[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 195 (Thursday, December 15, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7220-S7226]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS AND EXTENSIONS ACT, 2023

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair lays before the Senate the following 
message from the House.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Resolved, That the House agree to the amendment of the 
     Senate to the bill (H.R. 1437) entitled ``An Act to amend the 
     Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act of 2017 to 
     direct the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to 
     provide comprehensive and regularly updated Federal 
     precipitation information, and for other purposes'', with a 
     House amendment to Senate amendment.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                            Motion to Concur

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment 
to the Senate amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion 
to concur.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.


                Motion to Concur with Amendment No. 6534

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment 
with an amendment No. 6534, which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] moves to concur 
     with the House amendment to the Senate amendment with an 
     amendment numbered 6534.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that further reading be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 6534) is as follows:

                  (Purpose: To add an effective date)

       At the end add the following:

     SEC. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall effect on the date that is 1 day after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to concur with 
an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.


                Amendment No. 6535 to Amendment No. 6534

  Mr. SCHUMER. I have an amendment at the desk to amendment No. 6534, 
which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 6535 to amendment No. 6534.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that further reading be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 6535) is as follows:

                (Purpose: To modify the effective date)

       On page 1, line 3, strike ``1'' and insert ``2''.


                Motion to Refer With Amendment No. 6536

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I move to refer the House message to the 
Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report back forthwith 
with an amendment No. 6536.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] moves to refer the 
     bill to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to 
     report back forthwith with an amendment numbered 6536.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that further reading be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 6536) is as follows:

                  (Purpose: To add an effective date)

       At the end add the following:

     SEC. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect on the date that is 4 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.


                Amendment No. 6537 to Amendment No. 6536

  Mr. SCHUMER. I have an amendment to the instructions, which is at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 6537 to the instructions to the motion to 
     refer.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that further reading be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 6537) is as follows:

                (Purpose: To modify the effective date)

       On page 1, line 3, strike ``4'' and insert ``5''.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.


                Amendment No. 6538 to Amendment No. 6537

  Mr. SCHUMER. I have an amendment to amendment No. 6537, which is at 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 6538 to amendment No. 6537.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the 
amendment be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 6538) is as follows:

                (Purpose: To modify the effective date)

       On page 1, strike ``5'' and insert ``6''.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). The Senator from Missouri 
is recognized.


                  No TikTok on Government Devices Act

  Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, last night, the Senate took the 
important step of unanimously, on a bipartisan basis, passing 
legislation to ban TikTok on all Government devices.
  Now, this has been a longtime coming. I first introduced this piece 
of legislation almost 3 years ago. But last night's legislation is 
vitally important because never has the security threat to the American 
people from the Chinese Communist Party been more grave and never has 
the determination on the part of the Chinese Communist Party to 
leverage every possible asset, every possible platform to gather 
information--personal information--from the American people been more 
serious than it is now. That is why last night's action by this body is 
so critical.
  Let's talk about TikTok for a moment, the most downloaded app in the 
world for the last 2 and 3 years running. Back in 2020, over 100 
million Americans--100 million--used TikTok, and that was over 2 years 
ago. Since 2022, TikTok's average monthly users--and this year, every 
quarter of this year--has increased by 234 percent. It is incredible 
growth. You can see why. It is a fun app to use.
  Here is what Americans don't know because TikTok doesn't want them to 
know. It is that the app runs continuously in the background of your 
phone or device. It collects your keystrokes. It has access to your 
email, access to your calendars, access to the notes and clipboard 
functions of your computer or iPhone or tablet or device. It, of 
course, tracks your geolocation. It is essentially an evidence-
gathering, data-gathering machine that runs on your phone.
  Can you turn it off? Can you stop it from doing these things? No, you 
can't, not if you want to use the app.
  What is the connection to Beijing? Only this: that TikTok is owned by 
ByteDance. Under Chinese law that company must--must--provide all data 
to the Chinese Communist Party that the party wants upon its request.
  We know that there are Chinese Communist Party members in TikTok 
leadership. We know that the Chinese Communist Party has held so-called 
training sessions for ByteDance and TikTok

[[Page S7221]]

employees. We know that this data--Americans' data--is available to the 
Chinese Communist Party, to Beijing, because of TikTok, and it is time 
we did something to protect American users.
  We have been warned repeatedly by our own intelligence Agencies that 
TikTok is a security threat. Heck, the Director of the FBI has 
testified under oath that TikTok poses major security risks. That is 
why the Pentagon, the State Department, the Department of Homeland 
Security, TSA, the Navy, the Army, the Air Force, the Coast Guard, and 
the Marine Corps have already banned the use of TikTok on Government 
devices. The only sensible next step is for this Congress to act to 
make that ban across the board for all Federal devices.
  Now TikTok has tried to get in on the act. They issued a statement 
this morning admitting that there may be national security concerns 
with their platform, after denying it under oath for years on end to 
Congress. But they also begged Congress not to do anything rash like 
actually take action. They said: No, no, no, no. Wait, wait. Negotiate 
with us.
  Well, I just say this: The time to wait to secure the privacy of 
American citizens is long past, and the least we can do, the very first 
step we can take, is to ban this app and its use on Federal Government 
devices.
  I hope that now the House and the Senate will act together to move 
this legislation quickly to the President's desk and we can take the 
further historic step of seeing this legislation enacted into law, 
protecting the privacy and the security of every single American.
  It is within our reach. Let's act now and get it done.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.


