[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 209 (Thursday, December 10, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7398-S7416]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021--CONFERENCE
REPORT--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I see that my colleague and classmate is
here on the floor. I got to hear his speech earlier today, and it was
one of the best speeches that he has given and the best instruction
that all of us should listen to.
He has far more experience than just the time that he was a classmate
with me, because he served in the House as well. He is Mr. Agriculture
and has solved a lot of problems in those areas, and it has been a
pleasure to be here with him. And I leave with him. He has done an
outstanding job.
We also like some of the same literature.
The Budget
Mr. President, it has been an honor to serve as the chairman of the
Senate Budget Committee for the past 6 years. There is no question that
these have been challenging times. They have culminated in the current
pandemic that we continue to confront. Throughout all of these
challenges, I am proud to say that the committee has played a key role
in working to address the fiscal challenges facing our Nation. We put
in place policies that helped grow our economy and improve the
congressional budget process.
Now I need to make a clarification for anybody who might be
listening. The Budget Committee is not the spending committee. That is
the Appropriations Committee. The Budget Committee does a roadmap that
is supposed to provide some discipline for the people doing the
spending. That is where we need to do a lot more work.
I want to start off by telling you a little budget story. My youngest
daughter and her family are strict budgeters. They follow Dave Ramsey's
principles, and the whole family participates in monthly allocation of
their resources. It has made a huge difference in their ability to pay
off things and to enjoy life.
A year ago, my older daughter picked up my granddaughters from their
after-school activities and said: How would you like to go to
McDonald's for dinner? Of course, they were thrilled.
My daughter said: Well, maybe we ought to call your parents and see
if they would like it too.
At this point the older daughter, who I think was 11 at the time,
said: Who is paying?
And she said: I am.
She said: Oh, OK, because we have already used our eating-out budget.
That is family participation in budgeting.
As a result, I also have the youngest granddaughter, who saved up for
an Apple watch. Do you know how much restraint of spending that is so
you can reach the goal that you want and buy what you really need? That
is good budgeting.
We can do good budgeting, but we have to have good appropriations to
follow it up too.
The committee has had some real successes over the past 6 years.
We passed four budgets, including the first balanced 10-year
blueprint approved by Congress since 2001.
We also played a key role in helping pass the most sweeping update of
our Nation's tax system in more than 30 years. The passage of the Tax
Cuts and Jobs Act started with the approval of the FY 2018 Senate
Budget Resolution. That resolution started the process to construct
legislation that reduced tax rates for millions of Americans and
modernized our antiquated Tax Code. It also supported responsible
energy development that will keep energy affordable and provide a long-
term supply for American energy.
Oversight was also a critical part of the committee's work. During my
time as chairman, we worked to ensure the Federal Government was
accountable to the public by boosting transparency, by improving
Federal financial management, by identifying duplication of Federal
programs, and by approving Federal information technology.
Increasing the transparency of our congressional budget process has
also been a major priority. After becoming chairman, I restarted the
practice of publicly releasing regular scorekeeping reports--which we
publish on our committee website--that show how we spent the money.
More recently, we developed information on the budgetary effects of the
various COVID-19 bills. We can get those online.
[[Page S7399]]
Providing information like this on an ongoing basis is one more tool
for committees and taxpayers alike to see how the current law stacks up
against the budget we are required to adhere to. Scorekeeping reports
operate just like regular checkups with the dentist or doctor to help
identify risks and find solutions before more serious problems emerge.
In 2015, we also began regular public oversight hearings with the
Congressional Budget Office. This was the first CBO oversight hearing
in more than 30 years. Because of our efforts, CBO now regularly
publicly releases information, tracking its forecasting records, the
accuracy of estimates and projections, and the data it uses in its
work.
While we have had some successes, there are still many serious
challenges facing our Nation. Even before coronavirus came to our
shores, our country was moving down an unsustainable fiscal path. The
pandemic has only accelerated this, with Congress approving COVID
relief legislation that would add more than $2.6 trillion to our debt
so far. In the near-term this spending, necessary as it may have been,
translated into an overall deficit of $3.1 trillion in fiscal year
2020, more than triple the amount recorded the previous fiscal year.
CBO's most recent ``Long-Term Budget Outlook'' paints an even more dire
picture of deficits and debt rising to unprecedented levels if current
laws remain unchanged--and this represents the best-case scenario.
For decades, CBO, the Government Accountability Office, economists,
and Members of Congress have been raising the alarm that if we
continued on this course, our debt would explode with potentially
devastating economic consequences, leaving us unable to fulfill the
promises of the past. That day always seemed a long time away. But time
waits for no one, and tomorrow is fast arriving.
By 2023, barely 2 years away, CBO projects that debt as a percentage
of GDP will reach an all-time high of 107 percent. By 2050, debt could
reach 195 percent of gross domestic product--which is the amount of
actual production we do in the United States--and the annual deficit
would reach 12.6 percent of GDP. That is where the tax money comes
from.
Spending as a percent of GDP will rise 31.2 percent by 2050,
primarily due to--this is very important--due to rising Social
Security, healthcare costs, and net interest spending.
CBO projects that net interest spending will exceed all discretionary
spending in 2043 and will exceed Social Security by 2046. By 2050,
spending on interest will be larger than any single program. That is
the interest on the debt. That doesn't pay down any debt. That is just
the interest on the debt. By 2050, it will be the single largest
program.
Now, that is assuming we continue with the extremely low interest
rates that we get now. We are not even close to the national average.
We are way below the national average. The national average would be 5
percent. If that were to happen, the only thing we would be able to
fund would be interest on the national debt. You didn't hear me mention
Social Security or Medicare or education or military or any of those
things. That is why I have been mentioning this so often. Interest will
eat us alive.
The amazing part of everything I just said is that this is the rosy
scenario. Increases in spending or interest rates that are higher than
the low rates assumed by CBO means that the outcomes are more severe
than currently recorded. CBO expects rising deficits will have major
negative economic consequences, including lower investment and output
and a greater chance of a fiscal crisis. CBO notes that high and rising
debt would also constrain policymakers' ability to borrow in response
to future unforeseen emergencies, leaving the United States vulnerable
in the face of potential disasters while also risking our national
security.
CBO is the Congressional Budget Office, and it is a nonpartisan
office that helps to make these evaluations. As I mentioned earlier, we
are actually holding them accountable by having them come in and
explain what they projected and how it matches up with what actually
happens. So we should pay attention to them. I actually think that they
come up with fairly low numbers.
I don't want to leave this body with nothing but doom and gloom. It
is not too late to turn things around. We can be successful if we work
together.
Contrary to what most people believe about Congress and what is
reported in the media, I know both parties can work together. I have
seen it firsthand as a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions Committee and my work with Senator Ted Kennedy and, again,
here on the Senate Budget Committee and my work with Senators
Whitehouse, Kaine, Warner, King, Van Hollen, and others.
Bipartisanship will be key as Congress works to tackle our fiscal
challenges. Instilling the Federal budget process with regular action
and predictability, active legislative oversight and spending
transparency--that is all critical to strengthening our democracy and
reducing our Nation's unsustainable spending and debt.
Since taking the helm of the Committee, we have held more than a
dozen hearings on the topic of budget process reform, soliciting expert
testimony from a variety of sources, including economists, academics,
State and local leaders, former chairs of the Budget Committee, and
even people from other countries. This has been one of my top
priorities as chairman, and we have had some early successes in this
effort.
This includes the committee's unanimous bipartisan approval of new
budget rules that included budget process reforms, which have led to
more orderly, meaningful, and transparent consideration of the budget
resolutions in the committee. We followed those hearings by introducing
and passing legislation, the Bipartisan Congressional Budget Reform
Act, which represented the first bipartisan budget reform approved by
the Senate Budget Committee since 1990.
I want to repeat that. In a bipartisan way, we passed a Congressional
Budget Reform Act, and it represented the first bipartisan reforms
approved by the Senate Budget Committee since 1990. A key focus of
budget process reform is to make congressional budgets easier to pass
and harder to ignore, while encouraging regular order in the normal
funding process. If budgets are going to be a useful governing tool,
they must matter. Budgets are the foundation by which we govern, the
way we establish what matters most to our Nation, and where we agree
limited resources should be focused.
We have seen time and again that when budgets are treated as an
afterthought or as a wish list, our ability to legislate effectively
and fulfill our most basic constitutional duties is made more
difficult, if not impossible.
To restore budgets to their proper role, they must be enforceable,
and they should increase fiscal accountability in Congress. If
lawmakers approve a budget, they should stick to it. To that end, my
bipartisan budget process reform legislation would make a number of
important reforms, including creating a new enforcement tool that could
be used only for reducing the deficit. I realize that we may not get
this bill across the finish line before I complete my service, but I
hope others will take up the effort and ensure the key parts, including
fiscal accountability, are included in future reforms. I have had the
assurance from both Members on this side of the aisle and the other
side of the aisle that that is a possibility and a priority.
Next year, lawmakers will be confronted with the construction of a
new budget and spending bills, and for the first time in almost a
decade, it will be without spending caps. We have had some self-imposed
limits on our spending before called spending caps, and it has been
very irritating to people who want to spend money. But now they can do
that because this will be the first time in almost a decade without the
spending caps contained in the Budget Control Act.
Of course, even under the Budget Control Act, Congress regularly
ignored the fiscal limits it contained, but starting next year, there
will be no budget caps to guide overall funding levels or to curb
Federal discretionary spending--no limits. This could be and should be
a cause for great concern, but it is also a chance for us to work
together to find a way to begin the process to address our fiscal
challenges.
Of course, I mentioned that that is just curbing the Federal
discretionary
[[Page S7400]]
spending. That is the little dab of money that the appropriators
actually get to make a decision on, and 70 percent of what we do is
already passed without a single vote from this body. And that number--
we keep trying to shift discretionary things over to mandatory so
people can be assured that the money will be spent, but seldom do we
ever put any money with the new mandatory item.
But beyond the annual funding fight, our country faces an even more
daunting fiscal crisis: the rapidly approaching depletion of several
Federal trust funds. That includes the Highway Trust Fund next year. It
also includes Medicare's Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. We have 4 years
on that, 2024. There is the Disability Insurance Trust Fund, 2026, and
the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, 2031. Those are trust
funds that are approaching depletion, running out of money.
OK. In the CBO's latest baseline, total scheduled spending for all
pending trust fund programs will exceed their dedicated revenues by
$12.3 trillion over the next 10 years. This accounts for the majority
of the $13 trillion in cumulative deficits CBO projects the Nation will
run over this period--depletion of the trust funds.
What happens when these trust funds run dry? Current law requires
their spending to automatically be reduced to match their income. This
means real cuts to crucial programs. I mentioned Social Security. It
would have to go down to the amount of money that we actually receive
going out to recipients of Social Security. That could be a big and
immediate hurt.
So, again, a real challenge awaits next Congress as my tenure comes
to a close. I am proud of what the Senate Budget Committee
accomplished. We helped to improve the fiscal health of millions of
Americans by passing the most comprehensive tax reform in a generation.
We have also committed ourselves to working to improve the
congressional budget process so Washington and Congress can get a
better handle on what we are spending and where it is going, including
a new tool that could be used only for reducing the deficit. We have
worked to boost fiscal transparency, improve Federal financial
management, identify duplication of Federal programs, and improve
Federal information technology. But there is much more that needs to be
done, and now those challenges will be passed to the next chairman.
While I have highlighted the problems, I am also leaving a roadmap
with possible paths forward. I would ask all of my colleagues to work
closely together to address these issues, as we can no longer push them
off for someone else to fix later. We need to find the common ground.
Tomorrow is here, and we have to start making those choices not only
for ourselves but for our kids and our grandkids and our country
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.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Coronavirus
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to remind all of my
colleagues about the urgent, urgent need to pass coronavirus
legislation. People need help, and they need it right now.
I am glad that bipartisan discussions are continuing. I think it is
very positive, and I know that many of us are involved in those
negotiations. I commend all of my colleagues who are working very hard
to get this done.
It is critical that we come to an agreement that will help families
and that will help businesses and communities get through this rough
time, but time is running out, as we know. Our Nation is facing a
crisis. Our States and local governments are facing a crisis as they
are trying to gear up for an effective and rapid distribution of
vaccines. Our local police officers, firefighters, public health
workers, and other essential workers face layoffs.
The only real possibility that I see of defunding the police is the
unwillingness, so far, by the majority leader to support funding local
law enforcement in the COVID-19 emergency package that we are trying to
get done. We all know that businesses and workers and families are
facing a crisis.
We simply can't wrap up this session, we can't end this session and
go home without responding to the urgent needs of the American people.
It has now been 1 week since the last time I was on the floor
speaking about the need for more help. In the past week, more than 1
million additional people in the United States have become infected,
and an additional 13,000 people in the United States have died because
of COVID-19--13,000 moms and dads, grandpas and grandmas and friends
and neighbors. We have now seen nearly 290,000 of our family members
and friends and neighbors die of this horrible disease. That is like if
the entire population of Grand Rapids and Flint, MI, simply
disappeared.
Meanwhile, millions of families at risk of eviction are 1 week closer
to finding themselves without a home in the winter in the middle of a
health pandemic. Millions of small business owners have spent 1 more
week scrambling to keep their workers on the payroll. Families don't
have enough to eat, and they have spent 1 more week wondering where
their next meal is going to come from for themselves and for their
children.
A week is a long time to wait when you are in danger of being
homeless or losing your job or being hungry or watching your child who
is hungry. We are running out of time. We are running out of time, and
so many American businesses, workers, and families are running out of
time.
On December 26, only 16 days from now--16 days from now, the day
after Christmas--vital unemployment programs will end, cutting off
benefits that millions of workers need to provide for their families.
Somebody who is self-employed, a contract worker, a gig worker, they
will receive zero help after that to feed their families and put a roof
over their head and pay the bills through this pandemic.
