[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 86 (Tuesday, May 18, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2555-S2561]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
ENDLESS FRONTIER ACT-MOTION TO PROCEED--Resumed
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1260,
which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 58, S. 1260, a bill to
establish a new Directorate for Technology and Innovation in
the National Science Foundation, to establish a regional
technology hub program, to require a strategy and report on
economic security, science, research, innovation,
manufacturing, and job creation, to establish a critical
supply chain resiliency program, and for other purposes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican whip.
Bureau of Labor Statistics April Jobs Report
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, Ronald Reagan once said that the nine most
terrifying words in the English language are ``I'm from the government,
and I'm here to help.''
[[Page S2556]]
He was partially joking, of course, but what he was getting at is
that government is not always the solution, and the government can
sometimes do more harm than good, and we are definitely seeing some
evidence of that right now.
On May 7, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the April jobs
report. With businesses desperate to hire and vaccinations increasing
daily, the report was expected to be big, with a good chance that a
million or more workers would be hired.
But that is not what happened. Just 266,000 workers were hired,
despite the fact that there were 8.1 million job openings as of the end
of March, and the unemployment rate ticked up.
That is right. Despite the fact that businesses are desperate to hire
workers, the unemployment rate actually increased, and it turns out
that we don't have to look far for one of the reasons--Democrats'
massive, partisan spending bill, which, among others things, extended
the expanded unemployment benefits to September of this year, to the
point where many workers are making more staying home than they would
be going back to work.
Increasing unemployment benefits was the right thing to do early in
the pandemic. Businesses were closed, workers were being forced to say
home, and the landscape was bleak. But even last year it became clear
that our economy was starting to rebound.
That didn't mean it was time to eliminate all government help, but it
did mean that we needed to calibrate the help to actual need.
But Democrats consistently rejected that line of thinking, and
despite the fact that we had passed our fifth bipartisan COVID relief
bill in December--bringing the total amount of COVID funding the
Federal Government had provided to $4 trillion--weeks later, Democrats
announced that we needed another massive COVID relief bill.
Republicans tried to suggest that maybe we should keep it carefully
targeted to meet remaining needs without wasting taxpayer dollars or
running the risk of overstimulating the economy and driving up
inflation, but Democrats were having none of that. This was urgently
needed funding, we were told. America needed a massive rescue plan to
save us from the virus, and Democrats were going to make it happen.
Well, as it turns out, that massive rescue package was too massive.
Democrats insisted on extending increased unemployment benefits to
September of this year, and now we are seeing the result.
Reports suggest that many people are declining to return to work
because they can make more money staying home and drawing unemployment
benefits. That is right. Jobs are available--the number of job openings
is very high--but thanks to Democrats' long-term extension of increased
unemployment benefits, some workers are staying on the sidelines.
It is not surprising. If individuals can make as much or more sitting
at home instead of working, it is not very shocking that many would
choose not to work.
The long-term increase in unemployment benefits is not, of course,
the only factor keeping people from returning to the workforce, but it
is clear that it is one substantial reason why businesses are
struggling to find workers.
In the wake of April's dismal jobs report, Democrats, of course, were
quick to discredit or downplay any association between increased
unemployment benefits and the reluctance of some workers to come off
the sidelines.
The President's Treasury Secretary suggested that a significant
reason for not returning to work was the fact that schools have not
fully reopened. Well, that is definitely another factor, and it is a
problem Democrats could have addressed wit their March COVID
legislation.
Democrats directed tens of billions of additional dollars to schools
in their legislation, most of which will be used long after the
pandemic is over.
Republicans repeatedly urged Democrats to tie this funding to school
reopening, but the teachers unions were not too interested in returning
to school, and Democrats have made it very clear that unions' wish is
Democrats' command.
And so Democrats gave schools billions of additional dollars to
respond to COVID, without actually requiring schools to follow the
science and reopen.
And so, yes, many parents are struggling with returning to work
because their kids are still not fully back to in-person learning, and
it is too bad that Democrats were more committed to satisfying the
teachers unions than getting kids back to the classroom.
Before Democrats passed their COVID bill, there were concerns that
the size of it could end up overstimulating the economy and thus
driving up inflation. Even some liberal economists sounded the alarm
over the size of Democrats' coronavirus legislation. But, again,
Democrats were not about to listen to any calls to reduce the size of
their massive spending bill.
And while the full results of Democrats' spending spree have yet to
be seen, there are already signs that inflation may be becoming a
problem.