                      Tribute to Patrick J. Toomey

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the Senate is often labeled as the 
world's greatest deliberative body--a place where generations of 
titanic statesmen have asked the deep questions about America, 
questions like: How do we balance individual liberty with the common 
good? What role should we play on the world stage? and ``How should tax 
depreciation affect a small restaurant owner who is buying a new Fry-o-
lator?''
  Anyone around the Senate would recognize that last query as the work 
of our detail-oriented, hometown-focused, economic whiz--the junior 
Senator from Pennsylvania, Pat Toomey.
  Pat's entire sterling career--from the private sector to the House, 
to nonprofit activism, to the Senate--has revolved around the reality 
that economics is central to daily life. What can seem like dry details 
or esoteric issues can determine whether whole societies rise or fall 
and whether hard-working families struggle or succeed. For two terms in 
the Senate and almost two decades total in Congress, Pat's commanding 
mastery of economic issues has had a massive, massive impact on his 
State and his country.
  Our friend takes particular pride, as he should, in his leading role 
in delivering the generational tax reform of 2017. Most people involved 
in that massive effort found it exhausting. Pat considered it 
energizing. Our resident economist was actually in his element, and the 
work he helped lead created one of the best economic moments for 
working Americans in a generation, before the pandemic.
  But tax reform is far from the only fruit of Pat's labors. From the 
JOBS Act of 2012, which put financial markets more within the reach of 
everyday investors, to the CARES Act, where Pat helped steer our 
bedrock financial institutions through pandemic turmoil, we knew we 
were getting a principled firebrand when our friend joined the Senate.
  We have also gotten a collegial consensus-builder. Whether it was 
Pat's work on the 2011 supercommittee or his tenure at the top of the 
Banking Committee, Pat has blended principle, pragmatism, and 
persuasion.
  He is always professional and respectful to his colleagues, to 
nominees--to everybody. He is unusually skilled at fighting the fight 
and unusually skilled at getting an outcome.
  Pat's life and career have brought him a long way, but you still see 
the seeds that were planted by his father--a marine vet and utility 
worker. There wasn't any legacy fast track into the Ivy League, but 
thanks to a good upbringing, it was hard work and sheer brainpower that 
paved our friend's Path to a prep school merit scholarship and then on 
to Harvard.
  Pat cut his professional teeth as a trader in New York and Hong 
Kong--a free marketeer right from the start. But right as his Wall 
Street opportunities were taking off, Pat hit pause on his big city 
rise and put his economic instincts to an even higher stakes test: He 
actually headed back to Allentown to set up a family business from 
scratch. The small restaurant Pat and his brothers started was a 
proving ground for Pat's deep convictions in the community-building, 
life-changing power of free enterprise and entrepreneurship.
  I understand Pat's first venture into elected office, a local 
commission, was mostly just an effort to make sure bureaucrats didn't 
meddle with the success of Rookies Restaurant and others like it.
  The rest, of course, is history. Pat Toomey became a formidable 
Congressman, then a pivotal outside player, and finally a masterful and 
essential Senator. Pat has led the charge for his fellow Pennsylvanians 
on one front after another.
  In one instance, he responded to tragedy close to home with a 
solution for the entire country. Heinous buck-passing on child abuse in 
public schools, known as passing the trash, had let an offender who had 
abused a child in Pennsylvania proceed to strike again in West 
Virginia. With the help of the senior Senator from that State, Pat 
spearheaded legislation that compels States to crack down on this 
abhorrent practice.
  Another time, through sheer willpower, Pat literally became a 
lifesaving legislative guardian angel for a young Pennsylvanian 
battling cystic fibrosis. Sarah Murnaghan was only 12 years old when 
outdated and tangled rules around lung transplants put her young life 
in serious peril. Pat rallied a coalition of Members. They relentlessly 
lobbied the executive branch. A Federal judge weighed in, and, long 
story short, that young lady got her transplant and is still with us 
today.
  Pat's creative problem-solving has known few bounds. The way I hear 
it, one time, our colleague literally leveraged the America's Cup 
sailboat race as a way to get a specialized transport ship reflagged so 
that Pennsylvania's natural gas industry could keep moving useful 
byproducts to market.
  In the midst of all of this, Pat made sure his office's casework for 
Pennsylvanians was just as superlative. His team's incredibly tight 
turnaround for responding to constituents has earned Pat praise from 
unlikely corners. I understand that, one time, former President Clinton 
went out of his way to inform our colleague that a friend of his in the 
Keystone State couldn't believe how quick and substantive was a reply 
he or she had gotten from Senator Toomey's office.
  While many Capitol Hill offices struggle just to turn around the 
correspondence that comes in, I have it on good authority that Pat will 
literally go combing through local newspapers' ``Letters to the 
Editor'' so that he can proactively initiate contact with 
Pennsylvanians who haven't even sought him out.
  Even the most eager morning people on Pat's staff have learned to 
expect the lights will already be on when they get to the office--their 
boss, already primed with ideas and questions: ``I think we could come 
at this a few different ways'' or ``Have you seen how German Government 
bonds are trading today?''
  But our colleague is also known for his thoughtful, almost fatherly 
leadership style. Pat holds everyone to a high standard, especially 
himself, but if something goes amiss, there is no quick temper, are no 
harsh words--just a facial expression that his team affectionately 
calls ``that `disappointed dad' look.'' And no matter what happens, 
everyone is invited to the annual pool party at Pat's house.
  Talk about an interesting Senate creature--a man with a brain formed 
on the trading floor and a heart shaped by Lehigh Valley kitchen 
tables.
  Pat's true loves are family and free enterprise. This combination has 
made him a formidable Senator, but it has

