[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 91 (Tuesday, May 25, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3387-S3390]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Afghanistan

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, when I listened to the speech by Senator 
McConnell, the Republican leader, about Afghanistan, it transported me 
back in history to October of 2002, when I was a U.S. Senator 
representing the State of Illinois, just days away from a reelection 
campaign, and we faced a historic vote here in the U.S. Senate. The 
vote was whether or not we would invade Iraq; whether the United States 
would give the President the authority to send American forces to Iraq. 
There were 23 votes against that invasion. I was 1 of them, 22 
Democrats and 1 Republican.
  I can remember that night so well. It was late, past midnight, when 
the vote was finally taken. But we had previously taken another vote, 
and although I had voted against the invasion of Iraq, I saw the 
invasion of Afghanistan as a different story. We believed that Osama 
bin Laden and al-Qaida, responsible for 9/11, were in Afghanistan. And 
the story was--the story line, and I bought it completely--if we don't 
tell people like Osama bin Laden that there is a price to pay for 
attacking America and killing 3,000 innocent people, who are we, and 
who will be the next attacker?
  So I voted. I voted for the invasion of Afghanistan and believed that 
was the right thing to do at that moment in history. That vote passed 
unanimously here in the Senate. There was only one dissenting vote in 
the House of Representatives, Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California. 
Virtually everyone else--everyone else, both political parties--voted 
for the invasion of Afghanistan.
  I will tell you, there was not a single Senator or Congressman who 
would have stood up that evening on that vote and announced ``I am 
prepared to vote for the longest war in American history,'' because 
that is what we ended up voting for.
  It was our belief that if we came into Afghanistan, we could stop 
using this country as a haven for terrorism and we could help escort 
them into the 21st century.
  Well, after 20 years, after thousands of Americans gave their lives 
and thousands more were critically injured, after the spending of 
trillions of dollars in Afghanistan, we learned a bitter lesson. Our 
willingness was not enough. The people in Afghanistan have to be 
prepared to embrace change for it to happen.
  We had to create an army in Afghanistan, a security force. It 
virtually didn't exist. The warlords had their military, and they were 
for sale, usually, to the highest bidder. And we were trying to create 
a national security force. We were trying to create a nation, which was 
quite a challenge.
  I am not going to dwell on what happened, the bitter disappointments. 
But when I hear Senators come to the floor saying, ``Isn't it a shame 
that we are leaving Afghanistan? They are going to descend into chaos 
and many, many problems,'' my question to them is: So what would you 
have us do? Continue

[[Page S3388]]

with the troops risking their lives in Afghanistan for another 20 
years, for another trillion dollars?
  Not me. I believe we have reached a point where we have to do 
everything we can to help Afghanistan really progress into the 21st 
century. Yes, I feel a personal obligation to the men and women who 
risked their lives for our troops.
  For those who are opposed to or unaccepting of the notion of refugees 
coming to the United States, for goodness' sake, let us have the 
character to stand behind those Afghan men and women who risked their 
lives for our soldiers and who are now probably marked by the Taliban 
for death themselves. Yes, I would open our doors to them. They gave 
their lives for our men and women, and we should never forget it. I 
hope my friends on the other side of the aisle who have strong feelings 
about immigration would at least realize that these individuals are 
critically important to our role in history and our message to the rest 
of the world when we seek their assistance.


