[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 205 (Monday, November 29, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8769-S8777]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022--Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 4350, which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 4350) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2022 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other
purposes.
Pending:
Reed/Inhofe modified amendment No. 3867, in the nature of a
substitute.
Reed amendment No. 4775 (to amendment No. 3867), to modify
effective dates relating to the Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force for Space Acquisition and Integration and the
Service Acquisition Executive of the Department of the Air
Force for Space Systems and Programs.
Mr. McCONNELL. 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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Hunter Biden
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today I am going to highlight a new
Hunter Biden record that I have recently made public.
Before I get to that point, I am going to take a trip down memory
lane--yes, down memory lane.
On September 23, 2020, Senator Johnson and I released our ``Biden
Report,'' as it has been called. That report focused on questionable
financial transactions between the Biden family and foreign,
government-linked individuals.
On November 18, 2020, we released a supplemental to that report. I am
going to read several statements from the media and my Democratic
colleagues about our report.
So, to start with, on September 23, 2020, a New York Times article by
Nicholas Fandos described it in two ways: ``lack of meaningful new
information'' and ``overlap with a Russian disinformation campaign.''
And the then-Democratic minority leader was quoted in the same
article
[[Page S8770]]
and said the report read ``as if Putin wrote it, not United States
senators.''
A September 23, 2020, Salon article by Igor Derysh quoted a
Democratic Senator saying that the report was the culmination of a
``sham investigation.'' In that article, the same Democratic Senator
described our investigation as being ``rooted in disinformation'' from
Russian operatives.
Separately, a Democratic Senator also said about our report: ``Bottom
line: The Johnson-Grassley investigation is baseless. It's laundering
Russian propaganda for circulation in the U.S.''
In a September 23, 2020, CBS article by Melissa Quinn, another
Democratic Senator said about our report, meaning the Johnson-Grassley
report: ``The chairmen have amplified a known Russian attack on our
election,'' and ``It is unconscionable that the chairmen are continuing
to advance false information intended to undermine our democratic
process at the expense of bipartisan work that we should be doing to
protect our national security.''
That same CBS article said that our report ``reveals little new
information.''
And one Washington Post columnist, Josh Rogin, said: ``Even after
accepting disinformation from Russian agents, Johnson and Grassley
couldn't come up with anything new or interesting on Hunter Biden.''
So understand this: Week after week, month after month, year after
year, the media and my Democratic colleagues falsely attacked our
investigation with reckless disregard for the truth. I have spoken at
length on the Senate floor rebutting all these false charges with
example after example. I did so on May 11, 2021; March 18, 2021;
December 14, 2020; December 10, 2020; October 19, 2020; and September
29, 2020.
Well, on November 15, this year, Senator Johnson and I publicly
released a record that I placed in part on this poster next to me, and
I will get to this in a minute. The full document illustrates an
assignment and assumption of business interests.
The part next to me is a signature block in unaltered form, including
one typographical error. The signature block includes Hunter Biden, two
of his companies, and individuals connected to the communist Chinese
regime. These are the main companies that Hunter Biden and his
associates used to funnel money all over the world: Hudson West III,
Hudson V, and then the other ones are ColdHarbour Capital and Owasco.
Owasco is Hunter Biden's firm that was the recipient of millions of
dollars from questionable financial transactions.
Gongwen Dong was the right-hand man for the owner of a company called
CEFC China Energy Company. Mervyn Yan was his associate. CEFC was an
arm of the Chinese Government. Hunter Biden was a close business
partner of these men and their companies. Therefore, this signature
block shows a direct financial and legal relationship between Hunter
Biden and individuals connected to the communist regime.
Now, these are the same folks and companies that we discussed at
length in our September 2020 report. This new document is yet another
record that substantiates our report that we issued September 2020--
that same report that the media and my Democratic colleagues said was
based on Russian disinformation.
So I now say to the media and I now say to my Democratic colleagues
who said our report was Russian disinformation, this question: Is this
signature block Russian disinformation? Are the names of these
companies Russian disinformation? Is this document disinformation?
No. This is a legitimate record that my staff uncovered, and it
didn't come from the Hunter Biden laptop. This is the same type of
record that Senator Johnson and I based our report several months ago
on.
To my Democratic colleagues who falsely smeared our report: You are
in the majority. You are now committee chairs, and you have
jurisdiction over these matters. So I want to challenge you to use the
same effort and energy that you exerted in the Trump-Russia
investigation to expose the extensive ties between the Chinese regime
and members of the Biden family.
I think I speak with some credibility on this point because you know
there was a President Trump, and at the time there was a President
Trump, I investigated Donald Trump, Jr., on things that were
appropriate at that time to ask legitimate questions about in the
constitutional role of congressional oversight.
Education
Madam President, on another matter--and this will be my last
statement for the day--I have always been a critic of one-size-fits-all
government, and there are few places where this is more inappropriate
than education. Each child is different, and if we offer a cookie-
cutter, assembly-line education, it will hurt all students.
Whether we are talking about students with gifts and talents or those
with learning disabilities, students with unique learning needs must
have teachers trained to address their way of learning. It may seem
like common sense to say that, that students benefit when their
education is tailored to their individual needs. Any parent can tell
you that. You can't expect all students to learn at the same speed and
depth in every subject.
Unfortunately, those like outgoing New York Mayor de Blasio want to
scrap programs for gifted students. Citing the fact that White and
Asian students were overperforming compared to students from other
ethnic categories, de Blasio tried to end the city's program.
His focus on maintaining equality of outcomes by preventing any
students from excelling is a misguided policy. It would have the
perverse effect of reducing opportunity for the very students who need
it most, including historically disadvantaged minority groups.