[[Page S7222]]

also shown us the writing on the wall: The Senate was never going to 
keep our friend forever.
  Pat is always careful to refer to his Senate service as the 
``greatest professional honor of my life.'' Note the caveat, because 
everyone knows what Pat sees as the greatest honor overall. We have 
seen our friend fiercely guard every possible moment of family normalcy 
with Kris and their three kids. We have seen hours blocked off on Pat's 
calendar on a weeknight under the label ``Duncan's Baseball Practice.'' 
We have heard about evening sprints to the train station in order to 
make it to a Christmas pageant--only to see our friend right back here 
the very next morning.
  So like I said, Madam President, family and free enterprise--the two 
great loves.
  I heard a classic Pat Toomey story where a young intern in his office 
was excitedly telling his friends about the prestigious ivory tower 
Path that he was aspiring to. Apparently, his boss, the Senator, chimed 
in with something to the effect of, Yeah, that sounds great, but have 
you ever considered opening up a small business?
  So while we are going to miss Pat around these parts, none of us can 
claim surprise that family and free enterprise have teamed up to steal 
him back.
  Since we are talking about an all-star Senate dad, let me put it this 
way: Pat, your colleagues and I aren't mad. We are just disappointed.
  (Laughter.)
  You have achieved so much. You have done just what you hoped to.
  Congratulations, and thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                         Farewell to the Senate

  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I rise for the customary farewell 
address.
  I would like to begin by thanking our colleague and our leader, Mitch 
McConnell, for his very, very kind words.
  I appreciate that, Leader McConnell. I would also like to say that I 
appreciate the confidence you have repeatedly placed in me. Your 
recollections have brought back many memories.
  One was the supercommittee. I served on the supercommittee, but what 
most of you probably don't know is that Leader McConnell had great 
reservations about putting me on the supercommittee. Oh, yes, he 
grilled me for what seemed like hours over several occasions.
  Here is why: He grilled me because he wanted an outcome. And his 
concern was, will this firebrand from the Club for Growth be willing to 
compromise, be willing to reach an agreement that couldn't possibly be 
exactly what he wanted?


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S7222, December 15, 2022, in the first column, the 
following appears: And his concern was, will this be firebrand 
from the Club for Growth be willing to compromise,
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: And his concern 
was, will this firebrand from the Club for Growth be willing to 
compromise,