Consumers are seeing increases--in some cases, steep increases--in
the price of everything from groceries to used cars, to trucks.
There is no question that government had a significant role to play
in responding to the COVID crisis. That is why a Republican-led Senate
passed five--five--COVID relief bills, totaling $4 trillion, and why we
supported everything from increased unemployment benefits to forgivable
loans to help small businesses weather the virus.
But as the crisis wanes, so should the role of government. American
workers are no longer being forced to stay home while businesses close
their doors. Our economy is back up and running, and businesses are
desperate for workers.
We should be doing everything that we can to get Americans back to
work, and Democrats' $1.9 trillion boondoggle isn't helping us with
that goal.
A Democratic operative famously said: ``Never let a serious crisis go
to waste.'' And as our economy has recovered, a lot of Democrats have
seemed very unwilling to let go of the pandemic. I don't know if that
is because Democrats want to take credit for getting our Nation out of
this, even though all the essential groundwork for our massive
vaccination campaign and our economic recovery was laid in the previous
administration or if it is because Democrats think that the COVID
crisis will provide them with the cover they need to permanently
increase government spending and government intervention on a massive
scale. But whatever their motivation, the fact is that Democrats need
to realize that it is time--it is time to get government out of the way
of the recovery, and that should start with increasing, not decreasing,
incentives for Americans to get back to work.
As we are seeing right now, sometimes throwing government money at a
situation can do more harm than good.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. 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 (Mr. Padilla). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Israel
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, over the weekend, Israeli fighter jets
demolished an office building in Gaza that housed the members of Hamas,
the terrorist organization dedicated to wiping Israel and its people
off the map, and they are actively pursuing that mission as we speak by
firing thousands of rockets and missiles indiscriminately into Israeli
cities.
To minimize civilian casualties, the Israeli Defense Forces gave
persons in the building 1 hour advance notice the building was coming
down. Everyone evacuated safely, including, one sadly assumes, Hamas
fighters. When the airstrike came, there were no reported civilian
casualties.
Certain activists in the press seem to meet every Israeli airstrike
against terrorists with outrage, but this one elicited even more self-
righteous indignation than usual. It quickly came to light that the
Associated Press and Al Jazeera had news bureaus in that very
building. The AP had lost prime real estate in the strike--real estate
with a rooftop terrace. Some even lost their cameras.
[[Page S2557]]
The AP's top newsman said he was ``shocked and horrified'' by an
airstrike that caused no casualties. He also disclaimed any knowledge
of Hamas's presence in the building, despite ``actively check[ing].''
Many other journalists and their advocacy organizations also mounted up
on their moral high horses against Israel.
But the AP story just didn't add up. So I asked a few basic questions
in a speech right here yesterday afternoon; namely, why was the
Associated Press sharing a building with Hamas in the first place? Did
it knowingly allow its journalists to be used as human shields by a
U.S.-designated terrorist organization? Did the AP pull its punches and
decline to report for years on Hamas's misdeeds?
One would think that these are simple and reasonable questions, but I
directed them to a media organization. So the usual suspects circled
the wagons, expressing more outrage at my audacity to question AP's
leadership than they do at Hamas for trying to kill Jews by the
thousands.
Keith Olbermann called me an ``anti-Constitution, anti-Free Press,
racist fascist.'' One Slate reporter wrote that I was making ``deranged
insinuations'' and going to ``bat against civilians in a war-zone,''
even though no civilians had been harmed in this airstrike.
The constant refrain of their criticism was that I was attacking the
brave reporters of the Associated Press's Gaza bureau. My claims were
baseless, reckless, ``without evidence,'' they claimed. But, in fact,
there is plenty of evidence that some media outlet station in Gaza
allowed themselves to be used as pawns by Hamas.
According to an article from the Atlantic magazine in 2014, written
by none other than, yes, a former Associated Press reporter, the AP had
abundant reason to suspect Hamas's presence years before the IDF
informed them by telephone last weekend. According to the article,
Hamas fighters burst into the AP's Gaza bureau during a previous
conflict and threatened the staff. Hamas also launched missiles right
outside the AP's office. In each case, somehow the intrepid reporters
of the Associated Press's Gaza bureau didn't even report on these
incidents.