                                S. 1260

  Mr. President, this week we are going to consider a critically 
important bill that will help secure America's role as a global leader 
in science and technology. The investments that the United States 
Innovation and Competition Act of 2021 makes in innovation will help 
ensure our prosperity and national security. It supports American 
research and development and will help to grow America's industrial and 
manufacturing base by investing in clean energy, cyber security, and 
biotechnology.
  I thought a few years ago, reflected on the fact that I served in the 
House and Senate, there have been moments, particularly important 
moments that didn't receive the recognition they deserved, and one of 
them was a bipartisan decision by several legislators: John Porter, who 
was a Republican Congressman from Illinois; Senator Arlen Specter, a 
Republican Senator from Pennsylvania; and Senator Tom Harkin, a 
Democratic Senator from Iowa. Back in the day, they made a decision to 
try to double the research budget for the National Institutes of 
Health--quite an undertaking. I have seen a lot of things come and go 
with the Congress, and that I thought was as ambitious as it gets.
  They did it. They ended up doubling the NIH budget and received some 
recognition for it, but far less than what they deserved.
  So I went back out to the National Institutes of Health and spoke to 
Dr. Francis Collins, whom we are lucky as Americans to have in that 
position leading that great Agency. I said: Dr. Collins, I remember 
those days with Specter and Harkin and Porter. What can we do now, our 
generation, to help you at the National Institutes of Health? I don't 
think I can double the budget. I wish I could. But what can I do?
  He said: Senator, if you could persuade Congress to give us 5 percent 
real growth every year--real growth over inflation--we will light up 
the scoreboard. These researchers will stay on the job. They won't 
worry about whether next year there is going to be funding. And you are 
going to see some remarkable things occur.
  I said I will set out to do that. I knew at the time that I needed 
help. So I turned to Patty Murray on the Democratic side, who has been 
our leader at the HELP Committee and on the Appropriations Committee. 
And we then turned to Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, Republican leader 
of the subcommittee, as well as Lamar Alexander, our retired friend 
from the State of Tennessee.
  So the four of us came together, and in a span of 5 or 6 years, we 
took the NIH budget from $30 billion to $40 billion, just at the right 
moment. We didn't anticipate COVID-19, but here it came, challenging 
us: Are we ready? Can we develop a vaccine in a timely fashion?
  And, thank goodness we could, because of the investment that we had 
made as a Congress and the American people in this Agency. It paid off. 
Not only did we save lives in the United States; we saved lives around 
the world, and we will continue to because of that good work.
  I came to believe that that was critically important and went to the 
Department of Energy, sitting down with the Secretary, 5 or 6 years 
ago, and told him the story about our commitment to NIH. And I said: 
You know, I guess it is conceivable that we will do research that will 
lead to some treatment of Alzheimer's and dementia. We know that it is 
picking up speed, unfortunately, because people are living longer.
  He said: Do you have any idea what Agency of government is 
responsible for creating electronic means of monitoring this sort of 
change in our brains, the change that leads to Alzheimer's?
  I said: No, I don't.
  He said: Well, it is the Office of Science in the Department of 
Energy.
  And I thought to myself: Durbin, you should have known better. It 
isn't just the NIH. There are Agencies all around our Federal 
Government that are doing research that complement one another. So I 
came up with the notion to take that NIH model of 5 percent real growth 
and start applying it to all the other research and innovation Agencies 
of our Federal Government.
  This bill we are considering this week, this United States Innovation 
and Competition Act, acknowledges that and makes the investment in 
research. I will tell you, I can't think of anything we can do that is 
more bipartisan and will be accepted by the American people than the 
knowledge that we are going to continue to encourage and subsidize, if 
you will, scientists and researchers to move us forward in innovation 
and technology.
  This bill increases funding for the National Science Foundation and 
the Department of Energy. That is going to spur research. It is going 
to help at universities around my State and all around the Nation, and 
it has been a priority, as I mentioned, for years.
  But one important way we can compete economically in the world is by 
boosting support for domestic manufacturing and strengthening our 
domestic supply chain. The legislation that we are considering this 
week does that exactly: $52 billion to boost our semi-conductor 
manufacturing capabilities. This includes $10.5 billion for 
semiconductor research and development; $2 billion for legacy chip 
production to support the auto industry; $2 billion for research, 
testing, and workforce development for semiconductor needs at the 
Department of Defense; $500 million for coordination with foreign 
government partners to support international semiconductor supply 
chains. And importantly, this bill also ensures the payment of 
prevailing wages on construction projects that are supported by this 
funding.
  Many semiconductor manufacturing jobs already pay more than typical 
manufacturing jobs, and they should, but the workers who will help 
build the facilities won't necessarily benefit from that unless we 
ensure the same standards that we apply to other federally funded 
construction projects apply here.
  Research shows us that providing prevailing wage boosts worker 
productivity and provides good value to taxpayers Several studies have 
found that construction costs are not affected by prevailing wage 
rates. It is our goal to compete with China and other nations, and 
China, unfortunately, has morally abhorrent labor practices. Let's do 
better. Let's show them and the world that we can do better.