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  What was most important--as I recall from our conversations--to 
Leader McConnell was that the people on that supercommittee, at least 
the ones that he could appoint, be interested in a successful outcome?
  I would suggest that one of the things that is underappreciated about 
Leader McConnell is how relentlessly focused he is on outcomes. It is 
hard to know because he doesn't tell us that much about what he is 
thinking, if you haven't noticed, but I am pretty sure that that is a 
big driver.
  So, Leader McConnell, I appreciate your leadership. I appreciate the 
confidence you placed in me. I appreciate our friendship and terrific 
working relationship.
  For the many thanks that I have to give, I will start with my family. 
Starting with my parents, they did a great job raising six kids, I will 
tell you that much.
  I have to really stress my gratitude for my wife Kris. Most of you 
probably don't know, but Kris had a very successful and promising 
career as a consultant, which she put aside so that I could pursue 
mine. So, in many ways, I think she had a tougher job because she was 
home raising three kids. And she has done a phenomenal job of that.
  Last month, we celebrated our 25th wedding anniversary, and I think I 
will spend the next 25 years letting her know how much I appreciate 
her.
  Our kids are here. Bridget is 22; Patrick is 21; and Duncan is 12\1/
2\.
  You know, growing up in a political family has its disadvantages. You 
would be surprised to learn, but it seems like about every 6 years or 
so people ran some really nasty ads about me on television. They did. 
The kids see ads, obviously. Also, I missed more of their activities 
than I would have liked to because I had to be here, but they were 
always terrifically understanding about that. I am sure looking forward 
to spending more time with each of them.
  For those of us who serve on this body, we all know that staffs are 
the unsung heroes of our successes. I have been luckier than anybody 
deserves to be with the teams that I have had working for me over the 
years--18 years in public office over a 24-year period; 6 in the House 
and 12 in the Senate. I have just had wonderful, wonderful folks--
mostly younger people, as we know our staffs tend to be, but just 
terrifically capable, hard-working, bright people.
  My State staff, for instance--Leader McConnell was kind enough to 
point out--the reputation that we had. I don't deserve the credit for 
that. They are the ones who worked so hard on behalf of our 
constituents.
  From Philly to Erie and the other 65 counties and enumerable little 
boroughs and townships, every day they approached constituent service 
with enthusiasm and professionalism that was amazing. I mean, little 
boroughs requesting Federal grants and businesses struggling with 
Federal bureaucracies and regulations, veterans stymied by the VA or 
the Social Security Administration--it didn't matter what it was, my 
staff was on the ball getting the job done and doing it with a great 
attitude.
  My personal office here in DC, both when I was in the House and in 
the Senate, also are just terrific, terrific people.
  You know, I represent a very big State that is relatively close to DC 
so we have a huge number of constituents who want to come down and make 
their case, as they should. Most of those meetings end up getting taken 
by our staff, as you know. They have just done such a great job.
  Our leg and comms shops are always working so hard to get the policy 
exactly right and get our message right; the administrative staff that 
kept things running smoothly so I never had to worry about anything.
  I have to say a special thanks to the Banking Committee staff. I have 
been on the Banking Committee since I got here, but only the last 2 
years have I been the ranking member on the committee. I honestly think 
we accomplished about as much as you can when you are in the minority, 
and so much of it is because it is a great team.

  We focused on all the areas of jurisdiction of the committee: 
financial services, monetary policy, housing, transit. We did a lot of 
important work on the nominees to important regulatory posts. I think 
we did a good job of providing the oversight of powerful regulators, 
including encouraging them to stay in their lanes. I will always be 
grateful to them.
  By the way, many of them are still here, and they will be here to the 
bitter end. We are still processing requests for the omni.
  I have got to say a big thanks to the campaign teams that I have had 
over the years. You know, my first House primary was a very improbable 
success. I know most of you are thinking any election that I won was an 
improbable success. I get that. But I can tell you for sure, it 
wouldn't have happened without a terrifically talented and dedicated 
campaign staff, some of whom became part of the official staff, others 
have chosen to stay on the political side.
  As for all of you guys, my colleagues, I have teamed up with every 
Republican at some point over the years, and most of my Democratic 
colleagues also at one time or another, and it has been a real honor 
and it has been a privilege to work with each of you. You folks have 
been terrific allies, even when it is on an item that is a rare item of 
agreement.
  Speaking of which, let me say a word about my colleague Bob Casey. 
You know, I don't think you could ask for a more collegial, thoughtful 
colleague than the fellow that shares the senatorial responsibilities 
with me for Pennsylvania. The fact is, we canceled each other's vote 
out almost every time--that is a true fact--but we have also worked 
together when we could.

[[Page S7223]]

  One of the areas where we had just tremendous success is filling 
vacancies on the Federal bench in Pennsylvania.
  In fact, Senator Casey, and according to the last count that I have, 
you and I working together these last 12 years got 33 Federal judges 
confirmed to the bench in Pennsylvania.
  Now, that happens because we have great staff work happening; we have 
volunteers who do a wonderful job of vetting candidates across our 
Commonwealth; but it also happens because Bob and I wanted to get this 
job done so that the people of Pennsylvania could have justice. And I 
think that only two--only New York and California have had more judges 
confirmed in this time.
  So, Senator Casey, I appreciate the great working relationship we 
have had.
  As a general matter, as a body, I think we all understand we are not 
that popular, but I don't think I have ever worked with a more 
impressive group of individuals. So I appreciate having had that 
chance.
  I also have to thank the people of this great Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania that my family and I get to live in. Leader McConnell used 
my line. It is true, and I say it all the time, and it will always be 
true, representing Pennsylvania in the U.S. Senate for these 12 years 
has been the greatest honor of my professional life. I will always be 
enormously grateful to the wonderful people of this great State for 
their entrusting me with this awesome responsibility.
  I am also uniquely grateful to the people, the volunteers, who made 
those campaigns successful.
  When I think about my mission in the Senate, I think about two 
complementary aspects of it.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S7223, December 15, 2022, in the first column, the 
following appears: When I think about my mission in the Senate, I 
think about two complimentary aspects of it
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: When I think about 
my mission in the Senate, I think about two complementary aspects 
of it