Five days after that, on December 31, the Federal Reserves' emergency
lending program ends. That will cut off crucial credit that is keeping
businesses open and helping State and local governments provide
necessary services. Also on December 31, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention's eviction moratorium ends, putting more people
on the street. The Federal foreclosure moratorium and some
opportunities for forbearance expire.
It is cold in Michigan right now, and it is going to get colder.
Imagine how frightening it would be to know that your family is losing
their home in the middle of a pandemic in the middle of the winter.
The truth is, our Nation is not facing just a health crisis; we are
facing an economic crisis; we are facing a housing crisis; we are
facing a hunger crisis all at the same time.
These expiring programs have been a lifeline for families, for
communities, and for businesses during the pandemic. That lifeline is
now fraying, and a lack of action here in Washington could cause it to
completely snap.
There is a lot of talk about numbers right now, and numbers are
important, but much more important are the people who need help. They
are not numbers. I am thinking of a Michigan mom of two growing boys
who has been waiting hours in a line of cars, week after week, to bring
home a box of food. I am thinking of a Michigan dad who has been
looking so hard for a new job, but nobody wants to be hiring right now,
and his unemployment help is almost out. I am thinking of the owner of
a Michigan business who had no choice but to lay off half of their
workers right before the holidays. I am thinking of a Michigan retiree
who is behind on her rent. She could move in with her daughter's
family, but their home is already crowded, and she doesn't want to be a
burden, and we are in the middle of a pandemic where we are telling
people to socially distance to be safe.
While we are debating, people are suffering and panicking because
they are not sure what they are going to do. People can't wait another
week, and we cannot either.
This is the United States of America. It is not like we don't have
the capacity to fix this right now. It is all about political will. It
is about, do we get it? Do we care about people? Do we understand what
is happening to people? And
[[Page S7401]]
are we willing to support the bipartisan effort going on right now that
can do something--at least provide a bridge for a few months, through
the winter months, into the new year?
There is an opportunity going on. There is a lot of hard work going
on. There is no excuse not to take this moment and to come together and
provide help in what is a COVID survival package for people in Michigan
and across the country. That is what this is.
We are at a moment where it is up to us to make sure that we get this
done, and if not, we should not end this session until we do.
Thank you.
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. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Remembering Joe Morgan
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, Arkansas is known as the Natural State,
and few have been more dedicated to preserving Arkansas in all of its
natural beauty than was Joe Morgan.
Joe passed away last month at the age of 76. Joe was a lifelong
Arkansan. He studied at Little Rock University--now the University of
Arkansas-Little Rock--and he worked for many years as a car dealer for
great American companies like General Motors and Chevrolet. He also
served on the Arkansas Motor Vehicle Commission.
But Joe will probably be remembered most for his tireless advocacy on
behalf of Arkansas' natural heritage and environment. Governor
Hutchinson appointed Joe to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission,
where he quickly established himself as a champion for Arkansas duck
hunters and the wilderness upon which they rely.
Joe hunted and fished in Stuttgart, the duck capital of the world. As
a member of the commission, he made it his mission to ensure duck
hunting remained a gentleman's sport and to preserve the hunting
grounds he knew and loved so they would be available to future
generations of Arkansans.
He was especially passionate about preserving Bayou Meto Waterfowl
Management Area, one of the crown jewels of duck hunting in Arkansas.
He was instrumental in implementing safe boating regulations to
protect hunters and waterfowl populations alike. He imposed time limits
on when boats could be out on the water to preserve the health and
sustainability of the duck population.
Joe's first priority was always to his fellow Arkansans. He pressed
for limits on when nonresidents could hunt to ensure that locals were
never pushed out of the hunting spots they grew up with.
Joe's fellow commissioners will remember him as a dogged defender of
hunting and fishing in Arkansas. His wife of 56 years, Judy, and his
son, Brett, will remember him as a loving husband and father who was
always ready with a joke--and always ready for a good shoot, a round of
golf, or even a jaunt in his trusty Cessna 182.
As for me, I will remember Joe as a friend. I met Joe in my early
campaigns, and we became fast friends. We talked and texted often. He
even hosted me, with friends, in North Carolina to speak about
Republican politics.
Joe Morgan may have left us, but he left his heart in Arkansas--in
the well-stocked, flooded timber of Bayou Meto, which he helped to
preserve.
In a fitting tribute to his legacy, Joe passed away on the opening
day for duck hunting in Arkansas. Every hunter who enjoys Arkansas'
natural beauty this season and every season in the future can thank Joe
for the experience.
May he rest in peace.
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. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Braun). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1877
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I come to the floor today, 71 days in the
fiscal year, 71 days into a continuing resolution. It is unfortunate. I
am placing no blame.
It is unfortunate we have not considered on the floor of the U.S.
Senate--not 1 of the 12 regular order appropriations bills. The
appropriations process is completely broken. Quite honestly, it has
been broken since I arrived here in the Senate in 2011.
I ran for the U.S. Senate primarily because I was concerned about the
fact that we were mortgaging our children's future. Back then, we were
$14 trillion in debt, and that was extremely concerning to me. Now, 10
years later, 71 days into the 2021 fiscal year, we are $27.4 trillion
into debt. That is an increase of $13.4 trillion. It is almost double
since I have been here in just 10 years.
Again, the appropriations process is so broken. During that
timeframe, we had to pass 36 continuing resolutions. The debt limit has
no power in terms of controlling our out-of-control spending. We either
raised or suspended the debt limit nine times.
Unfortunately, during that time, that 10 years, we have also--because
of the broken process here--we have shut down the government three
times, costing our economy, costing our government billions of dollars,
and hurting real people.
I come from the State of Wisconsin, where, if the legislature can't
get its act together and we don't pass appropriations bills and we are
at an impasse, we don't shut down the government. We don't even shut
down a particular agency. What we do is we do something that is pretty
practical, the type of commonsense legislation that Wisconsinites would
embrace. We just appropriate. We just fund the agencies or the entire
State government at the previous year's level.
Doesn't that make sense? I think it makes all the sense in the world.
Again, here we are, 71 days into the fiscal year, and we haven't
passed an appropriations bill. We have to pass, within the next 24
hours or so, our 37th continuing resolution to kick the can another
week so we can get our act together and pass some kind of massive
omnibus that nobody is going to be able to read before they actually
vote for it. It is a completely broken process.
I recognize that as chairman of Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, a certain part of this government shutdown--this broken
process--some of these elements weren't in my committee's jurisdiction.
We had a number of pieces of legislation; one by Senator Portman; one
by Senator Paul; one by Senator Lankford, who had been working on a
similar piece of legislation from being in the House, to end government
shutdowns forever.
As chairman of the committee, I had to take a look at these pieces of
legislation and decide which one did I want to bring up to my
committee, pass out of my committee, and bring to the floor of the
Senate.
I chose Senator Lankford's because he had done a lot of hard work
with Senator Maggie Hassan on a bipartisan bill. Again, it is very
simple. It didn't automatically increase spending, didn't automatically
decrease spending. It did exactly what we do in Wisconsin.
If we don't get our act together, and we don't pass any
appropriations bills or a single or two appropriations bills, we don't
shut down the government. We don't shut down that agency. We just
appropriate enough funds at last year's level, and we continue until we
actually do pass an appropriations bill.
I know the members of the Appropriations Committee and have all the
respect in the world for the chairman and the ranking member. I know
they don't like CRs, but, again, this will be our 37th CR since I have
been here for 10 years. It is broken.
But just in case they are concerned about these CRs, what I can give
you is Wisconsin's history in this. Since we passed this commonsense
reform, really, the longest CR we ever had in Wisconsin since we had
this anti-government shutdown process was just 4 months in 1971. That
is a long time ago, and it was only 4 months. We are approaching 4
months now.
Again, this is the 37th CR since I took office. We passed out of my
committee--there were only two dissenting votes, two ``no'' votes.
Those came
[[Page S7402]]
from two Senators who just had an alternate version of the End
Government Shutdowns Act. We passed this out of my committee 12 to 2.
We have been working now for the last year trying to find some
vehicle to add it on as an amendment to end this insanity.
We thought that with the group of us here, this would be a good time.
It is a very simple bill. Again, if you don't pass an appropriations
bill or all the appropriation bills, you just fund, you appropriate at
last year's level. But we have a few little disciplines to force the
Senators in Congress to do their job.
The first discipline is, we don't allow any Federal or campaign
moneys to be spent on travel, which, basically, forces Members of
Congress to stay here until we do get our act together, until we do
pass appropriations bills and fund government that is necessary.
The other thing we do is we only allow Congress, each Chamber, to
only bring up appropriations bills in their Chamber. There is an
exception, of course, for any bill that would have to do with an
immediate national security emergency. That is pretty much it.
In committee, Senator Scott had an amendment, which I will turn to
him to have him describe the final discipline to force Members of
Congress to do their jobs: pass appropriations bills and fund
government without shutting the government down.
Senator Scott
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The Senator from Florida.
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. First, I want to thank the chairman for his
effort to try to figure out how we can stop shutting down the
government.
When I came up here with Senator Braun 2 years ago, we were in a
government shutdown, and nobody wins. It doesn't work for any part of
government when government gets shut down. I know, talking to the
appropriations chair and ranking member, that they are also focused on
making sure of what we can do to make sure we pass budgets, pass our
spending bills, and not shut down the government.
I want to fight the way Washington has been working. I want to make
sure it works for all Florida families, not just career politicians.
I have a background in business like Chairman Johnson does. In the
real world, if you don't do your job, you don't get paid. It is really
simple. If Congress can't accomplish its most basic task--which I
believe is passing a budget, appropriations bills, in an orderly
fashion--then why should we get paychecks? I think it is pretty simple.
When you listen to what Chairman Johnson just said; that the current
system in Washington is clearly broken, there is no--a lot of people
care about this, but there is no one, ultimately, who has
responsibility and there are no consequences and it costs our system a
lot of money. Congress doesn't pass a budget. Instead, they just pass
temporary measures, and it kicks the can down the road.
The thing that has been surprising to me since I got up here is how
little of the budget we actually review every year. It is surprising to
me that about 70 percent of the budget we don't even look at every
year. I think all these things are unacceptable. Congress can't
continue to just get away with not doing its basic job and creating a
burden.
We have to do something different. That is why I am proud to join my
colleagues today to pass the Prevent Government Shutdowns Act, which
includes my no budget, no pay proposal.
Withholding paychecks from Members of Congress who fail to pass a
budget will help prevent government shutdowns, which hurt the economy,
hurt millions of people.
It is also an important step to promote fiscal responsibility in the
face of what Senator Johnson said: $27.4 trillion worth of debt. I
believe we need to pass the No Budget, No Pay Act now to show we are
serious about getting this spending under control and we are serious
about the future of this Nation.
Members of Congress make significantly more than the average American
makes. We make $174,000 a year, and we are asking them to do the most
basic function: pass a budget. It is not complicated. I think every
Member of Congress--rich or poor--can agree Congress should pass a
budget every year. There is absolutely no reason we can't. Anyone who
disagrees should not have this job.
Let's go back. When the American people don't do their job, there are
consequences. It is time we make Washington work a little bit like what
the real world looks like. Let's pass the Prevent Government Shutdowns
Act and get the No Budget, No Pay Act done.
I refer to my colleague from Indiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, Rick mentioned that back in 2018, we ran on
what we are talking about today. We wouldn't be honest to the people
who elected us to come here.
I had eight pages of prepared remarks. This is something I have
talked about so often. I am going to cover some new terrain to make it
relatable to the citizens across this country about how this place
works and how it is so different from how anything else works.
A few of us come from the world of accountability--the business
world--where you don't have the luxury of doing what we do here in the
Federal Government. Listen to this closely because this is what most
citizens don't understand. We are given the revenues here in this
place, and our only job, No. 1, should be not to spend more than what
we are given. We don't do that.
We borrow 23 percent, roughly, of what we spend. Try taking that to
your banker, running a business, see if you can get a loan doing that.
That is just a real simple way to look at how we do this year after
year.
On Main Street, whether you are running a business, whether it is
your household--I served in State government for 3 years. We were smart
enough to have a balanced budget amendment. We believed in things like
a rainy day fund. It was in our DNA. We didn't have to think about it;
that in the long run, you are not going to succeed if you spend more
than what you take in.
Coming out of World War II was the highest level of national debt we
ever had--roughly, where we are now. That generation, we know what they
went through. They were savers. They were investors and not only in
government. We are now spenders and consumers.
You would think that in the biggest business in the world--we spend
about $4.5 trillion a year. We take in maybe about $3.5. Of course, in
a year like this, where you had a pandemic, add another $3 trillion or
so to the national debt. And structurally, we will be marching, over
the next 5 to 7 years, to where that goes to $1.5 trillion a year.
Start adding all that up.
Here is what is going to happen. When we are in a position like we
are now, where you can borrow money for nearly nothing--we are the only
reserve currency in the world that allows us to do it--that doesn't
mean you should do it because we are piling up obligations on our kids
and our grandkids, and we might as well admit it. How have we evolved
to get to where we are now? I don't think that is as much an issue as
we know where we are now. It is not sustainable.
Here is what is going to happen to the most important programs we
have and that everybody likes: Social Security, Medicare. Medicare has
been around since the mid-1960s. All of us have been paying into it,
employers and employees. Every penny will be exhausted out of the trust
fund, and that was about 5 to 5\1/2\ years. Now it has advanced, due to
our current financial situation, to maybe 4 or 5. What happens? This
will be the first reality, the shock that comes to the American
public--especially elderly who depend on Medicare for their
healthcare--18 percent across-the-board cuts. Think of the static and
the uproar we will hear then.
We can stop it if we just have a little discipline. That is mostly
about embracing something like I put forward, the Fair Care Act, which
is the most comprehensive, aggressive with healthcare costs in this
country.