The AP instead turned a blind eye to terrorism and embraced a culture
of silence on behalf of murderers who actively endangered its own
reporters and staff. What is equally scandalous is that the AP
continued to locate their offices in a building they knew was
dangerous. The AP had been in that building for 15 years. Hamas
fighters had threatened AP staff and its offices and launched missiles
right outside on the street. In 15 years did no one ever say: Gosh, I
wonder why Hamas keeps running around our office building? Did no one
in AP's leadership think: You know, maybe we should move our people to
a safer building in a better neighborhood?
Under the circumstances, I am not sure what is worse, that the AP
knew they shared their building with Hamas or that they didn't know.
Instead of uncovering the truth, the AP concealed it. Then, when the
IDF carried out its fully justified and wholly appropriate airstrike,
the AP condemned Israel in one final parting gift to their neighbors
from Hamas.
Now, one would think that this episode might result in some soul-
searching. The AP's leadership might see it as a humbling moment,
instead of an opportunity to self-aggrandize and play the victim. But
the AP's willingness to double down on their Hamas apologism raises,
yet again, some more uncomfortable questions. Would the AP allow its
reporters to share a building with al-Qaida? What about ISIS? Because
there are little differences between these U.S.-designated terrorist
organizations and Hamas.
Some prestigious news outlets have fallen pretty far from the heights
they once occupied. Being a reporter, and, certainly, a war
correspondent, can be honorable work. Great men and women, including
Winston Churchill, have dedicated themselves to the profession.
Correspondents have gone to the frontlines and reported on some of the
deadliest conflicts in human history with courage, commitment to truth,
and patriotism.
During the Second World War, for example, a great American named
Ernie Pyle marched alongside GIs in North Africa, Italy, Normandy, and
the Pacific, reporting right up until the moment he was killed by
Japanese machine-gun fire. He did some of his very best work for none
other than the Associated Press.
Ernie Pyle was the farthest thing from an old press hack. He
described the fighting up close and advocated for better pay and
conditions for the troops. He could be critical of the services when
they were wrong, but he never forgot whose side he was on, and he never
gave up his commitment to telling the stories of normal people and the
hard-working troops on the frontline.
Before America's entrance into the war, Pyle reported from the
streets of London during the Blitz, recounting the terrifying scenes
for readers back home in the States. He told the story of a resolute
people under siege and forced into bombshell shelters by an
indiscriminate and evil attacker--a people unbent and unbroken by
terror, dedicated to victory, no matter the adversity.
We often learn from reporting like that, but you may not read it
these days in the Associated Press.
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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Iowa.
Pipeline Infrastructure
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on May 7, we learned of a cyber attack
on the Colonial Pipeline. This resulted in gas shortages and lines
across the east coast. You see it on television every day.
During a news conference, Energy Secretary Granholm said: ``Pipelines
are the best way to transport fuel.'' This is certainly a fact.
Pipelines are much safer than transporting oil by rail or truck. Iowa
has over 40,000 miles of pipeline which go largely unnoticed but play a
large role in providing our Nation's transportation fuel.
It is not lost on millions of Americans that this statement from the
Energy Secretary comes from the same administration that, on day one,
January 20, shut down the Keystone Pipeline. On day one, January 20,
this administration cut 10,000 jobs. Remember, they ran on a platform
of creating jobs. This has already resulted in rising gas prices like
we are seeing across the country. In fact, gas prices will soon be more
expensive than at any time since the Obama administration.
This cyber attack on Colonial showed America just how critical
pipeline infrastructure is for transportation and how that affects
national security. For an administration that is stressing
infrastructure, maybe they should take a second look at the decision on
January 20 to shut down the Keystone XL Pipeline. I shudder to think
that if the Colonial Pipeline were attempting to get a permit today,
this administration might not even allow the construction.
The United States should be encouraging private infrastructure
investment, not getting in the way of progress that investment would
bring. As long as our country is still relying on oil to fill our gas
tanks, we need to have the infrastructure and security in place so that
what happened last week never happens again.
When there is a shortage of oil, then biofuels can be an easy
substitute that can be subbed in, but again, government redtape is
getting in the way. The Environmental Protection Agency should quickly
finalize a rule to broaden the availability of existing infrastructure
for use with E15 ethanol and related labeling requirements. This would
allow more gas stations to use their current tanks for E15.
We need a balanced approach, and biofuels such as ethanol and
biodiesel can help achieve greenhouse gas reductions and strengthen our
national security, keeping gas prices in check and helping agriculture
of America at the same time.