  In 1990, the United States produced 37 percent of the world's 
semiconductors. That was 30 years ago--30 years ago, 37 percent. It is 
12 percent today. What a dramatic decline. We want to turn that around.
  Now there are some who question us, who question whether the United 
States should invest in this kind of technology on semiconductors. I 
call them the second-place finishers. They decided that the United 
States can have a solid second-place finish from this point forward. I 
couldn't disagree more.
  This Nation can lead by example and investment, and that is what this 
bill does. And those who are against it have to explain why giving 
dominance in this critical industry to another country, whether it is 
China or any other nation, is in the best interest of the growth of the 
United States and in the best interest of the next generation of 
American workers.
  We are already facing a global shortage in microchips that led to 
layoffs in my State and in many other places. Illinois has been a 
leader in auto manufacturing, and I believe it will be in the

[[Page S3389]]

future, as well, thanks to dedicated workers like those at the 
Stellantis plant in Belvidere, IL, who assemble the car known as the 
Jeep Cherokee.
  Unfortunately, that plant had to shut down just a few weeks ago. Why? 
A global shortage of semiconductors. Earlier this month, Stellantis 
announced as many as 1,640 employees of the plant will be laid off in 
July because of the shortage. A similar story at Ford's Chicago 
assembly plant that has 5,800 workers--this plant was idled through 
April, with shutdowns extending into May.
  We are not seeing this only in Illinois. It has been estimated as 
many as 3.9 million fewer vehicles will be produced this year because 
of the semiconductor shortage. Last month, in the State of Kentucky--
Kentucky--Ford announced the temporary shutdown of its Louisville 
plant, impacting more than 8,000 of its employees. And Ford's 
Louisville Assembly Plant, which employs nearly 4,000 workers, is 
expected to close through mid-July.
  GM halted production lines in Tennessee and Kansas and at several 
other facilities this spring.
  The news of these layoffs and plant closures underscores the urgent 
need for Congress, on a bipartisan basis, to address this microchip 
shortage. And the good news is that we have a real opportunity to pass 
legislation that will offer help to these workers and families. These 
investments in the CHIPS Act will not only address our immediate market 
needs but help to ensure that manufacturers don't face shortages in the 
future.
  This funding will help support jobs through the entire supply chain--
from construction of new facilities to manufacturing and development of 
chips, to workers in the auto industry who depend on this supply.
  This bill makes a strategic investment that will help to counter the 
growing threat caused by the rapid development of China's economy. I 
hope my colleagues will join me in supporting these important 
provisions to boost our domestic supply chain and support American 
jobs. Or we can defeat this measure. We can decide it is too much 
money, spending it at the wrong time. That is part of the second-place 
finish club, which you might find in the U.S. Senate. I don't want to 
be a part of it. I believe in the brains and the brawn of American 
workers. I believe they are productive people and that our researchers 
can lead the world, as they have over and over again, if we trust them 
and we invest in them.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican whip is recognized.