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  First, it is to represent and defend the specific interests of 
Pennsylvania, and I tried to do that to the best of my ability.
  You know, I think sometimes we are such a big and diverse State that 
what is good for Pennsylvania is usually good for America and vice 
versa, but it has also been important to me to defend and advance the 
cause of personal freedom. In the hierarchy of political values, 
freedom is first for me.
  I think the purpose, the real purpose of government is to secure the 
blessings of liberty, and government too often is the source of 
restrictions on our freedom instead.
  But in this category of defending and advancing personal freedom, my 
focus has tended to be the economic realm. Economic freedom is a 
fundamental aspect of personal freedom, and there is a well-documented 
high correlation between a society's economic freedom and the level of 
prosperity and the standard of living of the people in that society.
  So you probably won't be surprised to learn that I think my biggest 
legislative accomplishment was that opportunity that I had to be a part 
of a small group of Senators, Finance Committee members, who got a 
chance to develop and help pass the 2017 tax reform. That group 
included Senator Portman, Senator Scott, Senator Thune, and countless 
hours that we spent in a conference room dealing with what was a very 
complex product.
  We took our draft, and we presented it to our colleagues, and over a 
course of many weeks, we kind of iterated our way to what became the 
most sweeping tax reform in at least 30 years. And we expanded economic 
freedom with that product. Honestly, I have to tell you, I think the 
results were even better than what we had hoped for.
  By the time the tax reform had been fully implemented--I think 
calendar year 2019--we had the strongest economy of my lifetime. We had 
strong economic growth, a 50-year low unemployment, alltime record-low 
unemployment for African Americans, alltime record-low unemployment for 
Hispanic Americans and other ethnic minority groups. Wages were 
growing, and they were growing faster than the rate of inflation, which 
means that workers were able to see a rise in their standard of living. 
And wages were growing fastest for the lowest income Americans so we 
were also narrowing the income gap.
  We ended corporate inversions. There hasn't been one since. Remember 
how frequently they were occurring?
  And with a lower corporate tax rate but also fewer deductions, 
business boomed. The corporate tax rate was down to 21 percent. This 
year, with a 21-percent top rate, we are exceeding the revenue 
projections that were made prior to tax reform when the rate was 35 
percent. This is not just about inflation. As a share of our economy, 
total Federal tax revenue is at a multidecade high. So much for the 
thought that we were going to increase the size of the deficit from the 
tax reform.
  Oh, and by the way, we also made the Tax Code even more progressive 
than it was. That is right. Higher earners now pay a greater portion of 
the total tax burden than they did before our tax reform.
  I know my Democratic colleagues were skeptical about this, and I 
understand. But I would like to suggest, the data is in, and it is 
really good. There are important provisions that are scheduled to 
expire, and I do hope that Congress and the administration can find a 
bipartisan path to extending--or better still--making permanent these 
otherwise expiring provisions.
  I hope you will indulge me for just a few moments to make a couple of 
other recommendations. I have got one for my Republican colleagues; I 
have got one for my Democratic colleagues--mostly for my Democratic 
colleagues--and two for this institution that we have had this 
privilege to serve in.
  For my Republican colleagues, let me just say, our party can't be 
about or beholden to any one man. We are much bigger than that. Our 
party is much bigger than that. We are the political representation of 
this huge center-right coalition across America. On a good day, that is 
more than half of Americans.
  And I hope we resist the temptation to adopt the protectionist, 
nativist, isolationist, redistributive policies that some are 
suggesting we embrace. I think those are inconsistent with the core 
values of a majority of the people in this coalition. More important, I 
think those ideas lead to bad outcomes for our country.
  For my Democratic colleagues, I have heard many of you passionately--
and I believe sincerely--declare your determination to defend our 
democracy, but I would suggest we all remember that democracy requires 
much more than the ease of voting in an election.
  Elections are absolutely necessary, but they are an insufficient 
condition for a truly democratic society.
  Elections really are a means to an end; they are not the end 
themselves. The end, or purpose, of elections is to provide the 
mechanism of accountability of the government to the people whose 
consent is our sole source of legitimacy.
  When we hand over Congress's responsibilities to unelected and, 
therefore, unaccountable parts of our government--be that the courts or 
independent regulators or executive branch Agencies--we really 
undermine our democracy, which, of course, is really our Republic, 
because we weaken the accountability of our government.
  Now, look, both sides have done this over time, but I would just hope 
we could all agree that preserving more responsibility and, therefore, 
accountability for the legislative branch of government is a good thing 
for our Republic.
  And then two suggestions for this amazing, historic institution. The 
first one--and it is the most important one: Please keep the 
filibuster. It is the only mechanism that forces bipartisan consensus. 
It prevents governance from the extremes. By forcing bipartisanship, it 
results in more durable legislation and so lessens the likelihood of 
big swings in policies. It provides stability for our constituents. And 
if you want to see more polarization, get rid of the filibuster and we 
will have much more polarization.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S7223, December 15, 2022, in the third column, the 
following appears: It prevents government governance from the 
extremes.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: It prevents 
governance from the extremes.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  The second thought I had that I wanted to share with you is, I think 
we can all agree that the Senate has not been functioning as well as it 
once did and as it really should. I don't think too many committees are 
producing too much legislation the old-fashioned way. The old-fashioned 
way was actually a pretty good vetting process for developing 
legislative ideas. And when legislation does get to the floor, 
typically, there are very few substantive amendments that are allowed 
to be considered.
  The result is, as a body, it is very difficult for us to discover 
whether and