As a CEO from Main Street, and CEOs across the country, small
business owners, the biggest problem we deal with is the high cost of
healthcare. Of course, we here protect a healthcare industry that is
broken. And you have another side that wants to get more government
involved. And, really, all it takes there is to have
[[Page S7403]]
transparency and competition--have a consumer who is engaged in his or
her own well-being, and you would have prices cascade down.
Those are tough decisions. You take on three of the four biggest
lobbies in the country--pharma, hospitals, and insurance. That is
another thing that doesn't make this place work. With Social Security,
we have some time there, but that was crafted back when life spans were
a lot shorter than what they are now. We knew that actuarially, and it
has been coming at us for years. We have until, maybe, 2032 or 2033. We
have been paying into that since the Great Depression, but every penny
out of the trust fund will be gone. I think you get the picture.
When I came here--as did Senator Johnson from Wisconsin, Senator
Scott from Florida, and a few fiscal conservatives, like Senator Lee
and a few others who will weigh in on this--I talked about what was
uncomfortable. Well, to me, we have had all of this time, and we have
not done anything about it. We have the perfect opportunity. We know we
are in this current dynamic, and we know we will have to get through
it, but what we are here to do today is to get a vote on a simple bill
that says, do not shut the government down when we are trying to get
through these issues.
Put a little bit of rigor and discipline into the process with the No
Budget, No Pay Act, and then, maybe, we can get to the point at which
we give the American public a better product. Imagine if everything
were given to you in terms of your revenues. First of all, don't spend
more than what you take in. When you have a year to do something, start
on day one. That is the way it works in the real world, and that is the
way it works in a household. That is the way it worked on a school
board on which I served for 10 years, and that is the way it works in a
place like Indiana, which balances its budget every year, has a rainy
day fund, and lives responsibly.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, article I, section 9, clause 7 of the
Constitution makes clear that no money will be drawn from the Treasury
except by an appropriation passed by Congress. Article I, section 7 of
the Constitution likewise makes clear that you can't pass an
appropriation or any other form of legislation without the same
document, the same bill, the same proposal passing the House of
Representatives and passing the Senate and then being submitted to the
President for signature, veto, or acquiescence.
Over time, particularly in the last decade, it has become
increasingly common for Congress to recognize the cumbersome nature of
that process, which is cumbersome by design. It is sometimes easier to
just circumvent the process, technically complying with its commands
but doing so in a way that doesn't really invite or even allow for
individual Members or their constituents to know what they are voting
for when they vote on a spending bill. This is what we have come to
refer to as governing by cliff in the spending context, and it has,
sadly, become the status quo in Washington. It often provides Members
with a simple binary choice when they are facing a spending bill.
When you come up against a spending cliff, it means a deadline,
almost always one arbitrarily imposed by the previous spending bill. It
is when you come up close to that and there is no spending bill on the
floor until, maybe, a day or two or sometimes an hour or two or
sometimes more like a minute or two. It is something that has been
negotiated behind closed doors by only a small handful of Members of
Congress, excluding everyone else in the House, everyone else in the
Senate, and the hundreds of millions of people they collectively
represent.
Sometimes that kind of legislation is brought forward--not just
sometimes. Basically, it is every time. As my friend and colleague the
Senator from Wisconsin noted a minute ago, I think this will mark the
37th consecutive time that Congress has passed something like this or
it is, at least, the 37th time that Congress has passed something like
this since Senator Johnson and I came to the Senate and were sworn into
office in 2011.
The problem with this is that Members can't reasonably know what they
are voting on in advance, and then they are given the simple binary
choice to take it or leave it. You won't have any opportunity to amend
it. You really won't even have the opportunity to read it or understand
it, much less communicate its contents to your constituents, who will
have to pay for it. You can vote for that in its entirety or you can
vote against it, but if you vote against it and it doesn't pass, you
will be blamed singlehandedly for shutting down the government
regardless of whether you would have preferred to have brought up and,
in fact, had tried for a long period of time to bring up spending bills
prior to that last possible moment. This puts the American people and
their elected lawmakers in the House and the Senate in an untenable
position, one that I would analogize to a circumstance of an individual
who lives in an outlying area.
Let's suppose that you move to an outlying area, one that is distant
from any other town. Let's suppose that, on your first day of work
after moving to that town, you are about to leave home, and you speak
to your significant other on the phone, who informs you: Bring home
bread, milk, and eggs when you stop by the store. Make sure you get
those on your way home. Don't come home without them.
So you go to this grocery store in this outlying area that is distant
from any other town. It is the only store in town. It is the only
store, in fact, for hours in any direction. You go to the store, and
you get your cart. You put in your bread. You get the milk, and you put
in the eggs. Then you get to the checkout counter.
The checkout person says: OK. This is how much the eggs cost, the
bread, and the milk, but there is a problem
What is the problem?
Well, you can't buy just these items.
Why can't I buy just these items?
I am not going to let you buy the bread or the milk or the eggs
unless you also buy a half a ton of iron ore and a bucket of nails and
a book about cowboy poetry. In fact, now that I think about it, you are
going to have to buy one of every item in the store.
Nobody would want to live that way, and nobody would want to shop
that way. Of course, that is never the way we would want to do business
in our government; yet, in some ways, it kind of is because a small
handful of people put together that shopping list, so to speak, and put
it together in one bill. Those bills are often hundreds and, in some
cases, thousands of pages long, and we usually have no more than a few
hours to read them before they are passed into law.
That is where this legislation comes about. The End Government
Shutdowns Act would force Congress to abandon this barbaric, binary
form of appropriations. Perhaps more importantly, it would end the
threat of the shutdown, which is very often the propellant, the fuel,
for perpetuating this barbaric form of alienation--this barbaric form
of the disenfranchisement of most of the people represented by most
Democrats and most Republicans in the Senate and in the House of
Representatives.
Look, I understand that none of this is easy, and I have nothing but
profound respect and affection for my colleagues who are involved in
writing these bills. That respect and affection should cut both ways,
and it should mean that we have the opportunity to vote on spending
bills before they hit us so that we are not left with this awful,
untenable, binary choice between funding everything that a small
handful of Members has foreordained or voting for nothing and being
blamed for a shutdown.
We have to end the process of spending by cliff. This and only this,
I believe, is something that could bring certainty to Americans and
will allow for more time to bring these bills to the floor and will
allow for the kind of transparency that the American people need,
expect, and deserve but, for the last decade or two, have not received.
Mr. President, I yield my time back to my friend and colleague,
Senator Johnson from Wisconsin.
Mr. JOHNSON. I yield time to Senator Leahy.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have found so much of what I have heard
that I can agree with. I certainly agree that we ought to be able to
pass our annual appropriations bills. I certainly
[[Page S7404]]
agree that we should prevent Federal Government shutdowns, which waste
billions upon billions upon billions of dollars' worth of taxpayers'
money, plus all of the burdens they put on American families, Federal
employees, and so forth. But I am afraid that my good friends on the
other side of the aisle are letting rhetoric get ahead of reality.
The reality is that the majority in the Senate controls the calendar
in the Senate. All of these appropriations bills could have been
brought up in June or July or September. We could have voted on them,
piece by piece, up and down, and had amendments. Everybody would have
had plenty of time to have read every line of them, to have amendments
to strike things or add things they wanted. I mention this because it
can be done. The House of Representatives, under Democratic control--I
don't mean that to be partisan but to show the difference--they
actually passed all of their appropriations bills and its COVID bill,
the so-called Heroes Act, in May.
In the Appropriations Committee, we have been working very hard.
Senator Shelby's staff has, and mine has too. We have given up a lot of
time with my colleagues--and for all good reasons. Many of us stayed
here working on those appropriations bills, but we couldn't bring the
bills up.
Now, the Republican leader, the majority leader, could have brought
up any one of these bills at any time he had wanted. We could have done
it, allowing a 1-hour time agreement for amendments. After all, the
Republicans in the majority have nothing to fear about that. If they
don't like an amendment, they can vote it down. This would give the
Senator from Utah and everybody else a chance to read each one of these
bills. If they don't like it, bring up an amendment to strike it. That
could have been done; it was not.
One of the reasons it was not done was because we had to take up
Senate time, day after day after day, to put through nominees--mostly
backed by special interest groups--on the Federal bench and elsewhere.
We had to vote on those. Why? We can vote on those, but also take the
time to vote on these things. Bring up the appropriations bills, and
vote on them one by one. Amend them if you want; vote them down if you
want.
I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, You have the
majority. You can vote them all down or vote them all up. But what
happens when you enact an automatic CR, which I would oppose, it means
you don't work out the parts of full-year appropriations bills. There
would be no incentive for Members to negotiate full-year appropriations
bills. We were not elected to put the government on autopilot. We were
elected to make careful choices.
I would argue the reason we are here is that people were afraid to
actually stand up and vote up or down on appropriations bills earlier
this year when they had the chance. It is easy to say: Golly gee, let's
have an automatic continuing resolution. Sounds good. What it says is
that we can take all of our weekends off. We can have the government
fly us home. We can pay for all of these things, but we don't do our
work.
What I am saying is we should have stayed here over a few weekends. I
would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, the Republican
side, allow the bills to come up one by one and vote them up or down.
If you don't like parts of it, vote to take it out. Vote it up or down.
Again, you have the majority, if you don't like what is in there. Full-
year appropriations bills give Congress the opportunity to address the
needs of today rather than continue the priorities of the past.
I have been here long enough to know that things that looked great 2
or 3 years ago are not the priorities today because things change.
Certainly, under COVID, we have seen, in many ways, a 15-year change in
society, education, business, industries, and more in 15 weeks.
So each year in the annual appropriations bills, Congress adjusts
spending levels to deal with emerging issues facing the American
people. We can eliminate funding for projects that have been completed
or no longer needed. We can direct funding to higher priority programs.
It is detailed, exacting work. It is nice to talk in slogans and
generalities, but I invite those Senators to sit down and go through,
day by day, the kind of work the Senators and the superb staff, both
Republican and Democratic, do in putting together this legislation. It
is detailed, exacting work, but it is what the American people expect.
That is what we all thought was a smart decision about how to invest
their hard-earned tax dollars.
If you operate under an automatic CR, none of these adjustments can
be made. Automatic CRs lock in the status quo, and we can say: Bye-bye.
We are heading home for the holidays. Oh, an emergency in COVID came
up? Well, it is not in the automatic CR, so tough. We didn't have time
to do anything about it. Oh, there is flooding in Florida or Nebraska
or fires in the West or anything else. Well, the automatic CR didn't
cover it because we didn't have money for it a year before.
No, that is not the way to do it. The Congress and the White House
have a responsibility to work together to enact funding bills to keep
the government open. Automatic CRs might save face and time and allow
us to do other things that we might like to do back home, but in doing
so, they relieve us of our obligations to the Constitution and to the
American taxpayer. We shouldn't be relieved of these obligations.
I know the last time we had a government shutdown, it was over a bill
where the President felt that it didn't give him enough for a wall
along the border between the United States and Mexico, a wall that is
being built at great expense and accomplishing very little. That is why
it was stopped.
So for a month and a half, we sat there, parts of the government
closed down, our States, our people, our Federal Government losing
billions upon billions upon billions of dollars. You know how that
finally got reopened? We started off a series of meetings on a Monday.
The House was in session; the Senate was in session. It was a good time
to begin. We began in Senator Shelby's office, and we continued it in
my office here in the Capitol.
We had two the chair and ranking member of the House Appropriations
Committee. We had two Senators: my good friend--and he is a good and
close friend--Dick Shelby, the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, and myself as the vice chairman. And the four of us sat
there for 3 or 4 hours. We talked about everything from photography to
travel and then went in line by line of the bills, and we came to an
agreement. And we were able to explain our agreement to the House and
the Senate, and it was voted through, and the government reopened.
Incidentally, the President praised it. He said that he had gone
through it, and it was so good. And I thank him for doing that because
it gave him a lot less money for the wall than the bill that he vetoed
had given him.
But the government reopened.
I mention this because it seems that those billions of dollars were
spent more as a political stunt than something that benefits hard-
earned taxpayer dollars.
So instead of rhetoric that ignores reality, let's get to the
reality. Let's pledge--whoever is in the majority in the end--we will
bring up each of the appropriations bills, vote them up or down or
amend them. We could have done this in June or July. If we had done
that, we wouldn't be where we are now. It was a missed opportunity.
If we say let's have an automatic CR no matter what happens, whether
we have earthquakes, floods, fires, COVID, attacks on the United
States, anything else, we can just sit back and relax, not have to do
all of the weekends and holidays and late-night work that many of us in
both parties do on appropriations because we have got an automatic CR.
When I came to the Senate, both the Republican and Democratic leaders
told me--and I was the most junior Member of the Senate at the time--
that we should be the conscience of the Nation. It meant doing your
work.
I never expected to be the dean of the Senate, but I have seen both
Republicans and Democrats do that work. At times, it has been into late
Friday night or early Saturday morning, but we have done it and passed
it.
Where did those days go? Where did those days go?
So when Senator Shelby became chair and I became vice chair, we
passed a series of appropriations bills.
[[Page S7405]]
And I think we got 80, 90, 95, and sometimes 100 Senators to vote for
those bills. We usually can't get a vote with that many to say the Sun
rises in the East. The majority gave us time to bring those votes up,
debate them, and vote them up or down.
I will have more comments to make. I don't question the good
intentions of any Senator here, but what I am saying is, we could have
done this in June; we could have done it in July; we could have done it
in August; we could have done it in September; we could have done it in
November. And to now complain--well, up to the last few days, we have
got to change everything. Instead, let's pledge that we will follow
regular order in the coming days.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Braun). The Senator from Wisconsin
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator
from Vermont.
I think what Senator Lee and I were talking about is, you know, as
opposed to the way it used to be, when we got here in 2011, the
appropriations process was completely broken, and it is still broken.
And it has been a bipartisan failure.
I arrived in 2011 under Democratic leadership. Now we are in a
Republican leadership. It is broken.
