[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 9, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S596-S597]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                         Continuing Resolution

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I am actually on the floor to speak to 
a different issue, even though I think expediting votes is an important 
one, and I support that.
  But I am really here to highlight the negative consequences for our 
country of continuing to fund our government through continuing 
resolutions.
  One of the most basic constitutional duties of Congress is the 
appropriations process. The Nation relies on this body to provide 
Federal funds for programs that support national defense, small 
businesses, our border defenses, conservation of public lands, food 
assistance for low-income families, and so much, much more.
  And as a long-serving Member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, 
I am extremely disappointed that Congress is about to pass yet another 
CR that is going to take us to March 11, nearly 5 months past the start 
of the fiscal year.
  Now, on a positive note, I understand that there is a tentative 
agreement on top-line funding, so that we should have budget numbers 
for an omnibus that would fund the remainder of the fiscal year. And 
that is good news. But the fundamental problem remains; long-term CRs 
create uncertainty and inefficiencies inside and outside of the Federal 
Government.
  CRs prevent Agencies from issuing new grants or expanding programs. 
They curtail hiring and recruitment. And moreover, those who rely on 
government programs and Federal resources--and that could be either 
SNAP recipients or defense contractors, but everyone is forced into a 
budgetary limbo.
  And simply put, when Congress refuses to act, people can't do their 
jobs, and this is especially true for our military men and women who 
are serving.
  From Russia's efforts to undermine democracies in Europe to China's 
rapidly expanding sphere of influence, to the unpredictable threat of 
rogue actors like North Korea and Iran, the threats we face today are 
varied and numerous. And nothing hinders our national security more 
than funding our national priorities in piecemeal fashion.
  Make no mistake, as we are engaged in this crisis right now in 
Europe, where Russia is on the borders of Ukraine, threatening to 
invade, we can bet that Vladimir Putin is watching our Congress to see 
if we can actually get an agreement to get a budget funded for the rest 
of this year.
  Recently, several of my colleagues from the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Defense and the Armed Services Committee met with 
Marine Corps Commandant General Berger to discuss the challenges that 
are facing the Marines. The message from General Berger was clear: If 
we continue to fund our government through CRs, it will erode our 
military readiness, and it will cut training time and impede the 
maintenance processes we rely on to keep our soldiers safe.
  The impact of continued CRs on our military would be wide-ranging, 
and the negative effects would continue to ripple for years. And we had 
this experience since I have been here. In 2012 and 2013, when we had 
the budget cliff, we saw what happened to our military. We saw 
readiness of our men and women in uniform erode.
  Thousands of pilot flight hours would be lost. Critical exercises 
within our national allies would be canceled. Our overall global 
presence diminished at a time in which our adversaries are seeking to 
outcompete us in multiple theaters.
  Aircraft like the brandnew KC-46 tankers that we are so proud to have 
stationed at Pease Air National Guard Base in New Hampshire, they are 
such a point of pride. They are an invaluable strategic national asset, 
but they would spend more time on the ground rather than flying the 
missions that they were designed for.
  And submarines, the backbone of our nuclear deterrence and 
technological overmatch against our adversaries and, by the way, the 
ships that China is most concerned about, are an instantly recognizable 
symbol of American military might and the values of our country, they 
would be sidelined due to maintenance disruptions.

  That would have significant impact not just for our readiness but 
also for places like the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, which has as its 
responsibility the maintenance and repair of our attack submarines.
  So what kind of a signal does it send to adversaries like Russia, as 
they continue amassing troops on the Ukrainian border and threaten the 
stability of Europe, when we can't get a budget?
  Long-term efforts to recruit and retain the best and brightest to 
serve in our military would be undone as bonus and incentive pays are 
cut and overall end-strength numbers decrease by thousands.
  Military families would be forced to bear the burden of greater 
financial uncertainty on top of the many sacrifices that they already 
make for our country. We would be left with a smaller, less capable 
force that is demoralized from pay cuts and forced to shoulder greater 
risks for their safety.
  Now, in addition to the harm to our servicemembers and military 
families, we would also be undermining the critical modernization 
efforts that we need to keep pace at a time when competitors like China 
are experiencing technological breakthroughs.
  Just 8 months ago, I am sure we all remember that China tested an 
advanced hypersonic missile that was launched into space before 
reentering the atmosphere and nearly hitting its target.
  This test should serve as a wake-up call about the urgent threat that 
China's military breakthroughs pose. And if the U.S. research and 
development efforts are slowed down due to the constraints of operating 
under a continuing resolution, we will not be able to drive the 
innovation needed to keep pace with China, let alone regain a 
convincing advantage.
  And make no mistake, Putin isn't the only one watching to see if we 
can get a budget agreement in this Congress. Xi is also watching from 
China.
  The development of our next-generation fighter to ensure we maintain 
air superiority in the air will be slowed.
  Our efforts to defend against cyber attacks that could cripple 
critical infrastructure or expose national security secrets would be 
hamstrung.
  Simply put, for all the might and selfless service of our service men 
and women, we would be asking them to defend us while tying their hands 
behind their backs simply because we in Congress can't find the courage 
of compromise.
  I would say to my colleague Senator Cornyn from Texas, who talked 
about the narrow focus of Democrats--who are in the majority in this 
body right now, very slim majority--worrying only about our own 
parochial interests, that this is an opportunity for us to work 
together. Let's work across the aisle and see if we can't find some 
agreement on budget that will get this done not just for the remaining 
months of this fiscal year but next year and the next year and the next 
year.
  China doesn't just compete with us on military technology; China and 
our other economic competitors are pouring resources into scientific 
and technological innovation. And if we want to sustain our global 
prosperity, global leadership, and national security, we cannot afford 
to be caught flatfooted.
  That is why last week the House of Representatives passed the America