[[Page S7224]]

where there might be a consensus. I know there are a lot of reasons for 
this, including political polarization, reasons why the Senate behaves 
in a way that tends to block debate and voting.
  But there might be some relatively modest tweaks in Senate rules that 
might just facilitate restoring some of what used to be normal 
functioning. I know a lot of you have done a lot of work in this and 
that work is still underway. Let me suggest you consider one small 
tweak, a small but important technical change to a rule, the rule which 
enables the obstruction of the body.
  I am not talking about the filibuster but, rather, the rule that 
effectively requires unanimous consent, in most cases, to allow a vote 
on an amendment, any amendment, even a germane amendment.
  I can tell you, most Pennsylvanians are very surprised to learn that 
in order for a Senator to get a vote on almost anything, he or she 
needs the permission of every other Senator. I don't think this rule is 
workable any longer, and it contributes to the dysfunction. So I have 
just got a simple idea: Consider raising the threshold for blocking an 
amendment to some number greater than one.
  Now, I support the filibuster because I think it is reasonable for 41 
Senators to be able to block legislation. It just doesn't seem 
reasonable for one. So I don't know what the right number is, and I am 
not religious about this. Maybe it is 10. Maybe it is 20. Maybe it is 
50. But I would just suggest that this body consider somehow raising 
the bar of preventing the Senate from functioning. There may be better 
ways to do it, but that is one suggestion.
  Let me conclude with this: You know, we have all inherited something 
really, really, truly special. I know we all appreciate that, the fact 
that we live in the greatest country in the history of humanity and 
that we serve in this amazing legislative body.
  I suspect we all get asked--I know I get asked from time to time--
some version of the question: How worried are you about our country's 
future? And, often, there is some combination of national security, 
political polarization, and the future of our economy that is the 
primary concern of the people posing the question.
  My short reply is usually: Look, we have gotten through much tougher 
times.
  But think about it. I think that is so true, and it is important to 
remember. On national security, we have got real threats out there. 
Russia is obviously led by a violent, dangerous bully. The Chinese 
Communist Party is a rising and increasingly aggressive threat. But 
nowhere do we face the imminent threats that we faced during World War 
II and at several moments during the Cold War.
  And we are polarized, and it is uncomfortable and it is problematic; 
but, in 1968, we had political assassinations and cities were being 
burned down. And this Chamber, this very Chamber we are in right now, 
first opened its doors in 1859. Imagine living through the decade that 
followed that.
  As for the economy, look, there are always risks to any economy. Ours 
is no exception. I think inflation is a significant problem. There is a 
possibility we have a recession next year. We have huge and growing 
national debt, and I think that is going to be a real challenge for us.
  But I think it is worth remembering this: The vast majority of 
Americans have a much higher standard of living today than our parents 
did when they were our age. And a rising standard of living is, after 
all, the purpose of economic growth.
  So I always answer that question about America's future with the 
truth, and that is that, despite our challenges, I am extremely bullish 
on America. And I think my optimism is easily justified by our history.
  America has always been able to survive and thrive, and America 
remains the greatest nation in the history of the world. If we keep on 
being Americans, we will remain the greatest nation on the planet.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  (Applause, Senators rising.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                      Tribute to Patrick J. Toomey