Now, we all know that wealthy families can afford to put their kids
in private schools or pay for services outside of the schools. It is
those students who aren't as well off who need access to services to
address their unique learning needs. Families from less advantaged
backgrounds are not helped by limiting opportunities for all students
in public schools. They are the ones who have the most to lose when
public schools cancel needed services.
Thankfully, the incoming New York mayor recognizes the importance of
gifted and talented programming and has pledged to keep it.
I introduced the TALENT Act to address these unique needs of gifted
and talented students and ensure that they don't slip through the
cracks. Thankfully, much of this bill was included in Every Child
Achieves in the year 2015. But I am also a strong supporter of Javits
Gifted and Talented Education. This is the only dedicated Federal
program to develop and help teachers implement teaching methods that
meet the needs of gifted students, and it is targeted specifically to
disadvantaged gifted students.
Thankfully, my State of Iowa is a leader in this area. Iowa law
requires gifted education services for kids who need to be challenged.
This applies to all students, whether or not they can afford private
schools. Iowa has recognized that we should aim to challenge kids with
gifts and talents and give them the resources they need to excel. We
should help all students achieve their potential, not try in vain to
find one identical education for every kid.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Legislative Agenda
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, here we are, following the Thanksgiving
holiday, where I hope that people got to get together with friends and
family and enjoy a little respite from the hectic schedule here in
Congress. But here we are now, with just a few short days intervening
between now and Christmas, and the end-of-the-year legislative mad dash
is officially upon us.
This year, our Democratic colleagues, who control the Senate agenda,
have ignored some of the Senate's most important and basic
responsibilities, leaving us with a whole lot to do and not a whole lot
of time in which to do it.
In September, when the Senate should have passed a group of bills to
[[Page S8771]]
fund the government for the next fiscal year, our colleagues instead
kicked the can down the road. You would have thought they would have
used the past couple of months to pass the annual appropriations bills,
which is one of most basic and fundamental responsibilities of
Congress; but, no, they chose not to do that.
Instead, our Democratic colleagues found time for partisan, dead-on-
arrival messaging bills while they failed to bring a single
appropriations bill to the floor with a December 3 deadline.
As things stand today, it looks like these funding bills are nowhere
near ready. This risks leaving millions of Americans without a paycheck
right before the Christmas holidays or punting on our funding
responsibilities once again.
And that is not the only potential fiscal disaster we are careening
toward. At some point in the coming days, weeks, or months--we don't
know exactly when; only Secretary Yellen knows--the U.S. will run up
against the debt limit. That is, we have maxed out our credit card and,
unless our Democratic colleagues decide to raise that credit limit, we
will exhaust the credit of the United States Government.
It kind of feels a little like ``Groundhog Day'' because we saw this
movie just about 2 months ago.
Democrats had a clear roadmap and ample time to increase the debt
ceiling on their own and avoid a financial crisis, but they stubbornly
refused. They said they didn't have enough time. Well, they don't have
that excuse now.
And, even then, they have known since July that Republicans would not
help them with another partisan spending spree. So we find ourselves
staring down the barrel of a potential economic crisis, but our
colleagues can't blame the calendar for not having enough time again.
If our Democratic colleagues want to exclude Republicans and continue
spending on a purely partisan basis, they will have to raise the debt
ceiling in a partisan fashion. They have proven they are OK with
spending trillions of dollars of borrowed money without a single
Republican vote. It is not too much to say that they should be held
accountable for that reckless course of conduct.
Of course, before the Senate addresses either one of those crises,
there is another item on the agenda: The National Defense Authorization
Act.
Congress has passed the National Defense Authorization Act each year
for the last 60 years, and for good reason. It is the case, I believe,
that our national security is the single most important duty that we
have here in the Senate. But this bill has been waiting in the wings
for months, ready for floor action, and both the chairman of the Armed
Services Committee and the ranking member have had to push the majority
leader to actually bring this to the Senate floor, even at this late
date.
So 2 weeks ago, before the Thanksgiving holidays, the Senate finally
began consideration of the Defense Authorization Act, and we hope we
can actually do what the Senate is supposed to do, which is to vote on
amendments to that bill and then pass it in the coming days. But the
fact is, it is nearly December, and the fact that it has not been done
yet is simply inexplicable.
Now, with such a big to-do list and so little time to do it, you
would think our colleagues would be laser focused on this hefty end-of-
the-year agenda: funding the government, avoiding a debt crisis,
strengthening our military, and supporting our volunteer military
forces and their families.
None of the Senate's most basic responsibilities have been attended
to; and, as it stands today, the Senate is only scheduled to be in
session for a handful of days before the Christmas holidays.
Well, unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues think they have an
even more important job to do. Forget the millions of government
employees who could be left without a paycheck before the holidays, or
the economic crisis that will cripple our country if we defaulted on
our debt. Our Democratic colleagues are laser focused on their
multitrillion-dollar tax-and-spending spree.
After months of party infighting and countless iterations of this
bill, the Democratic leaders in the House--most notably Speaker
Pelosi--finally managed to pass a partisan version of this bill. They
couldn't even convince every Democrat to vote for the bill, which is an
indication of how problematic it is.
What we are talking about is an absolutely massive bill that would
increase the role and power of the Federal Government and Americans'
lives in an unprecedented fashion. It would reshape how we take care of
our children, our healthcare system, our energy, our educational
systems. Virtually every aspect of American citizens' daily lives would
be affected by this monstrosity.
And, of course, these programs don't come cheap, but Democrats have
pulled every gimmick in the book to hide the true cost. They have
filled this bill with arbitrary sunsets and cliffs and expirations that
make these programs appear to cost less than we know they actually
will.
One example is the expanded child tax credit. As originally drafted,
this policy was a temporary measure in their bill that became law in
March, just 8 months ago. Earlier drafts of the so-called Build Back
Better legislation would have extended that policy through 2025, even
though it seemed all but certain that Democrats would later try to make
it permanent.