The good news is the Preventing Government Shutdown Act is a
bipartisan solution. It passed 12-to-2 out of my committee. It is
cosponsored, largely, by Senator Lankford and Senator Hassan.
The concerns that the Senator from Vermont expressed about an
automatic CR and passage of this bill is addressed in the bill. The
bill has the disciplines to force us to only work on appropriations
bills. We can leave town but not on the Federal dime, not on campaign
money. We will have to pay for that ourselves.
And I don't know what we are going to pay for it with because we are
not going to get paid until we actually pass the appropriations bill.
So the discipline is already set in here. That is what is so beautiful
about this bill, what is so elegant about it.
As I said, in Wisconsin, once they enforced this discipline, the most
we have ever had is a 4-month CR. We are 71 days into this CR, and we
are going to pass it for another week.
This process is broken. The Preventing Government Shutdown Act is a
solution that will force us back to the good old days, where we bring
up the appropriations bills, because my guess is that not many Members
of Congress aren't going to want to not get paid and not be able to go
back to their district.
So it will focus our minds. We will only be able to work on
appropriations bills, other than in a national emergency. We will get
the job done. That is what happened in Wisconsin. This is a solution.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 304, S. 1877. I ask that the
committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn, the Braun
substitute amendment at the desk be considered agreed to, and the bill,
as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and that the
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. Reserving the right to object.
My colleagues, I believe here today, are promoting legislation that
they claim will spur Congress to pass appropriations bills in the event
of a government shutdown--in other words, to avoid it.
I think they have a good idea, but would that do the job? I doubt it,
but this debate will go on, and it should because I agree with the
frustration that so many of you have, including the Presiding Officer
here. We are having to part with it.
My colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, and I, for 2 straight
years, with cooperation--bipartisanship--were able basically to pass
these appropriations bills, most of them, for the first time in years.
This has slowed down this year, absolutely. I know it is a big
Presidential race and everybody running this year and that throws it
into it.
But we would like to pass these bills before October 1, just as you
would. But I don't believe this legislation would do what you think it
would do, and I think it deserves further inquiry and scrutiny.
I believe it would exacerbate, in some ways, the problem that we are
trying to resolve here. We are right now close to closing out,
hopefully, all of our appropriations bills. We call it an omnibus. I
agree with their frustration. We should, as a body, both parties, every
Member of the Senate, should have had the priority, No. 1, to do this
before October 1 each year, as we used to do it.
So unless this legislation somehow prohibits political partisanship,
I don't believe it will increase the probability that we get our work
done, shutdown or not.
I think the key is to work together. Senator Leahy and I have
demonstrated that in a few years, but we need all of us to come
together on this and place the rules first, place the government--don't
shut down.
I stand before you every day. The worst thing we can do is shut down
the government. The specter of a shutdown is bad in itself, which we
face right today.
So I believe the most important incentive right now for us to do is
try to work together. If we can't, we are going to have to do
something. It might be something like what you are talking about, but I
think it deserves further debate, further inquiry.
And there is a political downside to all this, I know. But if we work
together, we will get these bills passed. Nobody is more acutely aware
of that than my colleague from Vermont, who has been on the
Appropriations Committee for many years, before I was even there. But
the American people, as someone said here today, elected us to do our
job. They are absolutely right--we should do our job and do it
promptly, and we can if we work together.
Having said that, I know this issue is not going away unless we do
our job like we should, but I object to the unanimous consent request
at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. JOHNSON. I appreciate the words from the Senators from Vermont
and Alabama. I would like to work with you, and I think all of us would
like to work with you on a solution to this problem. So I appreciate
those words, and I look forward to working with you in the future on
this.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I have profound respect and admiration for
both the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Vermont. As you can
tell from their remarks, they are congenial, collegial, and delightful
people. They also have many decades of legislative experience between
the two of them, and the country has been blessed by their gifts, their
talents, and their willingness to work hard.
I want to respond to a couple of points made a moment ago, one
suggesting, perhaps, that the answer to all of this is simply a desire
to work together, as if that were somehow not what we have in mind.
We were also told a moment ago that they are almost finished with the
appropriations process, that it is almost complete. Now, if that is the
case, then I would ask the question, why haven't we been permitted to
see it? Why haven't the other Members of the U.S. Senate been able to
see that? It is a little bit hard for some of us to hear that if we all
work together, we can get this done, when that is literally all we are
asking.
I don't think any one of us supporting Senator Johnson's legislation
is here saying that it is perfect or here saying that it would
magically solve every problem in the world or even every problem in the
U.S. Senate having to do with the spending process. We are not saying
that. But what we are saying is that without it, we will stay stuck in
the same closed-loop system.
So to suggest that there is somehow a lack of desire on our part or
on the part of anyone who is not an appropriator or anyone who is not
the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, that
this is somehow a product of a lack of desire and willingness to work
together, that is not fair. That is not accurate. That is quite
[[Page S7406]]
the opposite of the truth. What we are asking for is a seat at the
table.
Article V of the Constitution outlines the procedure for amending the
Constitution, for making changes to the structure of government that we
have, what it may and may not do. Article VI of the Constitution
preemptively disposes of any proposed constitutional amendment that
would alter the principle of equal representation in the Senate. It is
the one rule that cannot be changed. It is so fundamental to our system
of government, to this system of government that has helped foster the
development of the greatest civilization the world has ever known, that
in this Chamber, every State has to be represented equally. That
doesn't happen and, indeed, it can't happen when you have some of the
most significant measures that will ever come before this body
commandeered by one committee, the Committee on Appropriations.
Now, granted, as has been suggested in the last couple of speeches we
have heard, we have some great talent among our members on the
Appropriations Committee. We have great talent among the staffers on
the Appropriations Committee. They work really hard. They are really
smart. They are really determined, and they are highly specialized.
That isn't the problem. The problem is that in most circumstances,
because of the way we bring things up, most of us are completely
disenfranchised from the process.
This doesn't mean that it is the fault of the Appropriations
Committee. I don't believe that it is. It is, instead, a fault of the
way in which we schedule votes and the fact that these things aren't
brought up until the last possible minute, and then we are given this
awful choice of, vote for a whole bunch of things that you don't
necessarily support and can't even completely know about or vote
against it and be blamed for a government shutdown.
That is all this bill is trying to do, is to get us out of that toxic
loop--a loop that is the opposite of collegial, the opposite of
respectful, and that is utterly incompatible with the principle of
equal representation in the Senate--a principle that cannot be undone
even by a constitutional amendment.
Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a question
Mr. LEE. Yes, I will.
Mr. LEAHY. Should we be able to represent our constituents? Of
course. He and I agree, and he and I have agreed on a lot of different
things, especially constitutional issues, in this body. And I share his
concern of suddenly being handed a piece of legislation like this, and
we are going to vote on it in 10 minutes or an hour or so.
Would he agree with me that if the leader said that Tuesday of next
week--say this was done earlier in the year--Tuesday of next week, we
will bring up this part of the appropriations bill from the committee,
the committee having voted on it, Republicans and Democrats--I think it
is close to a third of the U.S. Senate that is on that committee--
having voted on it, and it will be open to amendments. Then after we
finish that one, we will bring up the next one.
Would that cover many of the problems that the Senator from Utah has?
Mr. LEE. In response to the question, the answer is yes. Absolutely
yes. That is exactly what we want. That is exactly what we deserve. And
this is one of many manifestations of the fact that my friend, my
distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Vermont, has the
benefit of many decades of experience in this body. He has been here at
times when the Senate has functioned precisely like that, as it should.
That is exactly what we want. That is how the Senate is supposed to
function, and that is how it has functioned for most of the existence
of our great Republic.
So that in and of itself would not only help address the problem, it
would be the solution to the problem. That is why I insist this is not
a problem that can be fairly laid at the feet of the individual members
of the Appropriations Committee or even necessarily the chairman and
ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. It is a problem with
the way we schedule votes, and it is also a problem related to the
first, with a lack of willingness to allow amendments to be brought.
The filibuster is itself maligned and often misunderstood, but the
purpose of a filibuster from the very origins of this institution was
to allow for theoretically unlimited debate, discussion, and
opportunities for amendments to legislation. Nowhere would that be more
important than in the case of where we are spending the public's money.
That is what we are supposed to be doing. That is how it always did
work in the past. The very reason why we have the filibuster rule to
begin with is to allow for, to facilitate, to encourage unlimited
debate, discussion, and amendments.
So, yes, I wish this legislation weren't necessary, but it is with
precisely that objective in mind that we push this legislation. Why?
Well, some of us have been here for many years, and in the case of
Senator Johnson and myself, we have been here now for a decade. We have
hoped for that exact type of scenario that Senator Leahy just described
to come about, and I don't doubt Senator Leahy's sincerity one bit in
raising that point. That is exactly what we need.
The incentives aren't there. The incentives on the part of those
making these decisions to bring these things up with too little time
for debate, amendment, or even reading the bill and discussing it with
our constituents--those making that decision have forestalled the kind
of debate and discussion that needs to occur. The incentive structure
is such that those making that very decision are not going to want to
relinquish that immense power, particularly if they can be a part of
and even control what goes into that bill, who knows about it when, and
then virtually guarantee passage on the Senate floor.
Something has to change in order to alter that incentive structure to
bring about exactly the kind of dynamic Senator Leahy has described.
Look, we can do this. It is not that hard. But we are going to have to
adopt some changes to our procedures, and ultimately we owe it to our
constituents not to bend unflinchingly and reflexively every single
time somebody brings forward a spending bill at the very last minute.
I remember one of many moments in which this has occurred arose in
March of 2018. We had been anticipating for many months a spending
bill. We had a lot of conversations among and between Members about the
need to debate, discuss, and amend spending legislation before it was
brought to the floor. We had been assured that we would have more of an
opportunity than we had in previous Congresses.
Then one Wednesday evening in March of 2018, we received an email.
The email arrived at I believe about 8:30 or 8:45 in the evening. It
told us that attached is a copy of a spending bill. We will be voting
on this sometime in the Senate. We weren't told when. I opened the
attachment. The attachment contained a 2,232-page spending bill
spending well over $1 trillion.
We immediately started reviewing that. I divided up that legislation
by section among my staff and then spent the entire night and the
entire following day reviewing that legislation. We got a basic
understanding of what it did but only rudimentary. A 2,232-page omnibus
spending bill does not exactly read like a fast-paced novel.
To my great astonishment, before we were even finished reading that
bill, much less before we had the opportunity to even conceive of or
draft amendments, much less propose them, the House of Representatives
passed that bill without amendment before lunch the next day. The
Senate passed the same legislation about 12 or 13 hours later.
This process has repeated itself over and over again. We can't fool
ourselves into believing that it is going to change without some
alteration to procedure and to the set of incentives that perpetuate
that vicious cycle--one that is no respecter of persons, no respecter
of Republicans versus Democrats, liberals versus conservatives, or even
Senators versus Representatives. It is just a fundamentally anti-
American and undemocratic way of doing things. We can do better, and we
must.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Foreign Policy
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I want to talk today for a few minutes
about something that I don't think has gotten the attention it
deserves, and that is the many successes in foreign policy over the
last 4 years.
[[Page S7407]]
I think at the top of my list of foreign policy successes in terms of
unanticipated accomplishments that we would not have thought would
happen would be the Abraham accords that were signed at the White House
in September. This agreement paves the way for normalized relations
between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Israel and Bahrain and
I believe really establishes a way where the rest of the Middle East
could hopefully follow this step in the right direction. I think not
only is this one of the most significant moves in decades to promote
peace and understanding in the Middle East, but, frankly, it probably
wouldn't have happened if we hadn't had a President who hadn't spent
years hearing how something like this was impossible. The President
believed it was possible, and it was because of his strong leadership
that the countries involved made it a priority to bridge the gap that
everyone thought was unbridgeable, that really had separated these
neighbors for generations.
What we see when we look at this and other events in recent times is
that when our friends become friends with each other, we win. The
United States wins when our friends also become friends with each
other.
This agreement can be a model for future progress in the region. It
is the first time in four decades that any Arab country has recognized
Israel, and you can see it is already making a difference. We had
debate on the floor yesterday about our continued partnership--our
defense partnership--with the United Arab Emirates, and this was,
obviously, an element in that debate. That partnership, over three
different administrations, produced something that nobody would have
anticipated in any of the earlier decades.
The President started his Middle East efforts by acknowledging
Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in his first year in office. A few
months later, he moved the U.S. Embassy there. Now, was this a new
idea? Absolutely not a new idea. American Presidents have been saying
for years that this was a good idea. Party platforms have said for
years that Israel should be able to have their capital in Jerusalem
acknowledged, but nobody had done it before. Congress had said
repeatedly this should happen, but it hadn't happened and didn't happen
until the Trump administration decided to make it happen.
Critics actually said that moving our embassy would hurt our
credibility in the region, and, 3 years later, the Abraham accords
proved that that was 100 percent wrong.
Another reason American credibility has soared in the Middle East is
that President Trump took a strong stance against Iran. He did that by
dealing with the nuclear agreement that President Obama and the Obama
administration had struck with Iran as a bad idea. It was an idea that
actually allowed Iran to eventually get a nuclear weapon and reduced
sanctions on the country's leaders as they continued to sponsor
terrorism around the world. In fact, he even returned substantial
amounts of money that we now know went, in large part, into terror-
building network efforts.
The agreement was badly handled from the start. It didn't work after
we entered into it. We didn't enter into it in any kind of binding way
because it was clear, at the time, that if this agreement would have
been presented as a treaty, it had no chance of being approved by the
Senate.
So it was entered into, thinking: This is such a great idea that the
next President will just have to do it, whether the country is bound to
it or not.
The hard work of doing our work the right way makes a difference,
and, in fact, that agreement would have been changed before a Senate
would have considered ever approving it. But it would have been either
approved or not approved rather than the process we went through, which
was a lot of Senate opposition but no response to that opposition.