Presidential Power
Mr. President, on another matter, I have heard from a large number of
Iowans convinced that our Republic is effectively lost with the
election of President Biden. This seems to be like the Flight 93
election theory in the 2016 election, where some conservatives felt
that, if Clinton won, the country would
[[Page S2558]]
be lost for good. So, like the Flight 93 passengers who rushed the
cockpit in a last-ditch attempt to avert a catastrophic outcome that
probably would have hit this Capitol Building, they argued that any
alternative to Clinton was justified.
The left, then, felt the same way after Trump won. When President
Trump was elected, I received an outpouring of messages expressing a
truly startling degree of fear and anguish. It is as if we had just
elected an evil King or dictator.
Understanding human nature, the Framers of our Constitution set up a
system of separation of powers, knowing it was not safe to just trust
the character of individual public officials. The President is supposed
to, as the Constitution said, ``see that the laws be faithfully
executed,'' not to be some all-powerful, elected King.
The American Presidency shouldn't be and was never supposed to be so
important or so powerful that Americans ought to feel that their entire
future is at stake every 4 years. Yet many Americans do feel that way,
and it isn't all just a misunderstanding.
Presidential power has grown beyond its proper bounds intended by the
Constitution. Why is that? That ``Why is it?'' lies right here with the
Congress of the United States because, over time, Congress has
delegated too much authority piece by piece, in countless bills, and
failed to this very day to do much to take back that authority.
During the Trump administration, I worked to reclaim some delegated
powers over tariffs, emergency declarations, and regulations but lacked
sufficient bipartisan support to get the job done. I have no illusions
that a Democratic Congress will limit President Biden's powers, but
perhaps we could agree to reclaim powers for Congress with some future
effective date.
So much focus on one person, whether it is a Republican or a
Democrat, and one election every 4 years, like we worried about 2016 or
people are still worrying about 2020--that is not a healthy environment
for a democracy. Restoring the proper balance between the Presidency
and the Congress can help restore some balance to our fiscal discourse.
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. SASSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
S. 1260
Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, Winston Churchill is often credited with
the apocryphal quote that ``we sleep soundly in our beds because rough
men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us
harm.''
This is still true, but the 21st century has gotten more complicated.
We live in an era of hybrid wars. There are fewer D-days on enemy
beaches and more zero-day exploits in enemy servers.
Americans sleep soundly at night because, in addition to these rough
men at the ready, brilliant men and women work around the clock to
develop national security technology that defends our interests and
undermines our enemies. DARPA--the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency--is on the frontlines of that work. They are racing against our
adversaries.
Our technology struggle against the Chinese Communist Party is the
defining national security challenge of our time. Chairman Xi and his
techno-authoritarian regime are fundamentally opposed to not just
American values but American interests all around the globe.
Our citizens watching this Chamber on most days might think that most
of their political leaders are content to ignore this reality, but I
assure my colleagues in this Chamber that the CCP is not asleep at the
switch.
Beijing is aggressively investing in machine learning and artificial
intelligence and in quantum computing. They are hacking and stealing
America's research and America's intellectual property. The Chinese
Communist Party is on a mission, and they make no attempt to hide it.
They want to become the world's preeminent superpower, and they think
that by claiming first-mover advantage in the cyber domain, they can
achieve this. We can't let that happen.
My amendment to today's legislation is simple: It doubles DARPA's
budget, $3.5 billion to $7 billion a year for each of the next 5 years.
The work of the National Science Foundation is important as well, and I
support that work. I support that research. But the NSF's research is
broad. DARPA's research is directly applied to our most critical
national security challenges.
Cutting-edge, classified tech development is in DARPA's DNA. When we
talk about identifying and disrupting the CCP's AI-enabled cyber and
information campaigns, we want DARPA to be leading that work. When we
talk about developing new technological tools to push back on the CCP's
hybrid warfare, we want DARPA to be leading that work.
If we want American democracy to outlast Chinese techno-
authoritarianism, we can make this investment. Doubling DARPA's budget
is a cost-effective investment that bolsters that work, and it bolsters
the work of the Endless Frontier legislation we are debating this week,
and I encourage all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lujan). The Senator from Florida.
China
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, a year ago Saturday, the previous
administration, the Trump administration, launched something called
Operation Warp Speed. At that time, it was a $10 billion program by the
government, and it was designed to incentivize pharmaceutical companies
to invest in developing, researching, and producing effective
treatments and a vaccine for a disease that was ravaging and continues
to ravage the world today.
Less than 4 months later, a new antibody treatment was beginning to
save American lives and improving the outcomes of patients with COVID-
19 here in America. And less than 7 months after that Operation Warp
Speed program began, Americans began receiving the first dose of two
different and highly effective vaccines.