When Democrats needed to cut the overall pricetag of the bill to
convince their own Members to vote for it, the expanded child tax
credit was scaled back to a 1-year extension. But nothing has really
changed. I have no expectation that this or a number of other so-called
temporary programs in this bill will actually expire.
As President Ronald Reagan once famously said, the closest thing to
eternal life on Earth is a temporary government program.
If all the temporary provisions in this bill are made permanent, it
will cost a whole lot more than is advertised. And the budget experts
at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business have
given us an estimate of how much more it will cost.
Of course, there is President Biden, who said it will cost zero.
Nobody believes that. Others have said, well, it is a $1.75 trillion
bill. And I would argue that, based on all the budget gimmickry, you
can't really believe that either.
The University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business pegs the
price at close to $4.6 trillion over 10 years--that is the budget
window--more than 2\1/2\ times the amount Democrats have previously
stated.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget agrees with that
estimate. They estimate that the true cost of this bill would be
approximately $5 trillion over the next 10 years. That is $5 trillion
in largely borrowed money that would have to be paid back by somebody.
That is a whole lot more than the $1.75 trillion pricetag that the
press has reported based on the incredible estimates that our
Democratic colleagues have provided.
Of course, that flies in the face of President Biden's estimate that
it would cost nothing. Well, again, we understand that is not true, and
the 1.75 trillion pricetag is not true either.
Last week, I sent a letter to the leaders of the Congressional Budget
Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation requesting a true cost
estimate for this bill. The American people deserve a full and complete
picture of the real-world price of this legislation. And before voting
on the bill, every Member of the Senate, both Republicans and
Democrats, should want to know how much this legislation is going to
end up costing the American people.
The pricetag of this bill is deeply concerning, but that is only part
of what makes this legislation so dangerous. As I said earlier, it
dramatically increases the role of the Federal Government in every
aspect of our lives. It drives up taxes on working families; it harms
our energy security; and it hurts our competitiveness on the global
stage, which hands a big win to China.
That, apparently, is the priority for our Democratic colleagues right
now, not the looming debt crisis or potential government shutdown. They
are focused on legislation that actually does more harm than good.
Our Democratic colleagues control the Senate agenda. They control the
House, and they control the White House. They control every lever in
the
[[Page S8772]]
legislative process here in Washington, DC, and this is how they have
chosen to use that power.
Our Democratic colleagues continue to prove that they are not doing
what is best for the American people. If it was, then there would be an
effort to build a bipartisan consensus for this legislation.
Instead, they are using raw partisan political power to jam through
an agenda that they know will end up costing somewhere around $5
trillion and that will permanently alter the relationship of the
American people to the Federal Government.
For our country's sake, I hope something changes between now and the
time we actually take up this partisan tax-and-spending spree bill that
has been passed by the House of Representatives.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, I imagine many of us in this Chamber
had a wonderful week talking with Tennesseans--with our constituents.
In Tennessee, I will tell you this: We had a fabulous week. And
everywhere I went, whether it was the grocery store or somewhere with
the grandchildren, I was hearing from people about the issues that are
in front of us, and they are really curious to see what is going to end
up happening as we take up issues here in DC.
And I talked with a lot of our county mayors, who are quite concerned
about what is happening with the American Recovery Act funding and how
they are going to be able to use that funding.
They are very concerned about the infrastructure bill, and, you know,
they were really a little bit surprised to find out that so little of
the bill actually goes to infrastructure. I think they were really
disappointed in that because what they are interested in is money for
roads and bridges and highways and ports and broadband, and were really
disappointed in the emphasis in the bill on mass transit.
So what we have realized is that they have a lot of questions. They
look around and they say: Well, in Washington, you have got a lot of
spinning wheels going on and not a lot of forward motion.
And I have to agree because, in Washington, it does appear that the
President and many of my Democrat colleagues are spinning their wheels
in the same rut that they were stuck in before the holiday, proving
once again that, while they understand very little about the economy,
they understand even less about where the American people are.
Since day 1 of this administration, the White House has made it clear
that governing is not a priority. Governing--working with the House,
working with the Senate to find solutions.
But, instead, this administration is doing all it can to force the
country onto a path that the people have said time and again they don't
want to travel this path. It is not where they want to go.
By all accounts, businesses are, at least, a year out from a return
to normal, which we continue to hear a lot about that. Everybody would
like to be back to prepandemic normal.
Our supply chains are a mess. Ships that are loaded with goods cannot
get to ports. Inflation is, unfortunately, here to stay. It definitely
wasn't transitory. Families are having an increasingly difficult time
putting food on the table and gas in the car because a dollar doesn't
go as far as it once went, and this is something every family is
wrestling with. Even with all of this right in front of their faces, my
Democratic colleagues are more concerned with how they will leverage
these problems rather than how they are going to solve these problems.
What solutions that they have proposed are completely divorced from
reality and come loaded with more internal political strife than they
are worth. This, of course, is the logical conclusion of a year where
consensus took a backseat to the whims of the loudest and most radical
leftist wing of the Democratic Party.
Over the past week, the media has dripped out story after story
covering the cost of inflation, the consequences of failing to fund the
government, and the upcoming debate over the debt limit. And if you
thought the message coming from the White House and from my Democratic
colleagues in response to all this was jumbled before, prepare yourself
for something even more chaotic in the days to come.
My colleagues across the aisle, unfortunately, still seem to be under
the impression that Senate Republicans are going to band together to
save them from the hole they have dug for themselves. They think we are
going to endorse fiscal policy so destructive that many experts who are
normally friendly to the White House have refused to support these
ideas--and with good reason. They are a socialist, government-
controlled agenda.