President Trump put a spotlight on the deal's failure to protect our
national security. He took a strong new approach to applying maximum
pressure on the Iranian regime, and it has had impact. Eventually, that
new view led to eliminating Qasem Soleimani, who was clearly the
architect of Iran's terrorist activities and the attacks on Americans.
There has been no doubt about that for a long time. Iran was the No. 1
state sponsor of terrorism. General Soleimani was the No. 1 architect
of that state sponsorship of terrorism, and the President was willing
to do what needed to be done there. The world is a safer place with him
gone. Iran knows that we will not turn a blind eye on aggression or on
false promises or, often, even on things being said that, on the face
of them, are clearly not true and the world community is expected to
agree with them, and, frankly, in the case of Iran, often decides that
the best course is to agree to the things that you know are not true
which are presented as if they are true and accepted as if they are
true. This doesn't get you where you want. Accommodating or rewarding
our enemies doesn't advance peace in the Middle East or anywhere else.
Supporting our allies and building stronger alliances and holding
terrorists accountable does.
Stronger alliances are also a goal of the Trump administration's new
focus on the Indo-Pacific region. The President recognized that China
is the greatest threat to democracy and freedom in the world. He
understands that America cannot counter that threat alone, and because
of that, has reached out in meaningful ways. While other
administrations have said they would pivot to the Pacific, the Trump
administration actually oversaw a period of renewed engagement in the
area and renewed branding of the area that indicated that the Indo-
Pacific is now that command and the Indo-Pacific is now that focus. We
have strengthened our alliances with India and with Australia and other
countries in the region. We began working to foster a multilateral
community--one that will protect the free and open nature of the region
from the threat of China.
I was just reading in the news today that China clearly is sending a
message in Hong Kong: If you don't want to be in jail and you are for
Hong Kong freedom, you just need to leave right now. And, apparently,
they are willing to help you get to where your thoughts don't impact
others who are willing to live under--and, maybe, have no choice but to
live under--the repression of China.
The President also took action to strengthen global security and
stability by asking our allies to pull their weight. For too many
years, other countries seemed content to let American taxpayers bear
the cost of defending freedom everywhere in the world. President Trump
challenged the other members of NATO to meet the organization's
guideline of spending 2 percent of their gross domestic product on
defense. Our allies stepped up in many cases and did better than they
had been doing.
In 2016, just 4 of the 28 countries in NATO met the 2 percent
guideline--4 out of 28. Today, that number is still not at 28, but it
is at 10 countries that now exceed the guideline. Remember, four
countries met the guideline 3 years and 10 months ago. Ten countries
have now exceeded the guideline, and every country in the alliance with
a military has increased its defense spending.
That is important progress, and it wouldn't have happened if the
President of the United States had not been willing to say the obvious,
and, frankly, be very direct about it and make himself an uncomfortable
partner at the negotiating table. But if what you are uncomfortable
about is that you are willing to say, ``Do what you have agreed to
do,'' it is about time somebody not only said, ``Do what you have
agreed to do,'' but said it in a way that other countries took it
seriously.
The President sought to address imbalances and protect U.S. interests
in the area of global trade. The Trump administration replaced the
NAFTA agreement with a new trade deal with Mexico and Canada. NAFTA was
great for all three countries, but it needed to be improved. It needed
to be updated, and now it has been.
In my State, Missouri, those two countries are our two biggest
trading partners, and that is the case for the United States. Mexico
and then Canada dwarf trade with almost every other country in the
world as they trade with the United States, and the new agreement will
lead to more jobs and bigger paychecks in all three countries. Our goal
in our neighborhood should be not
[[Page S7408]]
just to make ourselves stronger but to make our neighbors stronger,
because we are stronger when our neighbors are stronger.
Nationwide, exports are expected to grow by $2.2 billion under the
USMCA. And our trade relationship with Japan, the world's third largest
economy, is even stronger, thanks to a new agreement that went into
effect at the start of the year.
So it is clear that there has been lots of activity in America's
foreign policy over the past 4 years. There has been a lot of important
progress and a lot of success stories, and an awful lot of it was done
in a very unconventional way. So, frankly, it just doesn't get covered
by the traditional trade press or the traditional foreign policy press
or the traditional defense press in ways that really the results should
produce.
These are not areas that get the attention that they deserve. I
think, when people look back at the 4 years that we have just completed
in foreign policy, they are going to look at what has happened,
understand it in the context of what was happening, and I am sure they
will believe that these items I talked about today led to a stronger
and safer country as we approach the years ahead of us.
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. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blunt). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the
remarks of the next speaker, I may be recognized for such time as I may
consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Utah.
Tribute to Rob Bishop
Mr. ROMNEY. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the career of a
remarkable public servant whose accomplishments have left an indelible
mark upon our State and upon our country. Congressman Rob Bishop has
earned his place among the greats in Utah's political history, and we
thank him for his service.
Rob has dedicated his political career to fighting the tough battles
over issues that matter to the people of my State, from the virtue of
federalism, States' rights, and protecting individual liberty, to
promoting a strong national defense and sound public lands policy. And
fight he did.
Four years ago, Puerto Rico was fast approaching a fiscal cliff when
Rob, as chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, led a
successful, bipartisan effort to pass a complicated rescue package to
restructure Puerto Rico's debt before it was too late.
While Rob will never rush to take credit or seek the spotlight, his
legislative achievements are enduring and deserve our full praise and
recognition.
His accomplishments manifest closer to home as well. The brave men
and women of our military and civilian workforce at Hill Air Force Base
know Rob as a tremendous advocate and a devoted friend. Through the War
on Terror, improvements and changes in aircraft, and updates to our
nuclear arsenal, Rob has defended our Hill Air Force Base valiantly. At
Dugway Proving Ground in Tooele, his commitment delivered the
completion of an emergency aircraft runway.
Rob's impressive efforts and steady leadership have raised Utah's
profile for our national defense. So, too, has his advocacy for the
Utah Test and Training Range, so it makes sense that this key to our
Nation's military readiness should bear his name. Next Congress, I
intend to introduce a bill to rename it the ``Bishop Utah Test and
Training Range.''
Rare is a man with such professional distinction, intellect, and
personal conviction for the well-being of family, neighbors, and
strangers alike, who carries himself with such humility as Rob. If you
have had the pleasure of being with Rob at a gathering, you know where
to find him at the end of the night--staying behind to help gather the
chairs.
Most of all, Rob is a teacher. From his time as a public school
teacher to his career in public service, one of his highest priorities
has been ensuring that the next generation of young leaders has access
to educational opportunities, not only by securing revenue for public
school as an elected official but also by devoting his time to host
students in the Capitol to teach them about politics, policy, and our
government.
It is an honor to recognize my friend Rob Bishop as he begins his
next chapter with his wife Jeralynn and their five children and nine
grandchildren. For anyone who has not had the great pleasure of meeting
Rob, you will likely easily recognize him on the street as maybe the
last man in Washington who wears an impeccable three-piece suit.
Thank you, Rob, and good luck.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Western Sahara
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have already asked unanimous consent
that I be recognized for such time as I may consume.
This is what I want to do. Something happened today that is deeply
troubling to me, and I have a written response to what happened today.
I am going to go ahead and read that written response. Then, I want to
talk about it.
My written response is--and I will take it so everybody will have the
benefit of this. I am talking about people here in this country, people
in Africa, people all around the world who are interested in this
issue.
OK, this is the written response:
I think that all countries should recognize Israel, and
applaud the president's unprecedented efforts to foster
recognition between Israel and Arab nations through the
Abraham Accords.
Today's White House announcement alleging Morocco's
sovereignty over Western Sahara is shocking and deeply
disappointing. I am saddened that the rights of the Western
Saharan people have been traded away.
In 1966, as West Africa was being decolonized, the UN
General Assembly agreed--
This is 1966--agreed the Sahara deserves a referendum of self-
determination for its own future.
The United States has supported this policy for decades and
has worked to accomplish a referendum of self-determination.
Until today, this Administration had continued our long
history, one that has remained consistent across
administrations--
Democrat and Republican--
We're not alone in this position: the African Union, the
United Nations, the International Court of Justice and the
European Union have all agreed--the Sahrawi people have the
right to decide [what] their own future [is going to be].
The president has been poorly advised by his team; he could
have made this deal without trading [away] the rights of a
voiceless people.
During my most recent visit to the Sahrawi refugee camps, I
visited with the children that live there. They were joyous,
happy, ordinary children who didn't know yet that they were
part of a frozen, forgotten conflict where their hopes and
freedoms were dying a cruel death.
I'm thinking about them and all the Sahrawians today. I
won't stop fighting for them. I won't let the world forget
them.
Today's announcement does not change the United Nations or
the EU positions, nor the charter of the African Union nor
the opinion of the [International Court of Justice]--a
referendum must still happen.
I urge these organizations to stand strong to support
Western Sahara's right to self-determination and am confident
the [United States] will be able to return to the policy
we've held since 1966.
Let me tell you what this is all about. During the colonization
period in Africa, when different countries had colonies there, Spain
had the colony of the land that is in question today. It was called the
Spanish Sahara area at that time.
Now, if you remember your history, Franco was President at that time,
and this was back when things were falling apart for Spain. Franco was
losing a lot of the control, and they were not in a position to hold
onto their colonies--not just in Africa but anyplace else in the world.
So at that time, the U.N. came in, in 1966. This goes all the way
back to 1966. The U.N. asked for a referendum for self-determination
for those people. So they recognized all the way back--that is, the
United Nations recognized--the sovereignty of the Western Saharan
people. That has been consistent since then.
That was 1966. Now, in 1975, when there were a lot of people kind of
lining up to see who could get control, Morocco jumped in with all of
their resources and did all they could at that
[[Page S7409]]
time to capture that area and to absorb that within Morocco--in other
words, to take away from the free people of Western Sahara their land.
And they did that.
So the International Court of Justice went on to say: Well, if the
United Nations couldn't do it, let's at least give them the right for a
referendum for self-determination. That was 1975. Immediately after
that, Morocco invaded Western Sahara.
Now, you have to keep in mind that this is Morocco, with all of the
resources and all the wealth that they had, taking on a country that
was armed with crude instruments. These are the people who rightfully
owned and have lived in Western Sahara.
Western Sahara, if you look--if I had time, if I had known about
this, I would have brought the charts down to show where this land was
and where it is today.
But, in 1975, the International Court of Justice made it very clear
that they had the right to the territory--that Morocco had no right to
the territory of Western Sahara. Now, they invaded Western Sahara.
Spain and France were complicit at that time. Spain had already
colonized that area, and France had desires to do that.
But today--today, as we speak today--there is not a country out there
that recognizes the right of Morocco over Western Sahara--until today,
when this statement came out that we are trying to recognize those
rights.
Nobody--now, I am talking about what I have already listed, all of
the people: the African Union, the United Nations, the International
Court of Justice, the European Union--all of them--they recognize
Sahrawi as the people who have the right to decide their own future.
Everyone is in agreement.
I can remember talking, at one time, to Netanyahu over in Israel and
explaining to them why Morocco should not be able to trade and somehow
get control of land that they are not entitled to in order just to say:
We recognize Israel.
Yes, we want all Arab nations to recognize Israel, and this is
something this President has done. But this is the area that involves
not just two countries, Morocco and Israel. It is all of the countries
in Africa, virtually everybody in East and West Africa and all the
surrounding area. They all agree that that is the territory of Western
Sahara and that they should have a referendum of self-determination.
We all have agreed with that for years. We are talking about back to
1966. Everyone is in agreement that they are the ones who are entitled
to that.
So in 1991 they had a ceasefire, and a mission began to provide a
referendum for self-determination. That was the United Nations and
virtually everybody else. Everyone was in agreement on that. Certainly,
it was initiated from the United Nations, and that was to have a
ceasefire in 1991, by the U.N., and work toward a self-determination.
Then, in 2004, the United States and Morocco signed a free-trade
agreement. Now, this is kind of interesting, because this is a joint
effort between our country, the United States, and Morocco for a free-
trade agreement. In that free-trade agreement, they agreed to
explicitly exclude Western Sahara because Morocco does not have
sovereignty over it. Now, that was in the agreement in 2004 that was
signed by both the United States and Morocco. So they agreed at that
time, as everyone else did, that that should be an independent country
with the right of self-determination.
Then the African Union came along. So far, you have the United
Nations. You have the United States and Morocco in a signed free-trade
agreement. But then you also had Morocco, when it joined the AU,
signing a document. This is when it came from the African Union. They
recognized Western Sahara as its own country. This is the African
Union.
Now, we are talking about 52 nations in the African Union that all
agree on this. No one is in disagreement on this.
And then Morocco, when it joined the AU, signed a document. When they
joined the African Union--we are talking about Morocco now, up on the
northeast edge of that territory. When they joined the AU, or the
African Union, they signed a document acknowledging all member states
and their borders; that is, acknowledging the Western Sahara area as
not a part of Morocco. Now, this is Morocco agreeing to this.
So you have the United Nations in 1991. You have the United States
and Morocco in the free-trade agreement in 2004. You have an agreement
explicitly stating where the lines should be. Then you have the African
Union coming along and recognizing. This is all of the countries, 52
nations in the African Union. So we have all of them in agreement with
this.
South Africa is the present chair of the AU, and one of their
priorities is to resolve the Western Sahara issue.
Now, all of that happened prior to today. And, as I say in my written
statement, I really believe--I know our President has a big heart. I
have argued for him and to benefit him. The various times that we have
had conflicts out there--and one of them was when they came out with a
statement that they were going to immediately--this was a couple of
years ago--move the people out of Germany and move them back to the
United States; that that was going to be done before the end of the
year. And I made the public statement. That was not the President
talking. That was a policy that came out of the White House, and I
seriously doubted that he even knew about it and certainly would not
agree with it.