Why did the government have to step in? Why did the government have
to provide the money? Wouldn't the market have solved this? There was
certainly a demand. There was certainly a need for it. In fact, I would
argue that people probably would have paid whatever it took to get
their hands on a vaccine and on new treatments given the level of
desperation that existed in May of last year here and around the world.
Yes, the market would have eventually developed the antivirals, would
have developed the antibody treatments, and would have developed the
vaccine. The market would have eventually done it without the
government stepping in, in this dramatic way. But it wouldn't have done
it in the timing that we needed it. We needed it right away. Our
economy was shut down. Children were not going to school. Workers had
no jobs. Small businesses were being wiped out. Hospitals were being
overrun, and people were dying. We were facing a global crisis and a
national emergency. It was a moment that required urgent attention and
the fastest results possible. So for the common good of our country,
our government partnered with the private sector to reach a targeted
end, one that served the interest of our country and our people. In
short, we pursued ``industrial policy'' and almost 1 year to the very
day, it was announced that life in America is, slowly but steadily,
returning to normal.
I first spoke about the need for a 21st century American industrial
policy well over a year before the pandemic hit. Let me tell you that
for much of my adult life, much of the time I even paid attention to
policy, ``industrial policy'' was generally sort of a dirty phrase for
me. Politically, I was raised capitalist orthodox. It is an economic
faith grounded in the belief of less taxes and less government and more
freedom.
I still believe in less taxes and less government and more freedom,
and my faith in capitalism has only grown because, unlike socialism,
the market always produces the most efficient outcome and, usually,
generally, invariably, the result of that is prosperity and
opportunity. The free market--capitalism--has eradicated more poverty
than all the socialist programs in the world combined.
[[Page S2559]]
But the market is agnostic. It doesn't take into account the impact
that an efficient outcome, a market outcome, would have on its people.
Thus the market does not take into account its national interests. It
is agnostic.
We in public policy cannot be agnostic. The job of those of us who
serve in the American Government is to make decisions that are in the
best interests of America and the people that we serve. I believe that,
generally and invariably, that usually means supporting a vibrant
system of free enterprise in which private businesses invest and
innovate and produce, and government makes it easier for them to do
that and gets out of the way.
But what do we do, what should we do, when the market reaches the
most efficient outcome and the most efficient outcome is one that is
bad for America, bad for Americans, or doesn't meet a crisis at hand
fast enough? What is our role when we face such a crisis, when we must
address one that has to be addressed faster than the market's ability
to do it?
This is not a hypothetical question. It describes what we faced in
May of last year, when Operation Warp Speed was announced, and it
describes many of the important challenges we face today.
Over the last 20 years--maybe 25 years--the market sent American
factories and jobs to other countries. This was the most efficient
decision to make because workers in other countries cost less, and so
it lowered labor costs and increased profits. It was the market's
decision. It was the efficient decision, but it destroyed the jobs of
Americans. It shattered families. It gutted once-vibrant communities.
Major American corporations headquartered here in the United States--
multinationals--have allowed China to steal trade secrets and cheat on
trade because, for them, gaining access to even a small sliver of the
growing Chinese market of over a billion people led to profits. This,
indeed, did create short-term profits and extravagant wealth for some,
but in the process it began transforming America from a country that
invents and makes things into one that increasingly just finances and
buys them.
It is, indeed, more efficient to make the active ingredients in many
of our medicines in China. It is cheaper to do it. So, today, we find
ourselves depending on China to produce the active ingredients in
everything from acetaminophen, which is generic for Tylenol, all the
way to blood thinners and everything in between.
It was cheaper to buy rare-earth minerals from China--it still is--
than to produce and mine our own. Today, we depend on them for almost
90 percent of these valuable metals that are needed not just for
advanced electronics but for our own major weapons systems. We made the
decision to allow Chinese companies free rein to own and to buy and to
make money in America, almost without restrictions, because we are
capitalists
They, on the other hand, restrict and ban our businesses from doing
work in China because they are nationalists. None of this is an
accident. China has a plan. It has a plan to overtake America as the
world's leading economic, technological, geopolitical, diplomatic, and
military power. I don't say this to you based on some supersecret
intelligence document or an educated guess. They put it on paper. They
have written this out for everyone to see in 2015. The Chinese
Communist Party laid out a plan with a title called ``Made in China
2025.''