We have been down this road before. So my Democratic colleagues know
that going through the motions of bipartisanship isn't going to be
enough because we went through this months ago with the debt ceiling
and on the matter of funding the government. We would have settled all
of these issues months ago if the majority had their priorities in line
and if they could articulate clearly to the American people what the
priorities are, what the problems are, what the challenges are, and
bring forward solutions for the American people to look at and say:
Yeah, that makes sense. But that is not what they have done and what
they continue to do.
Here is the problem with where they are: The priorities of the
Democratic Party are not the priorities of the American people. Out in
the real world, inflation is a problem. Spending and debt--all of that
means something. How you spend your money means something. People
understand that. They get it.
But according to the majority here in the Democratic-controlled
Senate, none of these things actually matter in practice. In fact, the
past few months have shown us that among Democrats, there is no real
consensus about what, if anything, these major debates mean to them or
what is the end game. It is amazing. They can't tell you. If you are
here to solve problems or create problems, people are going to figure
that out--the American people are. And they know that the question
should be: Are you here to solve problems or create problems for your
political enemies in a way that ensures you are punishing people?
Now, that is the question that people are asking. Is the debt limit a
legal fiction or a meaningful check on reckless spending? That is a
question that we have heard. Is it just something that gets tossed
around? Is funding the government part of your duty or is the
appropriations debate just fuel for talking points? I think we know the
majority's answers to all of these questions, and I think their answer
is probably coming down on the wrong side of where the American people
are.
Those looking for good faith from the White House are seeming to not
find it, nor are they finding any evidence that Democrats in Congress
are aware of their moral obligation to be discerning and truthful about
how they plan to spend trillions in taxpayer money.
There is a reason that the Democrats lied about the costs associated
with their massive social spending bill, which reflects the priorities
of liberal, leftist activists rather than the priorities of the
American people. They claimed it was paid for, but in reality it will
add $367 billion to the deficit and cost taxpayers more than another
$400 billion. That is why they have not been truthful with the American
people that needed more buy-in in order for the Democrats to make this
happen--even when they knew the CBO report was going to come and show
how much debt was going to be added if this bill got passed.
They know the people don't want this big spending bill. They know
that the American people know that we cannot afford this. Our children
and our grandchildren cannot afford this bill.
As my colleague from Texas was saying, it is not $1.5 trillion or
$1.75 trillion. It is trillions--trillions--of dollars in spending. And
we know how some across the aisle are kind of, with a wink-wink and a
nod-nod, saying: Yes, let's get these on the books, and then things
will take care of themselves.
This week, we are facing the prospect of yet another government
shutdown, which means another eleventh-hour opportunity for my
Democratic colleagues to complain about Republican obstruction. But
what the Democrats in the media and the liberal activists
[[Page S8773]]
need to realize is that Republicans are not the problem here. The
Democrats are in charge of this Chamber, the House, and the White
House.
And not even the Democrats in power can agree on how much they want
to spend and how they want to spend it. If they had consensus and if
that consensus came from listening to the people that elected them to
serve, we wouldn't be staring at the prospect of another government
shutdown. No, you would see Democrats marching to the Chamber in
lockstep to vote for a continuing resolution that reflects goals that
don't change with the news cycle.
But there is no consensus. The people driving the ship have lost all
sense of direction, and in doing so, they are losing the faith the
American people have put in them.
In Tennessee, we would say that our friends across the aisle are in
the middle of a good old-fashioned come-apart, and there is one way and
only one way to reverse the damage, and that is to stop worrying about
politics and pushing a leftist agenda and start worrying about meeting
the needs of the American people--not only today but the needs of our
children and grandchildren. What are we going to do to their hopes and
their dreams for living their version of the American dream?
So we should agree, no more blame, no more budget gimmicks--open our
eyes to the reality of the situation that we are dealing with. We have
a job to do here, and the sooner my Democratic colleagues remember that
fact, the sooner they will be able to earn back the faith and the trust
of the American people. That is priority No. 1, and it is time for my
colleagues to prove that they understand it.
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. KING. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KING. Madam President, I want to talk about the national defense
bill, but first I do want to respond just in one particular to the
comments of the gentlelady from Tennessee because I have heard this
before, the idea that the infrastructure bill isn't infrastructure.
I don't get how anybody is making that claim. Here is the list: roads
and bridges, highway safety, public transit, rail, broadband, ports,
airports, the electric grid, water, and Superfund cleanup. Yes, there
are some items for EVs and for the facilitating of the electrification
of our transportation system, but the vast bulk of it is what anybody
would call infrastructure.
Infrastructure is something you can kick. Infrastructure is something
you can feel. And that is what we are talking about here--roads and
bridges, ports, airports, rail, broadband. That is the infrastructure
of the 21st century. This is an infrastructure bill, and it ought to be
recognized as such.
There are plenty of things we can argue and differ with around here,
but this shouldn't be one of them. And people are confused about it
because they are being given confusing information. They are being told
it is not an infrastructure bill; there is no infrastructure. I have
heard that. It is simply not true. So let's argue about the things
that, you know, we have genuine policy differences, but let's not talk
about things that just aren't the case. Ports, bridges, railroad,
public transit--and, yes, public transit is infrastructure. It may not
be in Tennessee. It may not be so much in Maine, although I suspect
there is some in Tennessee and there is some in Maine, but public
transportation is critical to our citizens.
Broadband, airports, electric grid, water--that is infrastructure.
H.R. 4350
Now, in a few moments, we will have what I hope is not a historic
vote. It shouldn't be a historic vote. It ought to be a boring vote.
The vote is to proceed to the National Defense Authorization Act for
2022, just as we have done for 60 years' running. But I understand that
there is a movement afoot to derail it because there haven't been
enough amendments. ``I didn't get my amendment in; therefore, I am
going to block this bill.''