If there is one thing the President is compassionate about, it is the
families. You can't just uproot the families who were stationed in
Germany and move them back to the United States--kids in school and all
these things. He is a compassionate person. He is the first one in line
to take care of our troops every time there is a problem.
This is the same situation. In this case, he is not the type of
person that would bag the freedom-loving people of Western Sahara to
Morocco.
So that is what happened. This is an old issue. It dates back to
1966. I can remember--and this is highly unusual--as a Member of the
U.S. Senate, there was a hearing in the House--this is about maybe 5 or
6 years ago--and I served. I asked to be a witness in that hearing.
The hearing was about Western Sahara and Morocco. Now, keep in mind
that Morocco is a very wealthy country. Virtually every lobbyist in
Washington is paid by them. At that time, I could remember standing
there in that hearing, in the House of Representatives, and listening
to all the lobbyists that they had hired against a country that didn't
have any money.
They don't have, really, any formal armaments. They are heroic
people. They are fighters. They want to continue to fight for their
freedom, but they don't have the resources.
So this is way back then, and I pointed out that Morocco has used all
of their wealth to try to get the land that justly belongs to Western
Saharan people. So that is not anything new. That has been happening
for a long time.
At that time, I remember I took the transcript at that time--I think
it was 6 or 7 years ago--in that hearing. I said that Morocco owns
every lobbyist in Washington, DC, and it is kind of the giant out there
against this small group of people who are being thrown out of their
land that they justly own.
It is self-determination. Who can fight and argue against self-
determination? Certainly, our President is not the type of person who
would fight against self-determination. He would be for self-
determination. That is the kind of person he is. That is why this
thing--I just think it is some poor advice from some advisers that
threw in that thing.
As I said in my formal statement, he could have done that with them
without giving away the rights and the land of the Western Saharan
people.
So I just want to make sure that everyone knows that this is--I
strongly support everything that this President has successfully been
doing in bringing the Arab world into the Israeli world and doing
something for peace in the Middle East.
Everybody else has tried. Every Democrat and Republican President I
can think of, in memory, has tried to do this and has not been
successful, until this President did it.
It is just, in this case, I don't think it was necessary to give
away--to stand up the people, the just people in an area where they
don't have any resources. They have been living in the
[[Page S7410]]
desert. Three generations now have come and gone, and all of them know
that at one time there was peace and they owned their land and that day
would come that they would get their land back. That hasn't happened
yet.
I think with this mistake that was made, it is certainly not in the
interest of all of our friends. I say that without any exceptions. They
are all on our side on this thing. Our policy has been clear since
1966, and we have been committed.
Some time ago, 1994, I came from the House to the Senate, and I had a
long visit at that time with Jim Baker, who had been the Secretary of
State in the previous administrations. I called him up, and I said: You
know, this is such a huge injustice, what has happened, what Morocco
has done to these people of Western Sahara.
He said: You are right, and we have done everything.
I said: We have got to change that, and I am going to make that
commitment.
This was back in 1994.
He said: Well, I admire you for doing it. I will do all I can to
cooperate with you.
This is Jim Baker talking.
He said: I don't think you will be able to do it because they have
too many resources, too much money, and the Western Saharan people
don't have any money. They don't have any resources. And they are the
ones who have been abused in this.
He said: Good luck. I will do everything I can to help you.
That was back when Jim Baker was Secretary of State. That was a long
time ago. Since that time, every administration--and not just
Republican administrations but Democratic administrations--have all
been lined up saying: This is a sense of fairness. It is something that
has to be corrected. We can't allow that giant to take over the
righteous people.
And that is what has happened. So it is not over yet. I can assure
you that I will make every effort I can to make sure that we go back to
the policy that we had and that ultimately we will achieve. Maybe this
will be just the thing. This shock treatment for the American people
and for people around the world might be just the thing that is going
to offer them an opportunity for a referendum for self-determination.
Who can be against a referendum for self-determination? Certainly no
Americans whom I know of.
With that, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Braun). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded
Tribute to Sharon Pierce
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I rise today to commend an outstanding
Hoosier whose work in Indiana's child and family welfare system has
touched countless lives, including my own. Sharon Pierce, president and
CEO of The Villages--a nonprofit child and family services agency--will
soon be retiring after a distinguished 47-year career of serving our
children and our families.
Sharon also happens to be my aunt, and I have seen firsthand her love
and dedication to Indiana's children. Her call to service started early
in life. When she was young, Sharon's mother volunteered at a youth
home in Fort Wayne. She and her siblings would help her mother with
holiday parties. It was there that she first learned how important the
family is to a child.
A graduate of Ball State University, Sharon's entire career since
then has been dedicated to public service. Prior to her work at The
Villages, she worked for several youth advocacy programs in Illinois.
She also served as a deputy director at the Indiana Division of Family
and Children--the forerunner of today's Indiana Department of Child
Services. While at the Division of Family and Children, she helped
create a 1-800 number to report suspected child abuse. She also
established the Healthy Families Initiative, which still today provides
resources to at-risk, first-time parents to help prevent abuse and
neglect.
In 1992, she became the president and CEO of The Villages, where she
has created a culture of compassion and a deep commitment to supporting
families in need. At The Villages, children are enrolled in family and
child support services, with the goal of helping to keep family members
together. The Villages also provides foster care and offers support for
relatives and family friends who are helping to raise a child,
including education and child abuse prevention services.
Sharon has said: ``Even though The Villages is probably best known
for high-quality foster care, the reality is we want to do anything we
can to keep families together.''
``Anything we can to keep families together''--it is hard to imagine
a mission more critical than this.
I am not the only one to offer my praise for Sharon Pierce. Indiana's
Governor, Eric Holcomb, said the following:
Sharon's saintly efforts over the decades touched the lives
of countless Hoosier children. She taught, inspired, led so
many others over the years to invest in those who need it the
most.
Indiana Department of Child Services Director Terry Stigdon said:
She exudes compassion and caring. . . . It's just innate to
her being.
Sharon has dedicated her professional life to ensuring children have
a bright future, regardless of their circumstances. Her work has
inspired countless others, including me, and the policies I choose to
focus on here in the Senate.
I know my Aunt Sharon is looking forward to spending more time with
her husband--my Uncle Steve--their four children, and now their seven
grandchildren. She has more than earned this next chapter in her life.
But as a point of personal privilege and on behalf of the people of
Indiana, I offer my heartfelt thanks for her decades of service, and I
wish her very well in this next chapter.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Coronavirus
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I have to tell you, every day, I am
hearing from Tennesseans who are asking what we are going to do about
COVID relief. It is coming up in nearly every conversation that I
have--with our county mayors, with citizens, with employers and
employees; conversations with those who have lost their jobs through no
fault of their own. Why can't we get something done?
The phones really started ringing last week when Speaker Pelosi, the
Speaker of the House, accidentally revealed that it was politics and
not principle that convinced her to spend months--months--standing
between the American people and targeted relief that they are asking
for and that they desperately need. It was politics--all politics to
her. People were pawns that she was moving around, trying to get her
way.
It is disgusting. It is a tragedy. But I will tell you this: It is
nothing new. In fact, since July, Democrats have continuously blocked
efforts to provide targeted relief. The minority leader obstructed
these efforts in the hopes of passing a $3 trillion bill. That is
right, trillion--$3 trillion bill. It was filled to the brim with
partisan proposals that had nothing do with the pandemic and a bailout
for fiscally irresponsible States and cities.
Tennesseans are very much opposed to having their hard-earned dollars
that are tax dollars that come to the Federal Government used to bail
out States that have chosen not to be fiscally responsible. They say:
Above all else, do not bail out these States, these cities, these
pension funds.
Let's be clear to the American people. It is the Speaker of the House
and the minority leader who are holding noncontroversial relief--they
are holding it hostage. There should be another round of PPP. There
should be another increase, a plus-up, of unemployment. There should be
more money for vaccines, testing, and getting children back to school.
But, oh, no. For months, what did they want to do? Play politics. Play
politics with people's lives. If that isn't the most tone-deaf thing
that I have ever heard, I don't know what is. Perhaps some of my
friends across the aisle should check their mail and make certain that
their office phones are being answered. People are quite upset with
them.
It doesn't stop there. I wish it did. It only gets worse. In the
fall, the Democrats filibustered targeted relief proposals not once but
twice and rejected
[[Page S7411]]
a much needed extension of the Paycheck Protection Program almost as
soon as it was proposed. This month, more of the same. Their refusal to
negotiate in good faith has made it abundantly clear to the business
owners, the healthcare providers, and millions of other struggling
Americans that partisan grandstanding is more of a priority for
Democrats than doing their jobs.
The American people are not pawns, and it is time my colleagues in
the minority stopped treating them as such. The House Speaker and
Senate Democrats might have all the time in the world to stall. Maybe
they are pretty comfortable with where they are. But outside of this
Chamber, for a lot of our families and small businesses that are
struggling, it is the eleventh hour. Now is not the moment to strong-
arm the U.S. Senate into rubberstamping a radical liberal wish list. It
is time to step up and deliver relief--targeted relief, relief we all
agree will mean the difference between survival for many of these small
businesses and economic collapse; money and support for vaccines;
another full round of PPP funding for the businesses that need it most;
and support for our frontline heroes and essential workers.
This bullet list of absolute essentials must also include reasonable,
responsible liability protections for small businesses and healthcare
workers. These protections are the flip side of relief funding. Without
them, we take these business owners and workers out of one bad
situation and put them right into another one. Without them, we
effectively force entire industries to choose between economic survival
or, in the case of healthcare workers, literal survival and death by
opportunistic lawsuits. We can't allow this to happen.
One of the things that I have noticed this past year is how critical
it is for us to be able to articulate problems and lay the foundation
to address them before an emergency strikes.
In Tennessee, as in many other States, the number of people who live
in rural and remote areas poses challenges when it comes to providing a
variety of services that we all consider essential, chiefly among them,
healthcare delivery and access to high-speed internet. I have worked
with healthcare practitioners and advocates to cut a path forward for
the widespread use of telemedicine.
Last year, I introduced the Rural Health Agenda to increase access to
healthcare for the 60 million Americans who leave in rural areas. A
crucial component of that legislative package was a set of provisions
that lifted unnecessary regulatory barriers standing in the way of
access to telemedicine. As always, it is the redtape that slows up
progress. The pandemic only highlighted the importance of opening up
contact-free access to healthcare.
Fortunately, in March, after a lot of meetings with the White House
and Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma, we were
able to roll back a particularly frustrating regulation preventing the
use of telemedicine by Medicare enrollees.
Provisions I supported as part of the CARES Act further expanded
access to telemedicine by removing even more of that redtape and
providing funding for reimbursement to frontline healthcare providers.
Of course, access to telehealth and access to high-speed internet go
hand in hand. You can't really have one without the other.
This week, I learned that the FCC, as a result of the recent Rural
Digital Opportunity Fund auction, has now made some great steps, and
Tennessee is going to receive about $150 million to help close the
digital divide over the next decade. These new connections will be a
game changer for rural and underserved communities. Not only will they
open up access to telehealth, distance learning, and remote work
opportunities, they will open up the local economy and encourage growth
and outside investment because these dollars are targeted to unserved
areas.
This award, coupled with CARES Act funding put to work earlier this
year, will help us build on our prepandemic work on behalf of rural and
unserved Americans.
The Internet Exchange Act, a bipartisan bill I sponsored to provide
grant funding for broadband infrastructure, recently reported out of
our Commerce Committee.
The pieces are, indeed, falling into place, and, hopefully, we can
keep the momentum going and finally get this job done: closing the
digital divide, providing everyone with access to high-speed internet
and allowing communities that have been cut off from economic
development, from telehealth, from remote learning to enhanced law
enforcement--allowing them to benefit.
It is not just a matter of connectivity or convenience. It is an
investment in a better quality of life for all Americans who call the
rural parts of this country home.
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. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered
Tribute to Kevin Ryan
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, for those of us who have the privilege of
working in the U.S. Senate, it allows us the opportunity to meet
wonderful people who care about their country, who go to work every day
and make sure that the country is safe and secure.
One of those individuals, whom I met over the last year--met a year
ago and now has worked in my office--is Army LTC Kevin Ryan. He is a
member of my staff as an Army fellow participating in the U.S. Army
Congressional Fellowship Program.
I want to take a moment to recognize LTC Kevin Ryan's contribution,
certainly, to my office, to my capabilities of representing Kansas in
the U.S. Senate, but his commitment to the country as well.
Before he departs my office to return to the big Army at the start of
the new year, I want to express my appreciation to Colonel Ryan for all
of his hard work and his dedication and his service to our country.
Kevin's 14 years of service in the U.S. Army have developed his
leadership abilities and shaped his perspective on major defense issues
of national significance. These assets and attributes have made him an
invaluable asset for our team as we work to serve Kansans, members of
the military, and our veterans.
Before joining our office, Kevin's assignments have taken him around
the world in service to our country.
Kevin earned his commission from Norwich University, the Military
College of Vermont. He has served four combat tours, two in Afghanistan
and two in Iraq, and he has also been deployed to Korea, Germany, and
Italy. His most recent deployment took him to Iraq in 2017, where he
served as a senior intelligence officer for the brigade that assisted
Iraqi security forces in the liberation of Mosul from the Islamic
State.
Kevin is lucky to have his wife Lindsey, his daughter Colleen, and
son John by his side. He is blessed to have their unwavering support.
Kevin joined our team in January of 2019. From day one, he embraced
Kansas, its people, and the challenges they face day in and day out. He
is well known for displaying his love of Kansas outwardly, often
wearing a Kansas necktie in meetings and on Zoom calls.
He has made it a priority to spend time in our State and learn from
Kansans so he can bring their thoughts and ideas back to the Nation's
Capital. These personal conversations with Kansans and Kevin's
experience in the Army helped drive meaningful policy.