It basically is a plan to invest in and overtake us in 10 of the
industries that will define the 21st century economy--biomedicine,
advanced technology, air and space, artificial intelligence, quantum
computing, telecommunications, 5G, rail systems, ship building. They
intend to lead the world in all of these areas, and they are executing
on a plan to carry that out, and we have been complacent and
distracted.
So while China channels every element of their national power, every
element that you can imagine--while they channel all of it--to dominate
these key industries and to do it at our expense, we assume that our
position in the world will continue on its own without having to do
anything to maintain it.
While China is pursuing economic and technological dominance, we find
ourselves here busy canceling people, demanding the use of the right
pronoun to describe people, or claiming that requiring a photo ID to
vote is the return of a Jim Crow era.
We have placed ourselves on the road of decline and humiliation,
headed toward a world in which a totalitarian regime--one guilty right
now, as we speak, of committing genocide against Uighur Muslims--
becomes the leading power on the planet and relegating our country,
America, into the status of a once great nation in decline.
We do not need to abandon capitalism and embrace socialism to take on
this challenge. I believe socialism would only accelerate the damage
our decisions are doing to our country. We need capitalism, but it must
be a capitalism geared toward promoting the national interest and the
common good, where the private market drives our economic decisions.
And in those instances where the market outcome is bad for our country,
in those instances in which the market's most efficient outcome is one
that is bad for our people, for our national security, for our national
interests, bad for America--in those instances--what we need is
targeted industrial policy to further the common good and to protect
our people, our country, and our future. We need an industrial policy
targeted not to every industry or to the one who hires the right
lobbyist. No, we need an industrial policy like Operation Warp Speed,
targeted to urgent national needs; policies like my Medical
Manufacturing, Economic Development, and Sustainability Act, which
would help bring back our ability to make medicines in this country
again, including in places like Puerto Rico that need the economic
growth and jobs; like the CHIPS Act we passed last year to make sure we
never have to depend on China or any other country, for that matter,
for semiconductors.
In 2019, well before the pandemic, I proposed modernizing the Small
Business Administration and aligning its programs to the national
interest, like my American Innovation and Manufacturing Act, which
would incentivize private investment in small American manufacturers
through the SBA.
And even as we make these sorts of targeted industrial policy
decisions, we need to make sure that we are protecting them from being
stolen from us. One of the changes we need to make in the China bill
that is now before the Senate is we need to have stronger protections
against the research that we are funding from being stolen.
First, more of this money should be invested through agencies like
DARPA, as an example, which has very good safeguards in place.
Second, we should prohibit any entity from receiving the funds called
for in this bill if they receive China-based financial or in-kind
support, or if they otherwise failed to disclose foreign funding in the
past 10 years.
Third, we should require certification that a potential recipient of
the funding has sufficient protections in place to guard against IP
theft and other threats from foreign governments before they were
giving them the money. It would be something if we appropriate all this
money for industrial policy, we invest it, and then we see it stolen.
Fourth, we should prohibit Federal employees and contractors from
participating in any foreign government talent recruitment program, and
we should require Federal contractors to disclose any commercial ties
they might have to the Communist Party in China.
And, fifth, we should establish a system of outbound investment
screening. Even if we are successful in preventing adversarial actors
from acquiring Federal research dollars or intellectual property
developed by it, there is nothing to stop nationless corporations from
simply buying the IP and using it to develop capacities to benefit
China and hurt our interests.
This is an important moment, I think, one that will define the
remainder of the century. When the book about the 21st century is
written, it will have a few chapters about a lot of different things.
But that book is going to be about the relationship between China and
the United States and what happened, and what happened is in very many
ways being decided right now.
[[Page S2560]]
We must ensure that our public policies are aligned to the urgent
challenges of our time. Our job here is to promote the common good and
to defend the national interest. By and large, that is a free
enterprise, capitalist economy that will produce the innovation, the
investments, and all of the things necessary to make that possible.
Yet, in those instances in which a national need is urgent, in which
the outcome that the market has delivered is harming our country and
its long-term future, we have an obligation to act on the common good.
We should not allow orthodoxy or policies that made a lot of sense in
the 1980s--a very different world from today--to stand in the way of
the sorts of targeted government-private partnerships needed: the kinds
of partnerships that gave us a vaccine that is bringing us back to
normal; the kind of partnership that will allow us to tackle the
challenges we face now so that the 21st century will ultimately be an
American century and so that our leadership in these key industries
that will define the century is neither endangered nor lost.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Infrastructure
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, one of the topics of discussion right now
here in Washington, DC--actually, there are many different topics of
discussion, but one of those is infrastructure. Depending on who you
ask, you are likely to get different answers on what exactly people
mean when they say the word ``infrastructure.''
