about the threat to a growing
number of uninsured Americans. This is not even factoring in the
lawsuit, which, as the chart depicts, would make the uninsured number
skyrocket. It wouldn't go up by 1.9 million or a percentage point or
two; it would go up exponentially higher.
I hope that Members of this body in both parties not only would be
concerned about these trends and concerned about what would could
happen if the lawsuit were successful but also would take action to
prevent this dark result from playing out for the American people
because the number of uninsured would explode instead of continuing to
go down where Americans want it to go. We want the number of uninsured
to go down. We certainly want the number of uninsured children to go
down.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Senator Casey, for speaking out on such an
important issue.
He and I talked yesterday about the number of people who now have
insurance in our States. In his State it is over a million; in my State
it is over 900,000 because of the Affordable Care Act, because of
Medicaid expansion, because of other things.
Seniors have more. Seniors are getting more preventive care, and the
cost of drugs is less in spite of the fact that this institution and
the President do nothing to keep the prices of drugs down. We know the
White House looks like a retreat for drug company executives, so this
body has not done nearly what it should.
The Affordable Care Act is so important. I appreciate Senator Casey
always standing up for kids and standing up for Medicaid and standing
up for the Affordable Care Act and the impact it has made on our
States.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________