He has led the efforts to recognize the important work of the 6888th
Central Postal Directory Battalion, the only all-African-American, all-
female battalion to be deployed overseas during World War II. The Six
Triple Eight, as this battalion has come to be known, sorted millions
of pieces of backlogged mail so the troops serving on the frontlines
could hear from families and loved ones. Their efforts boosted morale
and directly contributed to our servicemembers' fighting spirit toward
the end of the war. Kevin has been a tireless advocate for these women,
and I commend his dedication to this cause.
Though I am sad he will be leaving our office at the end of the
month, I know he will serve the Army well next
[[Page S7412]]
year in the Army's programs office, where he will be a highly effective
ambassador to Congress for the Army.
Kevin is one of the most impressive military officers I have had the
honor of knowing. I hold him in the highest regard, personally and
professionally. He is a significant asset to our country and to the
U.S. Army. Kevin represents the best the Army has to offer, and I know
he will continue to benefit the future of our Nation.
There is no group of people I hold in higher regard than those who
serve our Nation, and I want to reiterate my gratitude to Kevin and to
his family for their dedication and service to our Nation.
Once again, Kevin, thank you for all you have done for Kansans, all
you have done for our team as we serve those Kansans. You have been a
model of selfless service and leadership. I know you will continue to
do great things throughout your Army career and your life of service,
wherever that path may lead.
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. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Coronavirus
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, we are currently in the midst of the
worst moment of the pandemic up until now.
We have recordbreaking numbers of deaths, of diagnoses of people with
COVID-19, of hospitals unable to accommodate even more people.
And in the midst of this pandemic, obviously, we are also in a severe
economic meltdown, and there are economists who are telling us that the
desperation of working families in this country today, right now, is
worse than at any time since the Great Depression.
In Vermont and all over this country, we have workers who have lost
their jobs and their income; people who are, by the millions, behind in
their rent and are afraid of being evicted, afraid of losing their
homes; people who have lost their health insurance, unable to go to a
doctor. In the midst of a terrible pandemic, they don't have health
insurance, can't go to a doctor when they get sick.
And what we are seeing today is a record number of Americans who are
struggling, literally, with hunger, unable to feed their kids. I know
in Vermont and all over this country there are lines of automobiles,
cars of people--people who had never received governmental help--in
line for emergency bags of groceries.
That is what is going on in this country today.
Now, back in March, in the beginning of the pandemic, this Congress
came together--Democrats and Republicans and President Trump came
together--and virtually unanimously passed the CARES Act, $2.2
trillion, which, among many other features, provided a $600 supplement
to unemployment benefits for 4 months and $1,200 direct payments for
every working-class adult in this country, plus $500 for their
children.
And here is the truth: That program, that CARES Program, saved lives,
gave dignity to people who were at their wit's end, and saved this
economy from further downfall.
Well, today, we are where we are, which is at another terrible moment
in this pandemic, and this Congress must act. We cannot leave here to
go home to our families for the Christmas holidays while other families
throughout this country, by the millions, are wondering how they are
going to pay the rent or feed their kids. We cannot do that.
And I am proud to say that Senator Hawley from Missouri and I have
worked together on a pretty simple amendment that he will be talking
about in a second, which says that we must include in any legislation
that is passed a direct payment of $1,200 for adults and $500 for kids.
We cannot, we must not leave Washington unless we do that. And next
week I am going to do everything that I can to make sure that that
happens. We cannot, we will not leave Washington unless we make certain
that millions of families have the economic assistance that they need.
So we are working on bipartisan legislation, and Senator Hawley has
done a very, very good job on this, and I am proud to yield the floor
to him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri
Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with Senator
Sanders in this important legislation.
It is very simple legislation, and this is, to my mind, a very simple
proposition. Here is the proposition: that when it comes to COVID
relief in the midst of this crisis, working families and working people
should be first to get relief, not last. Their interests, their needs
should be first on our to-do list, not last.
Now, I have heard some of my colleagues say that there just isn't
enough left for working families; that once we take care of our other
priorities in COVID relief, there just isn't enough left to give direct
assistance to individuals.
I want to respectfully suggest that those priorities are exactly
reversed. We should begin with the working people of this country, and
that is why the legislation that Senator Sanders and I are introducing,
which I believe every Senator voted for in March--it is simple
legislation--$1,200 for each individual, $2,400 for a couple, and $500
for every dependent in the family. It is exactly what this Congress
approved overwhelmingly back in March, and it was, indeed, a lifeline.
I know it was for Missourians in my State, for working families in my
State.
I remember, in the hours and days after Congress passed this in
March, fielding call after call after call from friends, from people I
didn't know in my State but whom I represent, who called me to say:
First of all, is it really true? Are we actually going to be getting
this support? And then just to say thank you.
And I said: Don't thank me. Thank you for being the ones who have
built this country, the ones who sustain this country, the ones on whom
this country depends.
And I will just say also, as a matter of fairness--if the U.S.
Government is going to shut down your business, if it is going to tell
you to go home for health reasons, if it is going to give you no choice
in the matter, I think that there is an obligation to support and help
the people who are affected, through no fault of their own. Let's be
clear. The millions of Americans who are out of work because of this
pandemic, they haven't done anything wrong. The 853,000 Americans who
today, the new numbers tell us, filed for unemployment benefits, they
are not at fault in this pandemic.
We want to support and stand with working individuals and working
families. I want the working people of Missouri to know that they are
first on the priority list, and when it comes to COVID relief, we will
not leave this town until we have voted--up or down--until we have
voted on direct relief for working people in my State, in Senator
Sanders's State, and in every State in this Union.
With that, I thank Senator Sanders, and I yield back.
Mr. SANDERS. Well, thank you very much, Senator.
And let me just say this: In March, as Senator Hawley indicated, we
came together, and I had the same experience in Vermont. People in
desperation called the office: When can we get the check? We
desperately need it. And I suspect it was the same thing in Texas and
the same thing in every other State in this country. People are
hurting.
We cannot go home unless we address the needs of those people. And
the amendment that Senator Hawley and I are introducing could not be
simpler. It is $1,200 in direct payment for adults up to a certain
limit--the same limit as was in the CARES Act--and $500 for their
children. We have already voted and passed that exact same provision in
March, and the situation today is not better. In some respects, it is
worse.
So I would hope that we would have bipartisan support for this
legislation. Look, it is no great secret, whether you are a Republican,
Democrat, or whatever, that people are losing faith in their
government. They are hurting; their kids are hurting; their parents are
hurting. They look to Washington and they say: Do you know that we
exist or are you just worried about your rich friends and your campaign
contributors?
[[Page S7413]]
In this moment of economic crisis, we have got to do everything that
we can to restore faith that this government works for ordinary people.
So let us do the right thing. Let us pass this amendment in a
bipartisan way. Let us show the working families of America that we
understand what they are going through, and we are going to stand with
them.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 2420
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am glad to be here on the floor of the
Senate with my friend Senator Bob Menendez asking that the U.S. Senate
advance legislation to establish a National Museum of the American
Latino.
As a proud Texan, I am fortunate to have grown up in a State steeped
in the contributions of Hispanics and Latinos. Approximately 40 percent
of our population is composed of Latinos in Texas, but they are not
monolithic by any stretch of the imagination, which is why we need a
museum to tell their stories.
There are the Tejanos, whose roots in the Lone Star State predate our
statehood or even Texas independence, as well as those who have
emigrated from other States or countries and have chosen to call Texas
home more recently.
From the brave soldiers who fought in the Texas Revolution to the
civil rights activists like Cesar Chavez, cultural icons like Selena,
and leaders of all types in our communities, generations of Latino
Americans have shaped our country as it is today. But, as I suggested a
moment ago, many Americans simply aren't aware of the vast
contributions made by these men and women who have come before us, and
one critical way we can right this wrong is by providing a home for
their stories in the Nation's Capital.
I have heard somebody suggest that we don't need a separate museum
for different racial groups and ethnic groups or the like, but this is
far more important than that because the story of American Latinos is
the story of America itself. Many people simply aren't familiar with
the vast contributions they have made.
This particular effort has been underway for more than 25 years.
Nothing happens very quickly, particularly when it comes to
establishing a new museum like this, but we are just two steps away,
and I hope the Senate can take one big step this afternoon by passing
this bipartisan legislation and sending it to the President's desk for
his signature.
I know there are some of our colleagues who have concerns about the
museum's location, and I can assure them that Congress will have a
voice in the site of this museum. But before construction can begin,
congressional committees will be consulted on site selection as laid
out in the bill and I believe the colloquy that will be made a part of
this record.
The Smithsonian Board of Regents, which will select the site, is
chaired by the Supreme Court Chief Justice and comprises multiple
Members of Congress, including three sitting Senators and the Vice
President. The Congress will also need to appropriate funds to
supplement the private fundraising that will help finance this museum.
The appropriation requirement will be a de facto ratification or
rejection of the site selected by the Smithsonian Board of Regents. So
there is going to be a lot of input in that decision. We are not making
that decision here today. And I believe there need to be open lines of
communication between Members of Congress and the Smithsonian Board of
Regents as they undertake this significant project.
It has been estimated that if we pass this bill today, the doors to a
new museum will not open for at least a decade, so I am eager to get
the process moving.
The National Museum of the American Latino will honor and preserve
the stories of Latinos throughout American history so generations can
view a more accurate and more complete history of the contributions
made by these great Americans, and I hope the Senate will advance this
critical legislation today
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today and will
shortly ask for unanimous consent on H.R. 2420, the National Museum for
the American Latino Act.
Let me just thank my colleague, the senior Senator from Texas, Mr.
Cornyn, who has been a great partner throughout this entire process, a
strong advocate who helped us navigate some of the challenges we have
had along the way. I am also thrilled to be on the floor with Senator
Collins, who will shortly make a motion on the Women's History Museum,
which I strongly support, and I appreciate her support for the American
Latino Museum.
Today the Senate stands at the precipice of history. We have before
us an opportunity to set in motion a process that will eventually
culminate in the establishment of a national museum devoted to the
history, struggles, and achievements of Latinos and Latinas in the
United States. This is long overdue.
Some colleagues say: Well, why do we need another museum? Well, it
was in 1994 when the Smithsonian Task Force on Latino Issues published
its report entitled ``Willful Neglect''--a report acknowledging the
Institution's own glaring omission of Hispanic history and culture.
This is what the report found:
The Smithsonian Institution, the largest museum complex in
the world, displays a pattern of willful neglect towards . .
. Latinos in the United States. Because of both indigenous
roots and Spanish heritage, Latinos predate the British in
the [United States]. They have contributed significantly to
every phase and aspect of American history and culture. Yet
the institution almost entirely excludes and ignores Latinos
in nearly every aspect of its operations.
Latinos are absent from positions of power and authority
within the institution, which helps to perpetuate the
exclusion of Latino history and culture from the museum's
collections, exhibitions, and programs.
The report also acknowledges how the Smithsonian's exclusion of
Latinos and Latinas has not only harmed Hispanic Americans but all
Americans.
The report says:
The failure of the Smithsonian to reflect and represent
Hispanic contributions is twice damaging. It denies Latinos
their right to feel recognized and valued as part of the
country's heritage. At the same time, it perpetuates among
the general population the inaccurate belief that Latinos
have contributed little to our country's development or
culture, rather than reflecting the multicultural history . .
. of the United States.
Without treading into politics, I think it is important we
acknowledge that this misconception is alive and well today. In recent
years, we have heard Hispanic Americans, immigrants, and their families
used as scapegoats for every economic ill facing our Nation. We have
witnessed the rise of nativism and xenophobia. We have seen these
hateful statements propel acts of horrific violence like the tragic El
Paso shooting.
But we Latinos and Latinas are not invaders. We have been here from
the beginning. The oldest city in America, well before Pilgrims and
Jamestown, is St. Augustine, FL, over 500 years ago founded by a
gentleman named Pedro Aviles de Menendez. And our stories must be told.
Who here does not emerge from the Smithsonian Museum of American
History more informed about the many movements that have shaped our
country? Who does not emerge from the Museum of the American Indian
more aware of Native American history and more appreciative of their
cultures? Who does not emerge from the Museum of African American
History inspired by the perseverance and the power of our Black
community? We all do. The Smithsonian Institution is truly a national
treasure.
But I am not White or Black or Native American. I am Latino. I am one
in five Americans today. My grandchildren are one in four
schoolchildren today. But when we walk through the National Mall--or
should I say when anyone walks through the National Mall, no one is
inspired by the story of Latinos and Latinas in this country because
that story is not being told.
Walk outside these halls and ask someone who Bernardo de Galvez was,
the former Governor of Louisiana before Louisiana was a State, who led
an all-Spanish division against the British as they were approaching
Washington and helped in the Revolutionary War? The Congress gave him
U.S. citizenship. His portrait was supposed to be hung in the Congress
of the United States, so much was the battle that he
[[Page S7414]]
led. His portrait finally hangs in the Senate Foreign Relations room.
Go to Farragut metro station and ask a rider who it was named for.
David Farragut, the Spanish captain who led during the Civil War on
behalf of the Union.
Visit a school and ask a child where the first settlers to this
country hailed from. They won't say St. Augustine, FL.
I guarantee these questions will go unanswered because the history of
the American Latino remains unknown.
It has been nearly 30 years since the Smithsonian Task Force on
Latino Issues recommended that the Institution immediately begin laying
``the groundwork needed to assure the establishment of one or more
museums portraying the historical, cultural, and artistic achievements
of U.S. Hispanics.'' Thirty years. For nearly 30 years, those words
have echoed on empty ears. My friends, that silence and inaction must
end today.
We Hispanics are not a monolithic community. Our families are as
diverse as they come. We are Puerto Rican, Mexican, Cuban, Colombian,
Spanish, Salvadoran, and more. We are Brown, Black, and White, left and
right, and everywhere in between. Some of our ancestors settled here
long before the dawn of our Republic; others arrived alongside
generations of immigrants around the world searching for freedom and
opportunity. Some of us grew up along our southern border in cities and
communities born out of blended cultures.