                                 H.R. 1

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, H.R. 1, the Democrats' supposed election 
integrity bill, is filled with bad ideas: making the Federal Election 
Commission into a partisan body; effectively banning voter ID and 
gutting other safeguards against voter fraud; providing for taxpayer 
funding of political campaigns.
  Nowhere is that more true than when it comes to the bill's truly 
terrible provisions on the IRS.
  Everyone remembers the IRS scandal during the Obama administration. 
Around 2013, it emerged that the Obama IRS had been unfairly singling 
out conservative organizations applying for tax-exempt status, slow-
walking their applications and subjecting them to burdensome extra 
scrutiny. This had been going on for more than 2 years, and top IRS 
officials compounded the Agency's misdeeds by providing misleading 
information to Congress.
  Well, Americans should brace themselves, because if H.R. 1 is ever 
enacted, it would allow for the same kind of targeting that went on 
under the Obama administration, if not worse. To start with, H.R. 1 
repeals a Treasury Department rule finalized last year that was 
designed to help prevent the kind of abuse that went on under the Obama 
IRS.
  Under the rule, many tax-exempt organizations are no longer required 
to turn over to the IRS the names and addresses of individuals who have 
made substantial donations. This is not information the IRS needs to 
know for tax purposes, and there is no reason the Agency should have 
information beyond what it needs to do its job.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of Leader McConnell and Senator Braun's 
bill which would permanently codify the Treasury rule and its 
protections against unnecessary disclosure. Providing the IRS with 
additional extraneous information opens up opportunities for the kind 
of abuses we saw during the Obama administration.
  But stopping IRS abuse doesn't seem to be a big priority for the 
Democrat Party. Indeed, there is reason to believe at least some 
Democrats would like the IRS to take a more aggressive role in 
Americans' lives. And so H.R. 1 explicitly repeals the Treasury 
Department rule, but that is not all.

  As if Democrats were determined to prove that they intend to 
weaponize the IRS, H.R. 1 and S. 1, which is the Senate version of the 
House bill, would allow the IRS to consider organizations' views when 
deciding whether or not to grant them tax-exempt status. Let me repeat 
that. H.R. 1 and S. 1 would allow the IRS to consider an organization's 
views when deciding whether or not to grant that organization tax-
exempt status.
  It is difficult to think of a more outrageous and dangerous 
provision. This rule would allow any administration of either party to 
use the IRS to censor and suppress groups whose ideas the party in 
power opposes. If the administration in power doesn't like the 
positions that your organization champions, say goodbye to your hopes 
for tax-exempt status. The Obama IRS scandals could look tame compared 
to the kind of political weaponization of the IRS that could occur 
under H.R. 1.
  This provision could have real political implications. Selectively 
granting tax-exempt status could be a means of weakening political 
opposition. A group that can't get tax-exempt status may be a group 
that never gets off the ground for financial reasons and, thus, a group 
that never becomes a significant voice in opposition to policies of the 
reigning party.
  Do you think this is a worst case scenario? Well, let's remember that 
something like this already happened under the Obama administration. 
The IRS was weaponized once, and it can be weaponized again, especially 
if Democrats succeed in their efforts to eliminate safeguards against 
such abuse.
  And, of course, if the President has his way, the IRS may soon be 
swimming in money that would substantially increase its reach. 
President Biden wants to provide the IRS with--get this--an additional 
$80 billion over 10 years. That would give the IRS a larger budget than 
the Department of Labor, the Department of Commerce, the Department of 
the Interior, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other 
significant government Agencies. It would allow the IRS to hire nearly 
87,000 new employees--87,000. All told, the Biden plan would double the 
number of IRS employees over the next decade.
  Now, the reason President Biden gives for this massive increase in 
IRS funding is increased enforcement efforts in order to close the tax 
gap--that gap that exists between taxes owed and what Americans end up 
actually paying. But there is little reason to believe that the IRS 
will come anywhere close to recovering the amount of money the 
President claims it can recover, even with a massive infusion of cash. 
And there is reason to be seriously concerned about what that massive 
infusion of cash, plus new reporting requirements on Americans' bank 
and Venmo accounts, could mean for IRS intrusion into Americans' lives.
  President Biden, of course, also claims that any increased 
enforcement will be targeted against wealthy Americans. In what is 
becoming a typical Democrat class-warfare rhetoric, the President 
states that ordinary Americans pay their taxes while some wealthy 
Americans dodge them. Of course, according to the IRS, our Nation has a 
relatively high and stable voluntary tax compliance rate, and tax 
compliance levels remain largely unchanged since at least the 1980s. 
And, in fact, failure to pay tax owed occurs among all kinds of 
taxpayers in every place along the income spectrum. But the White House 
isn't letting those facts interfere with its class-warfare rhetoric.
  What is more, what guarantees will we have other than Democrats' say-
so at this point that this infusion of money will be restricted to 
combating