Well, let's talk a little bit about the history of the bill. I serve
on the Armed Services Committee, as does the Presiding Officer, and
both of us can attest that the Armed Services Committee is one of the
most nonpartisan committees in the U.S. Senate. In fact, in the Armed--
let's talk about amendments for a minute. In the Armed Services
Committee, during our markup, we adopted 145 amendments--most by
agreement, by bipartisan agreement, by unanimous consent. There were a
few rollcall votes but not very many. And in my experience in 9 years
on that committee, there have only been a handful of party-line
rollcall votes in the Armed Services Committee.
It produces some very odd bedfellows, and some combinations that
don't make much sense politically, but it is because the members of the
committee put the interests of the United States of America first and
make their decision on that, not on politics.
So there were 145 amendments in the committee. Then there is a
managers' package that we are going to be voting on today that has 57
amendments in it--27 supported by Republicans and 27 by Democrats and 3
that are entirely bipartisan. So we are up to 202 amendments. That is a
lot of amendments to a piece of legislation, not to mention the fact
that the managers' package within the committee was developed largely
by consensus between the two party leaders, Chairman Reed and Ranking
Member Inhofe. So this process is replete with amendments and
compromise, and that is how it has been done for the past 60 years.
Now, last week, before we left, we had another 18 amendments that
were agreed upon by both parties to bring up as a package--not as a
package; I am sorry--to be considered one at a time and be voted on.
That process was killed by a group of Senators who said: No. I want
my amendment. I am not on the list, and, therefore, I am going to
object to the unanimous consent request, so nobody gets their
amendments.
So, today, we are going to be voting on the motion to proceed to the
substitute amendment that is chock-full of bipartisan amendments. It
doesn't have all of the amendments everybody wants. It doesn't have a
couple of amendments that I feel are very important.
But do you know what? To quote my favorite philosopher, Mick Jagger:
You don't always get what you want, but, if you try sometimes, you just
might find you get what you need.
And that is what we have got right here, is what we need.
This is the defense of the United States of America. Why can't we do
just one bill without politics and without stamping our feet, saying,
``I didn't get my amendment, so I am going to vote against it''?
By the way, this is a vote on a motion to proceed, which, in my view,
ought to be just the most routine possible vote. It is not a vote on
the bill itself. Let's proceed to this bill. Let's proceed to the
bipartisan managers' package that has been worked out, painstakingly,
over the last several months.
Let's think about what this bill is all about. This isn't ordinary
policy. This is the national security of this country. This is a pay
raise for our troops. This is national security that our people depend
upon. That is our most fundamental responsibility. In the preamble of
the Constitution, one of the key responsibilities is to provide for the
common defense. That is why you have governments in the first place.
We have done it for 60 years in a row. I urge my colleagues--this
isn't a moment for partisanship or for complaining about, you know, ``I
didn't get my amendment, so I am not going to vote for it.'' You know,
suck it up.
I am going to vote for it. As I say, there are a couple of amendments
that I felt very passionately about involving cyber and the protection
of the country. They aren't in, but I am still going to vote for it,
because that is our responsibility.
This is the most fundamental responsibility we have around here. We
have a bipartisan process, and it came out of committee 23 to 3. Two
Republicans and one Democrat voted against it. That is as close to
unanimity as you can get on an important piece of policy legislation.
So I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to proceed, and
then to
[[Page S8774]]
move the bill later this week--to meet our responsibility to the
American people, to meet the responsibility that every Congress has met
for the last 60 years.
If we don't do that because we are angry that we didn't get something
in or there weren't enough amendments--there are 202 amendments built
on top of, already, a bipartisan package that was produced in the
chairman's markup in committee. That, to me, is pretty full
consideration.
I hope my colleagues will vote yes to proceed to this bill. It is our
responsibility and, more than that, it is what is necessary to protect
this country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, let me, first of all, say that I would
have a hard time finding a better friend than the Member who just
spoke. We have been good friends for a long period of time, and we have
not been apart on very many votes; yet we are not of the same party.
Nonetheless, we are going to have to do something that is the same
thing we had to do 5 years ago, and really for kind of the same reason.
Every year, when the Senate turns to the NDAA, we call it our must-
pass bill. It is a must-pass bill, and it is a bill that will pass. It
is a must-pass because it gives our troops the pay that they have
earned and the tools and the training that they need to fight and to
win against our enemies.
That is why we have passed the NDAA every year for 60 straight years.
This year will be 61. This is pretty much the only authorization bill
that gets done the way it should year after year. In fact, it is pretty
much the only bill--period--that Congress does every single year
without fail.
However, no matter how important it is, that doesn't mean that we
will accept the fact that Senator Schumer wants to jam it through the
Senate without adequate consideration.
Let me be clear. Senator Schumer has put us in this position today.
He waited more than 2 months after we filed the NDAA to bring it to the
floor. For 2 months, we could have been discussing this and having it
and treating it like we should.
He tried to tack it onto his unrelated legislation just as many of
us, including my Democrat colleague in the House, Adam Smith, guessed
that he would, and now he wants a floor vote on this bill--the most
important bill that we do all year--to be enough, despite the fact that
he isn't giving us ample time to debate the bill, and he certainly
hasn't been willing to entertain an open amendment process.
We have been trying to get this for a long period of time, and we
haven't gotten it--the most important bill of the year.
I think Americans back home are smart enough to understand that our
servicemembers deserve more. They deserve to be our priority in the
Senate, and we need to show them, by providing a robust and open debate
on the annual Defense bill, that that is how we will do it.
We are in this place right now because Senator Schumer won't
prioritize national defense and fund our troops because the majority
leader mismanaged the Senate's schedule. He won't allow votes on
bipartisan amendments that make our country more secure. We heard that
argument the last time we were in session.