Some of us, myself included, are first-generation Americans. Our
parents courageously uprooted their lives and came to this country with
no connection at all in order to give their children a brighter future.
Indeed, that story of hard work and boundless optimism is the common
thread that runs throughout our Latino community--all 60 million of us
living in the United States. And I would argue that story is as
American as they come.
So let us ensure that the story is told right here in the Nation's
Capital, where it belongs. Let us pass H.R. 2420. Let us ensure that
someday in the near future, Latino and Latina children and other
children who walk through our National Mall will no longer wonder why
the story of their families are missing. I know I cannot wait for the
day that I can take my granddaughters to the National Museum of the
American Latino.
So it has been a long and winding road for this bill, one which I
hope will complete its path today in Congress. This has already been
passed by the House of Representatives by voice vote--no opposition.
This passed the Rules Committee in a unanimous voice vote.
Now, we have been asked to make some changes to accommodate my
colleague, the chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and
while I personally do not believe that these changes are fair to the
Latino community or required or necessary for the bill, I am committed
to making them to pass this bill and finally moving one step closer to
the construction of the museum.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 600, H.R. 2420. I ask unanimous
consent that the Murkowski amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the
bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that
the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to
thank my friend and colleague, the Senator from New Jersey, for
bringing this issue to the floor today.
Cultural programs may represent and do, in fact, represent a tiny
fraction of all Federal spending, but they are magnified many times
over by virtue of their symbolic and their substantive impact. Culture
is, of course, upstream from politics. It is more important, and it is
more deserving of more of our attention.
For that reason, the Smithsonian Institution is more than just
another line item in our Federal budget. It is one of the great
cultural triumphs of our Republic. From the moment of our founding, the
United States has faced an almost unique problem in history. How do we
turn our huge Nation's cultural, religious, ethnic, and regional
differences from a potential weakness into a real strength? The way our
Nation has always achieved this is by creating institutions that unite
Americans around shared interests and the mystic chords of collective
memory.
The Constitution, the Senate itself, our free enterprise economy, our
Armed Forces and public schools, Federalism, localism, the First
Amendment, and even March Madness all fit this bill. They have the
power to harness our individual and community differences to the common
good of the whole Nation.
Now, the Smithsonian Institution does the exact same thing. It winds
all the myriad strands of America's triumphant history into one
imperfect but heroic story. Americans of every age, race, creed, and
background come to Washington from all over the country to visit the
Smithsonian museums--Natural History, American History, Air and Space,
American Art, the National Zoo. Within the walls of the Smithsonian
museum, just like at the National Gallery of Art or the great memorials
that dot this city, there is no us and them. There is only us.
So my objection to the creation of a new Smithsonian museum or series
of museums based on group identity--what Theodore Roosevelt called
``hyphenated Americanism''--is not a matter of budgetary or legislative
technicalities. It is a matter of national unity and cultural
inclusion.
Now, we have seen in recent years what happens when we indulge the
cultural and identity balkanization of our national community. The so-
called critical theory undergirding this movement does not celebrate
diversity. It weaponizes diversity. It sharpens all those hyphens into
so many knives and daggers. It has turned our college campuses into
grievance pageants and loosed Orwellian mobs to cancel anyone daring to
express an original thought. Especially at the end of such a fraying,
fracturing year, Congress should not splinter one of the national
institutional cornerstones of our distinct national identity.
The Smithsonian Institution should not have an exclusive Museum of
American Latino History or a Museum of Women's History or a Museum of
Americans Men's History or Mormon History or Asian American History or
Catholic History. American history is an inclusive story that should
unite us--us.
The Senator from New Jersey is absolutely right that the history of
American Latinos is a vital part of America's history. So, of course,
is the history of American women, who have written more than half of
the American story, going all the way back to Plymouth Rock. Their
stories are our stories, and they are stories that emphatically should
be told by the Smithsonian Institution at the Museum of American
History, period. No hyphen.
Now, the Senator from New Jersey is well aware of my stingy views on
Federal spending, but if American Latino or American women's history
are being underrepresented at the Museum of American History, that is a
problem, and that is the problem that we should address here. I will
happily work with him or anyone else to correct those problems, even if
it means more money, more exhibits, new floors or wings.
I understand what my colleagues are trying to do and why, and I
respect what they are trying to do, and I even share their interest in
ensuring that these stories are told. But the last thing we need is to
further divide an already divided Nation with an array of segregated,
separate-but-equal museums for hyphenated identity groups.
At this moment in the history of our diverse Nation, we need our
Federal Government and the Smithsonian Institution itself to pull us
closer together and not further apart. On that basis, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from New Jersey
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, 60 million Latinos in this country are
watching tonight because this is a much expected moment--Univision,
Telemundo, affiliates across the country, national organizations, and
others. They have been waiting for this moment, a moment that everybody
in the
[[Page S7415]]
Congress of the United States agrees to except for one colleague. The
House of Representatives passed this on voice. The Rules Committee
passed it on voice in a bipartisan manner. And tonight, one colleague
stands in the way--one Republican colleague from Utah stands in the way
of the hopes and dreams and aspirations of seeing Americans of Latino
descent having their dreams fulfilled in being recognized--just being
recognized.
Now, the Smithsonian is a collection of museums. Let's be honest with
that. Did we need an Air and Space Museum? Do we need a museum of the
Native Americans? Did we need an African-American Museum? I would say
yes to all of them because they are part of the mosaic. They are
brought together under the rubric of the single most significant
cultural institution in the Nation, which is the Smithsonian.
I don't know if these arguments were made against the Native
Americans. I don't know if these arguments were made against African
Americans, but I don't see them as being separate and apart. I see them
as part of the collective history mosaic that is coming together under
the Smithsonian. More than half of the Nation's population are women.
Are we to deny them that their history in our country is not being
told? It is not. It is beyond Betsy Ross, who I appreciate very much.
And, talk about funding, this bill requires that 50 percent of all
the funding be coming from private sources. So we will fuel the
development of programming, as well as the physical structure, as well
as the other elements by the community and communities who want to see
this become a reality.
It is 30 years of willful neglect. Nobody cared, nobody made any
effort, and nobody did anything about it. And in the one chance we
have, since this has been a 20-plus year journey to try to make this
museum possible, one Republican colleague stands in the way. One
Republican colleague stands in the way. It is pretty outrageous. It is
pretty outrageous.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Madam President, I want to be clear about something. All
racial, ethnic, religious groups in America are worthy of celebration,
even to the extent of having their own museums. Indeed, many of them
already do--in many instances, institutions and museums that are not
part of or funded by the Federal Government in whole or in part. If we
had more museums and fewer tweets, America would certainly be better
off.
This isn't about whether such museums should exist or not. This is
about the Smithsonian Institution, which is itself federally funded. I
understand that they also raise a significant portion of their money,
but there is a brand that comes along with the Smithsonian Institution
and a lot of money that is taken from the American people in the form
of tax revenue. So, as a result of that, the Smithsonian Institution
has a unique role and responsibility in our culture and as a repository
and teller of America's national story.
Now, it is absolutely true that African Americans and American
Indians have a unique place in that story in that they were rather
uniquely, deliberately, and systemically excluded from it. Unlike many
other groups, they were persecuted and they were essentially written
out of our national story and even had their own stories virtually
erased--not simply by our culture or evolving values, but by that very
same government, this same Federal Government.
It is, therefore, uniquely appropriate that the Federal Government
provide the funding to recover and tell those communities' specific
stories today at dedicated museums in the specific context of having
been so long excluded from our national community and our national
story.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I just have to say: We have been
systemically excluded. We, who founded the oldest city in America
before there was a United States of America; we, who ultimately were
used as farm workers and discriminated against in the Bracero program;
we, who were discriminated against when we voluntarily joined the Armed
Forces of the United States to defend the Nation--we have been
systematically excluded, not because this Senator said so but because
the Smithsonian itself said so.
And yet we are supposed to entrust the willful neglect that has taken
place for more than three decades--taken place longer but acknowledged
for three decades. Oh, no, we are somehow not systemically excluded.
Believe me, we have been, and the only righteous way to end that
exclusion is to pass this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Madam President, if the Smithsonian Institution in its
report in 1994 in fact acknowledged that it systematically excluded the
stories of any one segment in American society, I struggle to
understand why the only response to that has to be a separate, siloed
museum. Why not direct them, when telling our national story at the
National Museum of American History, to tell that story there. If we
have to expand it, we will do that. If we have to add more floor space
and more staff and more research, let's do that. But the fact that they
have identified their own failure over time doesn't mean that they
themselves should then get to decide that we have a separate, siloed
museum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, before I give my remarks, I want to
strongly associate myself with the comments that have been made this
evening by my colleagues from Texas and New Jersey--Senator Cornyn and
Senator Menendez--in support of a museum to celebrate and commemorate
the achievements of Latinos in our country.
I could not help but wonder, as I heard the comments of my colleague
from Utah, whether he also tried to block the museum celebrating and
telling the history of African Americans, that museum which is so
popular on the Mall. I wondered whether he tried to block also the
creation of the museum that tells the story of Native Americans.
I am convinced that if this bill, which has just been described by my
two colleagues, were brought to a vote on the Senate floor, it would
pass, not unanimously, that is clear, but with a very strong vote. And
it seems wrong that one Senator can block consideration of a bill that
would have overwhelming support by a majority of this body.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 959
So, Madam President, I rise today on behalf of myself and the Senator
from California, Mrs. Feinstein, to urge the Senate to take the
important step of passing our legislation to establish a long overdue
women's history museum in our Nation's Capital.
This is an issue that I have been working on since 2003, when I
introduced the first bill to tell the story of more than half of our
population, of the contributions of American women to our country in
every field: government, business, medicine, law, literature, sports,
entertainment, the arts, the military, the family.
Telling the history of American women matters, and a museum
recognizing our achievements and experiences has long been a goal of
many of the women and men who serve in this Chamber.
Following 18 months of study by an independent, bipartisan commission
established by Congress, the Commission unanimously concluded:
``America needs and deserves a physical national museum dedicated to
showcasing the historical experiences and impact of women in the
country.'' I agree wholeheartedly with the Commission's unanimous
conclusion.
This year, we commemorate the 100th anniversary of suffrage for women
in this country and the decades-long fight for women's equality at the
ballot box. It is extraordinary to me that just 100 years ago, not
every woman in this country was allowed to vote in every State. That is
not that long ago. That story is one of the stories that needs to be
told.
Amid the celebrations of this historic year, I can think of no better
way to tell the story of American women to inspire those young girls
and young boys who come to Washington to tour all the wonderful museums
that are part of the Smithsonian than to create
[[Page S7416]]
a museum of American women's history so that they can better understand
the contributions of American women to the development of our Nation
and its proud history.
As with the legislation that would establish a museum celebrating and
commemorating the history of Latino and Latina Americans, this
legislation has passed the House by an overwhelming margin. Surely, we
ought to be able to take it up and pass it here too.
So, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed
to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 599, S. 959. I ask
unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment be withdrawn,
the Murkowski amendment at the desk be agreed to, and the bill, as
amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and that the
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEE. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I think this is a sad moment. I had
hoped that we could proceed with both of these bills and pass them
before the end of this year.
Surely, in a year where we are celebrating the 100th anniversary of
women's suffrage, this is the time, this is the moment to finally pass
the legislation unanimously recommended by an independent commission to
establish an American women's history museum in our Nation's Capital. I
regret that that will not occur this evening, but we will not give up
the fight.
Thank you
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I would like to follow up on the
comments you have just shared with your support for a women's history
museum and also to the comments made by the Senator from New Jersey and
also the Senator from Texas regarding the American-Latino museum.
I am privileged to serve as the chairman of the Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee. As part of that subcommittee, we have
oversight of the Smithsonian, and it is an incredibly rewarding part of
the job that I have to do with oversight. So I am very well aware of
these national treasures, what they contribute to the education, to the
dialogue, and to just the motivation that comes when we know and
understand more about our own country and about the people who make up
this extraordinary mosaic called America and how we recognize and how
we celebrate those contributions, how we acknowledge the challenges
that women have faced along the way, African Americans or Latinos, as
they have truly been extraordinary participants in this American
society.
I also recognize that our Smithsonians don't come free. They don't
come cheap, as the Senator from Utah noted. The Smithsonians are funded
with significant Federal taxpayer dollars, so we are required to show a
level of--exercise with how we move forward. And we have been
extraordinarily judicious.
I think, as the Presiding Officer noted in her comments, when the
discussion of a women's history museum first came about, it was not
just a flash-in-the-pan idea. It was something that had germinated a
long period of time. It goes to a commission. There are a series of
steps and approvals that they must go through along the way. So the
path that we have taken has led us to the point today where there has
been a request made to be able to advance both of these significant
recognitions to American Latina and American women by way of additional
Smithsonian facilities.
I support both of those, just as I have supported our Smithsonians as
new ones have come online--the African-American museum most recently--
or the renovations that have been underway for a period.
I also recognize that the effort tonight made by both the Presiding
Officer, as prime sponsor of the American women's history museum, and
incorporating an amendment that I had requested that ensures that as we
are looking to sites for these significant facilities, that we are
doing so with a level of a cooperation. I don't think anybody wants to
be in a situation where the Smithsonian would effectively be able to
tell, whether it is the Department of Agriculture or the U.S. Forest
Service, we want your building. That is not how the process works.
So the amendments that were incorporated in both of these measures
that were before us today, I think, was an important one, I think was a
significant one.
Some may have heard that Lisa Murkowski was not supporting these
museums--far from it. What I wanted to ensure is that we have a good,
sound process for where we site these extraordinarily--extraordinarily
important facilities.
My hope is that we will resolve this impasse because the
contributions, whether they be from women over the decades, the Latina
community, Latino community, over the decades and the centuries, that
there be facilities that appropriately recognize and celebrate them.
With that, I yield the floor
____________________