[[Page S3390]]

tax evasion? As far as I can tell, there is nothing to prevent the new 
agents the IRS will hire from being retasked at some point to other 
priorities, like investigating the views of conservative organizations 
before deciding whether or not to grant them tax-exempt status.
  Closing the tax gap is a serious goal that deserves serious 
discussion, and it is possible that a targeted IRS funding increase for 
that purpose would be worth considering. But $80 billion is a 
ridiculous number. In the words of one of President Obama's IRS chiefs: 
``I'm not sure you'd be able to efficiently use that much money.''
  And any plus-up in funding for the IRS should be accompanied by 
serious reforms, as well as many protections--not fewer protections--
against IRS politicization.
  While the Obama IRS scandal represents one of the more egregious 
abuses of the Agency's power, the IRS is well known for serial 
mismanagement, like Americans' inability to actually get through to the 
IRS with their questions
  The Washington Post reported in April that if you were calling the 
IRS this tax season, you had a 1-in-50--1-in-50--chance of actually 
getting to speak to a human being.
  In May, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration 
released a report on the 2021 filing season, which noted the IRS 
struggled to get new hires squared away on the job partially because it 
is--and here, I am going to have to quote from this report--``difficult 
to find working copiers . . . to be able to prepare training packages 
for new hires.'' That is right. And I wish those were the only Agency 
printer or copier problems, but they are not.
  Let me quote from the inspector general's report again.

       Audit teams continue to perform onsite walkthroughs at the 
     Ogden, Utah, and Kansas City, Missouri, Tax Processing 
     Centers to meet with staff to discuss challenges they are 
     facing as it relates to addressing the ongoing backlogs of 
     inventory. A major concern that surfaced during these 
     walkthroughs was a lack of working printers and copiers. IRS 
     management estimated that, as of March 30, 2021, 69 [or] (42 
     percent) of 164 devices used by the Submission Processing 
     functions are unusable and others are broken but still 
     functioning. IRS employees stated that the only reason they 
     could not use many of these devices is because they are out 
     of ink or because the waste cartridge container is full.

  That is from the inspector general's report. I wish this were a joke, 
but that is straight out of the IG's report.
  Hearing that, you might think that we don't need to worry about the 
weaponization of the IRS because the Agency isn't capable of work that 
sophisticated. But, as we know, that isn't true. The IRS was 
successfully weaponized for political purposes during the Obama 
administration, and the same thing could happen again, especially if 
Democrats succeed in removing protections against IRS abuse.
  As our Nation's revenue-collecting Agency, the IRS is an Agency with 
immense power, and it is not a voluntary government program. Americans 
don't get to choose whether or not they interact with the IRS. For that 
reason, it is vital that there be as many safeguards in place as 
possible to prevent the IRS from abusing its power or being used for 
political purposes.
  We have seen plenty of evidence that the IRS often doesn't use the 
money or resources that it currently has in a responsible way. And any 
increase in money for the IRS--which it certainly should not be 
anywhere close to $80 billion--should be matched with significant 
reforms and increased accountability.
  And H.R. 1, with its multitude of unwise and unconstitutional 
provisions even beyond the alarming provisions I have discussed today, 
must be stopped. Otherwise, the Biden legacy may be the weaponization 
of the IRS.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Padilla). The Senator from New Jersey.