[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

                          ____________________