  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise to offer some remarks about my 
colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Toomey.
  I think you can tell from his presentation today what he holds most 
dear, and, of course, that is his family--both Kris, his wife, and his 
children--and I am so happy that he is going to be able to spend more 
time with them.
  I thought I would offer some remarks about his service as well as the 
ways that we have worked together. Let me start with the basic 
assertion which Senator Toomey made reference to that he and I didn't 
agree on much. And I think it is probably--I am not going to speak for 
him, but I kind of am in this moment. I am not sure he wanted to be 
caught dead agreeing with me on some issues, and that is just the way 
it works around here.
  But one thing we tried to do from the opening day that he got here in 
January of 2011--I had been here a few years at that point--was we 
tried to--and I think we were successful over 12 years--have a kind of 
mutual respect, which is easy to articulate and harder to effectuate, 
and it requires both sides to give and take. And I am grateful that we 
were able to do that together.
  There are a lot of ways in the Senate, as is true in the House or any 
other legislative body, even when you are from the same State, to kind 
of poke each other on a regular basis. We refrained from that. It 
didn't mean we were praising each other's legislative result or point 
of view, but we tried to demonstrate that basic mutual respect and not 
to try to undermine each other.
  As Senator Toomey outlined, I think the manifestation of the work we 
did together--or maybe the most evident manifestation of that--was the 
work we did on Federal district court judges. As everyone knows who 
follows the work of the Senate, Senators make recommendations to an 
administration about who should serve on the district courts in their 
State. In our State, we have an Eastern District, a Middle District, 
and a Western District. Depending on which month or year you are in, 
you have vacancies in each of those Federal districts throughout the 
State. And if you want a judge or a candidate to be a judge to advance, 
you have to work with your colleague.
  Now, it is a little easier when you have two Democrats and two 
Republicans. It is more challenging when you have a split delegation in 
the Senate. But we worked together. And as Senator Toomey made 
reference to, we vetted and then advanced for nomination and then saw 
through the confirmation of 33 Federal and district court judges in 12 
years.
  He mentioned that it was the third highest other than California and 
Texas. But what is noteworthy about that--really significant, I 
believe--is that it was from a split-delegation State. The two States I 
just mentioned didn't have that split. So it is a singular achievement 
that we should both be proud of. But, as he also indicated, our staffs 
deserve the lion's share of the credit. They had to do so much work in 
making sure that those nominees were vetted and could be advanced.
  So I am grateful for that work that he did with me and with our 
office for the State of Pennsylvania. And, Pat, I can't thank you 
enough for the work we did together on Federal district court judges.
  We also worked together most recently, the last couple of years, on 
some nursing home reforms--maybe, more particularly, the oversight that 
the Federal Government provides with respect to nursing homes when you 
have a program--they call it the Special Focus Facility Program--where 
the intent of that program is to focus on the poor-performing nursing 
homes.
  But we did an investigation where we saw that there are some nursing 
homes that were not quite on the list that they should have been on and 
weren't getting that kind of special focus of attention. I also worked 
with Senator Toomey on that nursing home legislation.
  So on a range of issues important to Pennsylvania and important in 
the Nation, we tried every day to, when we were at our best, work well 
together.
  I especially appreciate what he had to do not just as a Member of the 
Senate but, in this case, in the early days of 2021 as a Republican 
Senator when he had two big decisions to make. He had a decision to 
make on January 6

[[Page S7225]]

about how he would vote on the certification question; and he, in my 
judgment, voted the right way and, I think, voted in a way that was 
courageous.
  And then just a few weeks went by and there was the impeachment 
proceedings here in the Senate for the then-former President, and that 
was maybe an even more difficult vote, to cast the vote that he cast in 
that impeachment proceeding.
  Both votes were exceedingly difficult for any political figure, for 
any member of a political party at any time in history. And it was a 
very difficult time, I am sure, for him to cast those votes. But he did 
because he wanted to advance the interests of democracy and he wanted 
to advance the concept that we claim to hold dear, which is the rule of 
law and upholding the rule of law.
  And I can't imagine a more difficult set of votes so close in time 
for any Senator, and I am grateful that he voted the way that he did. 
And I know the people of Pennsylvania were grateful.
  So on so many fronts, I said--recently, we had a gathering of 
Pennsylvanians. On so many fronts, even when we didn't agree on big 
issues, we were able to come together on some Pennsylvania priorities 
as well as issues that related to the Federal judiciary.
  One thing that I think we are in agreement on and have always been in 
agreement on is both of us, in our personal capacities, married way 
above our class. I married above my class when I married Terese, and I 
think the same is true of Pat when he married Kris. We agree on that, 
right? We do. OK.
  I am happy for Pat Toomey and Kris and their children, but I will 
miss working with him and serving alongside him. As he said, it is a 
privilege to serve in this institution, and he served this institution 
and the people of our State with honor and with distinction.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warnock). The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, when it was reported a few years ago that 
Senator Pat Toomey had taken up beekeeping, he said this about the 
appeal of his new hobby:

       When you're in my line of work, you're often dealing with 
     abstractions. It's fun to have something tangible, where you 
     can see the results.