These include an amendment that would inflict sanctions against
Russia to stop its power grab over European energy supplies, which
simply builds on our previous bipartisan NDAAs and aligns with the
House's version of the NDAA.
Another amendment on which Senator Schumer would not give a vote
would tighten import restrictions on China to ensure goods sold in the
United States aren't made by Uighur forced labor. This already passed
the Senate by voice vote.
Good amendments like these shouldn't fall victim to the majority
leader's failed leadership.
We all understand how important this bill is. It shouldn't be a
partisan thing. This is the most important bill we do every year. In
fact, we have said this every year. In fact, I have said this more
times than any other Member has stated it. It is even more important
now because we are in the most threatened position of our lifetimes. I
can't tell you how many times I have demonstrated that fact on the
floor of the Senate.
I echo the minority leader's frustration. I understand the
frustration from my colleagues who wanted, in realtime, to debate this
bill. I think they pled their case very effectively. We wouldn't be in
this position if the majority leader had brought this bill up earlier,
which we kept insisting that he do, over and over again, on a
bipartisan plea.
While I want to be clear that we are in this position because Senator
Schumer is forcing this unfortunate action, I also want to be equally
clear that I am still very supportive of this bill, and I hope we will
pass it soon, but I stand with my colleagues who are voting against the
majority leader's irresponsible management of the bills. We have got to
get it done, but we can't rush it, and that is why I will be voting no
on cloture. That is not an easy thing for me to do, but I believe we
can get this bill in better shape. My vote against the process is not
against the bill; it is against the process.
We are not delaying national security, no. This is just the opposite.
We are demanding that we show, through open and robust debate, that our
men and women in uniform are our priority.
I have heard this from many of our people that I have talked to over
the weekend and over this past week who are really wondering why we
didn't have this on the table earlier so we could get the debate. I
hope that a lot of the American people heard the six different
Republicans who were demanding to have their votes and amendment
process. This is the first time, in my memory, that we have not had
this kind of a process take place, and for that reason I will be voting
no.
I do want to hear, of course--and let me say something because this
might be an area of disagreement between my partner and myself.
Senator Reed, we have worked on these bills together for a long
period of time. We have been successful, and we are going to be
successful this time.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Madam President, it would be a very disappointing moment if
we would fail to invoke cloture.
This bill, from the very beginning, has been completely bipartisan
and open to amendments. In the course, as Senator King eloquently
remarked, of the committee hearing, we included over 100 amendments on
a bipartisan basis. We came to the floor with a bill that passed our
committee 23 to 3--overwhelmingly bipartisan.
We also brought to the floor a substitute amendment, including,
approximately, 60 amendments that were also bipartisan. And then we had
another series of nearly 20 amendments that was bipartisan, that would
have been voted on, but they were objected to because several Members
did not get their amendments.
Now, just to point out, the majority of those amendments aren't even
within the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee. They don't
relate directly to the men and women of the armed services. They might
have foreign policy implications, but they are not something that is
essential to the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act.
I can recall many times on this floor when the NDAA was brought up;
both sides could not agree on amendments; we went through the process;
we invoked cloture; we voted on the substitute bill; and we went off to
conference. So this would not be the first occasion on which,
ironically, a few people did not get their amendments. In fact, on
previous occasions, there were many, many people who did not get their
amendments.
And so, again, I go back to the point that we have produced a
bipartisan piece of legislation. I commend the ranking member. We
worked with closely the subcommittee chairs and the subcommittee
ranking members. The staff has done a superb job. And we are here, just
one procedural vote away from moving forward, and I think we should
move forward for the benefit of the men and women of the armed
services, as Senator King, again, so eloquently described.
I think the other factor, too, is that eventually we have to
reconcile whatever we do or attempt to do with the
[[Page S8775]]
House of Representatives. Certainly, I think it gives us much more
credibility, much more clout, and much more leverage when we have a
strong bill that has passed on the floor of the Senate.
We are not talking about 100 amendments that we have to consider. We
are talking about a handful of Senators who didn't get their way, even
though many others were frustrated. I think, again, our duty is to move
forward to pass this cloture vote this evening, then to move forward to
final passage, and then to reconcile our differences with the House and
come back with legislation.
At this point--and I think the ranking member would agree with me--as
it stands right now, I would be proud to pass this legislation because
it is bipartisan, it responds to the needs of the men and women of the
Armed Forces, and it establishes robust resources for the Department of
Defense much more than were advocated by the President in his budget.
So we are taking a strong step forward, and I just would hate to see
this as a sidestep away from final passage.
I would urge all of my colleagues to vote for cloture.
Mr. KING. Would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. REED. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. KING. Madam President, my recollection is--and we have passed
this bill, as we both have recognized, every year for the past 60
years, including over the last 4 or 5 years--in the last several years,
there weren't that many amendments.
There were a few, and it was always agreed in advance. There was a
package, just as we had the other night, but everybody didn't get--
there wasn't an unlimited number of amendments or votes on amendments.
There was generally an agreed-upon number of amendments, and it wasn't
very many.
Is that correct?
Mr. REED. That is absolutely correct.
There have been occasions where we have had--once we got the
substitute adopted--in some cases, no amendments and we went to final
passage, ultimately, and in other cases, just a handful of amendments.
Last year, I don't believe we had the kind of amendments we are
offering this year, some of them have nothing whatsoever to do with the
national defense. The nearly 20 amendments we were proposing were
nearly equally divided to be bipartisan.
And, frankly, to your point, I think this would represent more
amendments than in the many years I witnessed the passage of the NDAA.
Mr. KING. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Reed-Inhofe
substitute amendment No. 3867, as modified, to Calendar No.
144, H.R. 4350, a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2022 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other
purposes.