[[Page S597]]

COMPETES Act, which is a companion to the Senate-passed U.S. Innovation 
and Competition Act, which passed the Senate months ago with a very 
strong bipartisan vote.
  These bills will soon be in conference, and, if passed, they will 
bolster innovation and international trade, but the investments to meet 
the authorizations that are contained in these bills can't be made 
under a continuing resolution.
  I chair the Commerce, Justice, and Science and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Subcommittee, the CJS Subcommittee. Our bipartisan CJS 
bill included a $1 billion increase for the National Science Foundation 
to keep pace with scientific discoveries that can power the economy in 
fields like artificial intelligence, quantum computing, 
microelectronics, and advanced communications.
  Under a CR, we would forfeit the chance to fund 2,300 additional 
research and education grants that will support 27,500 more scientists, 
technicians, teachers, and students compared to fiscal year 2021.
  That means a lot of innovative research projects, and therefore 
potentially new discoveries, technology, and industries would never get 
started. It also would diminish our ability to train the next 
generation of innovators.
  It isn't just the National Science Foundation; under a CR, NASA 
wouldn't have the needed increases that will help us return humans to 
the Moon--the high ground that China is also eyeing. We will lose out 
on the opportunity to provide the Department of Commerce additional 
funding to build next-generation climate and weather satellites, help 
small- and medium-sized manufacturers, enforce export and trade laws, 
and invest in economic development.
  Furthermore, a CR would delay implementation of the bipartisan 
infrastructure bill.
  Last year, along with nine of our colleagues, we drafted the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which is bipartisan legislation 
to make historic investments in our Nation's infrastructure. The 
legislation provides $550 billion in new Federal investment to respond 
to the needs of the country, from rebuilding crumbling roads and 
bridges to providing clean drinking water and addressing harmful 
contaminants, to expanding broadband coverage to even the most rural 
parts of our country. The Senate passed that infrastructure bill by an 
overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 69 to 30.
  When President Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act into law, it became the single biggest infrastructure investment in 
U.S. history. It is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for us to invest 
in this country. But if we continue with CRs, the implementation of 
this bipartisan infrastructure law could be delayed.
  In addition, as a result of its flat obligation limitations, a CR 
would prevent State departments of transportation from accessing higher 
amounts of formula funding provided by the highway trust fund.
  The CR would also prohibit new starts for new formula programs 
authorized by the bipartisan infrastructure law, including the fiscal 
year 2022 portion of the carbon reduction program that supports 
emission-reducing transportation projects and the PROTECT formula 
funding to States to support transportation infrastructure resiliency.
  Now, in addition to slowing meaningful infrastructure investments, a 
CR also fails to address urgent needs in our communities.
  Americans want to be safe from international threats to our national 
and economic security, but more important, they want to be safe in 
their communities. Yet, in 2020, murders rose by 30 percent.
  The Senate Commerce-Justice-Science bill includes significant funding 
to help local police departments fight crime and put officers on the 
street. It also includes a new Community Violence Intervention 
Initiative to implement strategies to reduce homicides and gun 
violence. But with a CR, we wouldn't have funding for this promising 
strategy.
  We would also lose the chance to provide historic levels of funding 
for the Office on Violence Against Women. Today, it is particularly 
important because a bipartisan group of Senators will introduce a 
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. But without a CJS 
appropriations bill, we can't provide additional funding for the Sexual 
Assault Services Program, which is a formula grant released to States, 
Tribes, and other coalitions in order to provide support services like 
medical services, counseling, and crisis intervention for victims of 
sexual assault, and we cannot start new programs like Restorative 
Justice, a growing area in criminal justice to repair and address the 
harm experienced by victims.
  Continuing to rely on last year's funding levels and last year's 
programs undermines our chances to improve our military readiness, to 
invest in our economy, and to address emerging challenges.
  This week, instead of enacting funding bills for the fiscal year that 
began on October 1, 2021, Congress will instead extend the deadline 
again, passing another CR through March 11. Now, don't get me wrong, I 
am glad we are continuing to keep the government open, and I understand 
that Senate leadership--Chairman Leahy and Vice Chairman Shelby, along 
with their House counterparts--has reached a tentative agreement on 
total spending levels to allow us to use the next month to finish our 
work and enact a remaining year appropriations bill, but it is way past 
time to have made that happen. The American people deserve no less, and 
we need to do better next year.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Florida.

                          ____________________