When I and my constituents in Texas think about infrastructure, we
think about our highways and bridges. Now, those are two of the big
things that come to mind. We are home to the largest network of
highways in the Nation, as well as the largest number of bridges, and
these structures are supporting more and more Texans by the day. It is
no secret that, in the last decade, Texas has grown by nearly 4 million
people--roughly the population of our neighbor to the north, Oklahoma.
If we want to get all 29 million Texans and our visitors and our
crucial commercial cargo around the State safely and efficiently, we
need a reliable network of transportation infrastructure, and there is
a lot of room for improvement over the status quo.
Every year, the American Society of Civil Engineers evaluates
America's infrastructure and issues a report card that lets us know how
we are doing. Well, America is barely passing with a C-minus. Texas is
faring only slightly better than the rest of the class with a C. There
is no doubt about it--it is time for an investment in our
infrastructure. Now more than ever, that investment must be made
responsibly.
We just spent trillions of dollars to help the American people and
our economy get through a pandemic, and our national debt is at its
highest level since World War II. I have told my friends back home that
this is the domestic equivalent to a world war. We didn't ask in World
War II: How much money can we spend? We needed to defeat our enemies,
and we did. Then we needed to come together responsibly and figure out
how to pay for it.
We don't need to quit spending altogether, but we surely must take a
closer look at what is necessary and what is desirable and what is
something we would like to have but that could be put off for another
day. Think of the Goldilocks principle: not too hot, not too cold. In
this case: not too small, not too big. We need to find the right size,
and we need to agree on what that means.
The most recent highway and transit funding bill that became law was
the FAST Act of 2015. That bill came in right around $300 billion. Last
Congress, before the pandemic hit, it looked like we were poised to
pass a similar bill at roughly the same pricetag. I think we can all
agree that, now, something of that size is probably too small. We need
to invest in our infrastructure--repair our roads, our bridges, our
airports, our levees, and other transportation infrastructure that is
long overdue.
The pandemic has highlighted the need to expand that definition,
though; for example, to strengthen broadband and internet access. For
many Americans, the daily commutes to work or to school have been
replaced by virtual classrooms and telework. Our 21st-century economy
and society depend on internet connections, and we need to do more to
improve access, especially in rural areas, where the big internet
companies don't find it commercially advantageous to offer service.
Republicans and Democrats agree that, this time around, we need a
larger investment in our Nation's infrastructure, but, frankly, the
proposal from President Biden is far too big. The nonpartisan Committee
for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates it would cost an additional
$2.65 trillion--roughly nine times the recent highway bill that became
law--and that is on top of the $1.9 trillion that the Senate majority
and the House and the President just passed into law purportedly for
additional COVID-19 relief, although only about 10 percent of it
actually addressed COVID-19. The point is, we have been spending a lot
of money, and we can't keep spending money that we are borrowing from
future generations.
Not surprisingly, only a fraction of the President's infrastructure
bill is dedicated to roads and bridges--5 percent, in fact. The vast
majority of the funding goes toward a long list of programs and
policies that are unrelated to infrastructure--for example, caregiving
for the elderly and disabled; community colleges; programs to improve
diversity in STEM careers. All of those are important topics, but they
are not infrastructure, and we shouldn't be paying for them by
borrowing money from future generations. We ought to figure out
appropriate offsets and pay-fors like we used to do here before the
pandemic hit. Our job is to find the right-sized bill that suits our
needs without going overboard with unnecessary and unrelated spending.
Fortunately, Mrs. Capito, the Senator from West Virginia, is leading
the way to find that Goldilocks just-right fit. She and a number of our
colleagues have outlined to President Biden and our Democratic
colleagues a framework to improve our Nation's infrastructure. The plan
they have proposed comes in at $568 billion--more than we have spent in
the past but far less than the President's proposal.
When we talk about the need for bipartisan compromise, this is a
great place to start. The Republican plan includes nearly $300 billion
for roads and bridges--2\1/2\ times the President's plan for roads and
bridges. It also invests in airports, drinking and waste water, ports
and waterways, broadband, and some of the most urgent infrastructure
priorities in our country.