Charles E. Schumer, Jack Reed, Catherine Cortez Masto,
Benjamin L. Cardin, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Jeanne
Shaheen, Tim Kaine, Angus S. King, Jr., Kyrsten Sinema,
Christopher Murphy, Maria Cantwell, Mark Kelly, Brian
Schatz, Patrick J. Leahy, Mazie K. Hirono, Debbie
Stabenow, Mark R. Warner.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on
amendment No. 3867, offered by the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed,
as modified, to H.R. 4350, a bill to authorize appropriations for
fiscal year 2022 for military activities of the Department of Defense,
for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department
of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal
year, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy),
the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr.
Sasse).
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 45, nays 51, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 473 Leg.]
YEAS--45
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Menendez
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Schatz
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Whitehouse
NAYS--51
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Braun
Burr
Capito
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Warren
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NOT VOTING--4
Blunt
Cassidy
Cruz
Sasse
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). On this vote, the yeas are 45,
the nays are 51.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion was not agreed to.
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Motion to Reconsider
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the failed
cloture vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
Unanimous Consent Agreement
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture
vote on the underlying bill, H.R. 4350, ripen upon disposition of
substitute amendment No. 3867, as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to express my great disappointment
that some of my colleagues have indicated by their vote that they are
preventing the adoption of the National Defense Authorization Act, and
they claim that more amendments and more debate are needed.
This bill has been bipartisan from the beginning. It incorporated
over 100 amendments at the committee level. There were approximately 60
additional amendments in the substitute, which were agreed to on a
bipartisan basis.
Last week before we adjourned, we offered nearly 20 more amendments
on a bipartisan basis, and they were rejected by my colleagues on the
Republican side, just as this evening, this motion for cloture was
rejected by the Republicans. They had their opportunity to consider
more amendments. We had 19 amendments ready last week that were brought
forward on an equal basis to be debated and voted upon. But that was
blocked by several of my Republican colleagues.
One of the ironies this evening is that many of my colleagues, who
had their amendments denied by fellow Republican objections, came down
and voted against the bill. That doesn't seem to be particularly
logical, in my mind.
Now, in the course of NDAAs--and I have done a few--there have been
periods in which there has been extensive considerations of the bill
with very few, if any, amendments. There have been times in which only
a handful of amendments were presented before we voted on cloture,
passed cloture, and passed the bill. So this is an unusual departure
from procedure, particularly with a bill that has so much bipartisan
support.
[[Page S8776]]
The bill passed out of committee 23 to 3 because it represented all
of the principled points that my colleagues wanted. In the course of
the committee deliberations, there were 300 amendments presented, and
we adopted 143.
Mr. President, let me yield to the majority leader.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my friend from Rhode Island. I want to make a
brief statement about the vote, and then I will turn it over to him.
My colleagues, there should be no misunderstanding about the
absurdity that just played out on the floor. For a while now,
Republicans have claimed they want to pass the Defense authorization
legislation immediately. They said we couldn't afford to wait any
longer. They called it a core duty, a bare minimum, and they called on
me to bring it to the floor for a full vote.
But a few moments ago, Republicans just blocked legislation to
support our troops, support our families, and keep Americans safe.
Republican dysfunction has, again, derailed bipartisan progress. The
Republican choice to block our bill and, by an extension, legislation
to support our troops and protect the homeland can be summed up in two
words: inexplicable and outrageous.
I hope the American people are watching. Don't tell me we aren't
offering a fair process. We have had ample debate. We had amendments
from both sides. We had a huge number of managers' amendments, equal
numbers Democrat and Republican. We offered to debate--I believe it is
18 amendments--more than has been on most other bills of this type.
In any other time in history, what we offered Republicans would be
considered a very fair and generous compromise, but just because a few
Republicans didn't get every single concession they insisted on, they
are now halting the process.
Despite this vote, Democrats will continue to work to make sure our
troops get paid and our vital defense programs can continue.
I thank my colleague for his courtesy and yield the floor back to
him.
Mr. REED. I thank the majority leader for his comments and just to
elaborate, this represents what the majority leader just pointed out--a
few Members on the other side frustrated the entire process and,
ironically, frustrated many of their own colleagues in their caucus who
had amendments, either in the substitute agreement or were ready to be
voted on.
So this is really a question of doing our utmost, as we have in the
past, not for individual points but for the support of the men and
women in the military. That was the spirit that guided our efforts in
the committee.
Working closely with Senator Inhofe and all the Members on both
sides, we recognized that what we do ultimately affects the safety and
the welfare of our men and women in uniform and their families. And
this legislation would accomplish a great deal. This is, in my sense,
one of the most bipartisan bills we have ever considered. It is
unfortunate that we can't move forward on a bipartisan basis, consider
this bill, and then go to the House and come back with a final
legislation for consideration by this Senate.
We will have to do an NDAA. It will be done. I think Senator Inhofe
is committed to that, as I am, and we will have to use procedures that
are appropriate to get it done. But we just missed an opportunity to
send a clear message that we support this legislation, we support our
troops. We are going to get to final passage, and then we are going to
go to the House, and then we will send the bill to the President of the
United States.
I should note that one of the other reasons that many amendments were
not brought up for debate is because they are not in the purview of the
Armed Services Committee. There were foreign policy issues; there were
sanctions issues, et cetera. The NDAA often serves as a vehicle to move
those issues along, but it is not central to the purpose of the bill.
Our nation faces an enormous range of security challenges, and it is
more important than ever that we provide our military men and women
with the support they need to keep Americans safe. To that end, this
bill makes great progress. It addresses a broad range of pressing
issues, from strategic competition with China and Russia, to investing
in game-changing technologies, to modernizing our ships, aircraft, and
vehicles. It provides our servicemembers with the resources and support
they need to defend our Nation, while at the same taking care of their
families.
That is why we are here on the floor with the national defense
authorization act. It is not only an opportunity, but a responsibility.
Tonight, we demonstrated irresponsibility to those who serve and their
families. I regret it immensely.
Now, I look forward, again, to working with my colleague Senator
Inhofe and all Members of the committee, to continue forward to develop
legislation that will be acceptable to this body and pass, as we have
for 60-some-odd years, the National Defense Authorization Act.
I recognize and thank my colleague from Ohio for yielding to me.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I always laud and so appreciate the
principled leadership of the senior Senator from Rhode Island, who
never would have done what just happened on the floor when we were in
the minority. Jack Reed is always there for the troops and always there
for our national security, and I join my colleagues in showing our
appreciation. I know the Presiding Officer from New Mexico thinks the
same thing.
Small Business Saturday
Mr. President, this weekend, we celebrated Small Business Saturday
for Ohioans. And people around the country showed their support for
local businesses in their communities by shopping local for holiday
gifts.
Small businesses and their workers drive this economy. There is
always talk on this floor about small business, but the focus is
rarely, in this body, actually on small business and their workers.
They create jobs and economic growth in our communities and the
heartland, in small towns and overlooked neighborhoods, places that
often don't get a lot of outside investment.
The stakeholders in these businesses aren't nameless, faceless
shareholders. They are our neighbors, our family members, the people
you see at church and at the grocery store, and they are vital to our
economic recovery. It is why we passed the bipartisan Paycheck
Protection Program last year. It is why Democrats and President Biden
expanded the American Rescue Plan.
Last week, I asked Ohioans on social media to tell us about their
favorite local businesses to support this holiday shopping season--
businesses that go above and beyond to help their community.
This was a little bit, Mr. President--and I have gone to the floor on
this before, and you and I have talked about this--when I post on my
website, ``What did the child tax credit mean to your family,'' and the
effusive outpouring and excitement from so many people saying this
should be the role of government. This is what really matters. That is
what we found when we posted asking people to share your stories about
favorite local businesses. I want to share a few of them.
Beth talked about Mootown Creamery in Berea. She said they are ``so
involved in the community, never say no when help is needed.''
Robin gave a shout-out.
And that is in northeast Ohio near Cleveland.
Robin gave a shout-out to Snazzies's in Oxford for local arts. That
is in southwest Ohio, north of Cincinnati, the home of Miami
University.
I would add that Berea is the home of Baldwin Wallace College too.
Sarah mentioned ``Sunset Bistro in Bowling Green. They not only
support their local community, they are devoted to honoring our
veterans''--another community with a big State university in northwest
Ohio.
Heather wrote about Let's Eat Cake in Urbana. She said: ``Owner Tina
is always doing something for the downtown business association and the
greater community.''
Donna said: ``I can't say enough about Scott, the owner of Salad
KraZe. Scott goes above and beyond to make the city of Avon Lake''--a
city on Lake Erie, just east of Lorain--``a great place to live and
raise our children.''
Loria said: ``Pouka Art & Photography in Grove City''--in central
[[Page S8777]]
Ohio--``does amazing digital printings and photography. She restores
old photographs into digital paintings.''
Tia said: ``Gemini Gems & Creations in Lancaster''--a small city
southeast of Columbus--``wonderful people who started selling out of
their home and during town events''--out of their home and during town
events--``and now finally have their own shop.''
Teresa mentioned ``Chris Fultz's sign company, Fultz Signs and his
pizza place, Bluelick General, in Lima.''
Lima just swore in this week a new mayor, Sharetta Smith, and the
mayor of Dayton, my friend Nan Whaley, attended the swearing in.
Adam mentioned the Copper Penny Salon in Pettisville.
Vickie mentioned the Charmed Farmhouse in Wellington. She said:
``They take food drives and donate to those in town who directly help
our community. They survived shutdown and thrive still.''
Think about that: They survived and they thrive. This pandemic hit
small businesses hard. For so many of them, they are still paying their
workers and serving their communities because of PPP, because of our
work through the American Rescue Plan to get people vaccinated.
PPP has helped Ohio businesses survive. Vaccines are bringing back
customers, allowing these small businesses to thrive again.
The bipartisan infrastructure plan the President signed just last
month is going to mean investment--earlier this month. Excuse me. It is
going to mean investment in these businesses' local communities.
People in Ohio and across the country remember how after the last
economic crisis in 2008 and 2009, the biggest corporations recovered--
they always do--while large swaths of the country were left behind.
Many of these same communities have watched for decades as factories
closed, as investment dried up, as storefronts were boarded over. We
can't make that mistake again, and we are not making that mistake.
We are investing in rebuilding roads and bridges and bus and rail
systems to revitalize downtowns. We know businesses can't survive on
their own. They need safe streets and sidewalks. They need other
businesses around. They need bus stops nearby. They need customers with
money in their pockets.
As part of the American Rescue Plan, as I said earlier, we passed the
largest tax cut for working families ever. Ninety-two percent of
families in Ohio who have children under 18--92 percent of those
families--will get at least a $3,000-a-year tax cut.
It is essential that this Congress, that this Senate extend that tax
cut for at least another year. It is giving millions of Ohio families
that tax cut every single month--$250 or $300 per child every single
month. We need to make sure they continue.
We need this holiday season to commit to shopping local, and in the
Senate let's commit to protecting small business--putting small
businesses and workers at the center of our economy.
The workers who shared these--the Ohioans who shared these stories--
know the vibrancy and the dynamism and the diversity of working-class
towns in neighborhoods that Senator Portman, who is in the Chamber this
evening--that we represent. We need to get to work to invest in them.
We need to get to work to ensure that these places--Ohio's Main
Streets, America's Main Streets--are at the center of a better economy.
____________________