Last week, Senator Capito and five of our Republican colleagues met
with Vice President Harris and President Biden to discuss a path
forward. They, apparently, had a productive meeting, and the President
seemed to be receptive to many of the ideas that were shared. I hope
this is the starting point for a consensus package that addresses our
infrastructure needs
There is a question that almost nobody wants to talk about, but
thanks to Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon and Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho,
we actually had a virtual hearing on this this morning in the Senate
Finance Committee to answer the taboo question that nobody really wants
to talk about, which is, How do we pay for it? As I said, this was the
subject of the Senate Finance Committee hearing this morning, and I am
sure some of the ideas that were put forward will begin to start to
take traction and, hopefully, lead us to a way to responsibly pay for
this infrastructure bill.
In the past, funding for infrastructure bills has come from the
highway trust fund, but for years, it has faced severe shortfalls. To a
serious degree, my constituents in Texas have footed the bill for those
shortfalls. We are one of the few States, for example, that receives
less than it contributes to the highway trust fund. In other words, we
are a donor State. For every dollar we put into the highway trust fund,
we get 95 cents back. Well, that is not the same treatment every State
is getting. In fact, we have a lower rate of return than every other
State. If we want to have any long-term success in maintaining our
roads and bridges, we have to bring this formula up to date, and it has
to be equitable.
The smart spending, though, can't stop there. We need to repurpose
the mountain of unused Federal funds from
[[Page S2561]]
the so-called COVID-19 relief bill. States are awash with cash that
they, frankly, don't know how to spend. The massive $1.9 trillion bill
became law without the support of a single Republican because it was so
extravagant and poorly targeted. Case in point: the blue State bailout.
This legislation sent 350 billion additional dollars to State and local
governments, many of which were not facing any budgetary shortfalls.
We have started to see a flurry of news stories in the past few weeks
that have demonstrated exactly why we were opposed to this reckless
spending. For example, California has reported a $75 billion budget
surplus--a massive amount of money. Governor Newsom says this will be
used to pay down past State debts, send direct checks to Californians,
and add to its rainy day fund. In addition to California, you have New
York, Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota. Each of these States is expected
to have more than a $1 billion surplus--again, because of the massive
shuffling of cash out of Washington, DC, into the States that was not
targeted to COVID-19 relief.
This is exactly why we advocated against this tidal wave of funding
for States that were not even operating in the red. Taxpayer dollars
shouldn't be spent to erase the debts of mismanaged States or to add to
their rainy day funds. They have the ability to raise revenue
themselves, so it shouldn't be the responsibility of the Federal
taxpayers to bail them out or to provide them with this huge cash
cushion with their looking to try to find responsible ways to spend it.
Tens of billions of unused dollars from this legislation should be
repurposed to help cover the costs of these investments without driving
our national debt even higher. It is common sense, and I actually
believe that there is a way to incentivize the States to use that
additional cash for infrastructure purposes, whether it is through
modifications and cost sharing between State and local governments.
Many of those States are struggling to find a way, within the
guidelines and guardrails that we have provided for COVID-19 relief, to
spend it anyway, so why not spend it for infrastructure? Maybe there is
a win-win there.
There are a number of ideas now on the table about how to pay for
this infrastructure bill, but I hope we can all agree that the massive
tax hike that President Biden is proposing is not the answer. This
would constitute the largest set of tax hikes in more than half a
century, and these increases would do serious damage to our economy
just as we are coming out of a pandemic-induced recession.
At a time when our economy is already on fragile footing, the tax
burden on Americans would be greater than that of our biggest trading
partners and competitors, and this would have far-reaching consequences
for our competitiveness and our economy as a whole. After all, we know
these tax hikes won't be reflected in lower earnings for CEOs. The
brunt will be borne by consumers, who will pay higher prices, and by
workers, who will earn lower wages, and let's not forget those whose
jobs have disappeared entirely. We are already seeing some price hikes
on some of our most used consumer products, covering everything from
cereal, to diapers, to lumber, and to cars.
This is not the time to increase taxes and drive inflation across our
economy, which is, actually, a tax increase on low- and middle-income
people. We need to find responsible ways to fund an investment in our
infrastructure without hurting our economy and the people we represent.
Right now, it appears that bipartisan progress is being made toward
that just-right-sized policy and for it to be paid for in a responsible
way or, at least, that is my optimistic hope.
So I want to thank Senator Capito for her leadership on this effort
and all those who have been working with our Democratic colleagues and
the administration and encourage them to continue to work with folks on
our side of the aisle so we can get this done on a timely basis.
I yield the floor.
____________________