  Well, my good friend from Pennsylvania has, of course, produced many 
tangible results during his 12 years in the Senate. As Senator Toomey's 
service here draws to a close, I rise today in tribute to an 
outstanding leader who has been as busy and beneficial as those hard-
working bees he tends.
  Pat came to the Senate in 2011 well prepared for this line of work by 
his three terms in the House. With his background in the financial 
services industry and as the owner and operator of a small family 
business with his brothers, he has been an effective voice for economic 
growth, regulatory reform, and fiscal responsibility. His respectful 
demeanor, his integrity, and his commitment to getting the facts have 
earned him the respect of colleagues on both sides of the aisle. His 
persuasive and principled arguments often convince his opponents to 
become his allies.
  I always personally looked forward to Senator Toomey coming to visit 
me to discuss a nominee or a piece of legislation. Inevitably, he would 
arrive with all the facts, all the data, all the quotations, and make 
his case. He didn't rely simply on rhetoric or an appeal to party 
loyalty--not at all. His approach was to present a solid case for why I 
should agree with him, and his track record, I must say, was very good.
  Throughout his time in Congress, Pat has focused on creating good 
jobs for the people in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and across our 
entire country. He knows that America has the best workers in the 
world, and when they have a level playing field, they can compete with 
anyone.
  Drawing on his expertise in finance, Pat pushed for policies that 
supported workers and were conducive to the startup and growth of 
businesses. He played an absolutely essential role in shaping the Tax 
Cuts and Jobs Act, which reduced the tax burden for American families. 
He coauthored sections of the JOBS Act, which made it easier for 
businesses to invest and expand. He has always worked to cut redtape to 
help unleash economic opportunities.
  There is another side to Pat as well. He is a true champion for those 
who are vulnerable in our society. I have worked with him on many 
issues over the years, including legislation to safeguard seniors from 
financial exploitation, as well as a bill to support 50 million 
Americans who serve as family caregivers. Pat has led efforts to better 
protect children from abuse, as well as to prevent animal cruelty.
  Pat is a determined leader. He is a leader who seeks bipartisan 
solutions. After the horrendous and heartbreaking Sandy Hook school 
shooting in 2012 that took the lives of 26 people, including 20 
children, he reached across the aisle to work with another good friend 
of mine, Senator Joe Manchin, on comprehensive legislation to keep 
firearms out of the hands of criminals, terrorists, and those who are 
dangerously mentally ill. That initiative laid the foundation for the 
Safer Communities Act that became law this year. It was a pleasure to 
serve with Pat on the bipartisan 20- Member working group who forged 
that landmark law.
  Pat, it has been such an honor to serve with you, and I cherish our 
friendship. I will miss those visits to my office to straighten me out 
on certain issues and to educate me.
  In all sincerity, I really did look forward to those visits because 
they were always an intellectual exchange, and you always made such a 
great case.
  I wish you, Kris, and your wonderful children all the best. You will 
be missed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise to talk about my dear friend Pat 
Toomey. My dear friend from Maine mentioned what we worked on. We 
worked on many pieces of legislation together, and Pat was always a 
stalwart.
  As far as when it came to financial matters, I think Pat was the go-
to person, whether you were a Democrat or Republican, to get his 
opinion on finances. Basically, whether it be taxes or tax credits or 
extenders, whatever it may be, Pat would give you an answer, and Pat 
was accurate.
  But I saw a different side of Pat on December 14, 2012, when 26 
people were killed in Sandy Hook. Twenty of them were children, 6 and 7 
years old. And I saw the heart and soul of Pat Toomey.
  I knew I had to do something. I couldn't live with it. I come from 
what we call a very gun-friendly atmosphere, environment in my State of 
West Virginia. Pat, being my next door neighbor in Pennsylvania, had 
the same, and we knew that it was difficult. So I decided that I wanted 
to introduce a bill, but I needed a partner. I needed a true partner 
who believed. Pat stepped forward, and we had the Manchin-Toomey 
background check.

  It was the beginning. And what drove us was the compassion, Pat's 
compassion and his heart and soul. This massacre that happened to these 
children should never have happened. School should be the safest place 
a child goes and a parent can at least breathe easily. And seeing what 
they went through--and I think we bonded with all of the parents. We 
still to this day talk to them, and our hearts and prayers are with 
them.
  Pat was with me side by side to fight the good fight. We came up a 
few votes short. Looking back on that, that would have been a 
tremendous beginning many years ago. It could have prevented an awful 
lot of the senseless, horrific tragedies that have happened, with 
families losing their children.
  With that, my dear friend, I want to say thank you. That was a bill 
that--I think we did everything in that bill for the right reason. We 
didn't want to take anyone's guns away from them. We wanted to make 
sure people could still enjoy the hunting that we grew up with, the 
sports shooting that we enjoyed--all of the recreational things you do 
with guns when you come from a gun culture. Pat and I called it gun 
sense. You just have to have some gun sense. And it is the truth, but 
we had to educate people.
  On the other hand, we were saying we wanted to make sure that--we 
grew up in an atmosphere where we were taught as young children: You 
know, you don't sell your gun to a stranger.

[[Page S7226]]

You don't even loan your gun to a family member who is irresponsible. 
That is your prized possession. You are responsible. That is a lethal 
weapon. You are responsible.
  That is how we were raised. We both understood that. But if we were 
understanding that, then basically we thought, We all had to have 
permits when we went and bought a gun. We all bought guns and went 
through background checks, and everybody should. So if I didn't want to 
sell my gun to a stranger, why should a gun show with loopholes do it? 
Why should you be able to mail a gun across State lines and do it? Why 
should that happen?
  That is what we were trying to do, is close the loopholes. Make this 
common gun sense.
  Pat, you stood tall. You really did, buddy. And I know it was a 
tough, tough period of time. But we did the right thing, and we are 
seeing some changes now. We need more changes. But it is gun sense and 
common sense but also protecting people's rights. We can do both in 
America.
  We are going to miss you, buddy. We really are going to miss you. You 
have been something special here.
  I met both of your children. I went up and spoke to their school at 
Harvard, and I just enjoyed it very much. And when they introduced 
themselves, I could tell right away that they were their mother's 
children and they had the spirit of their dad. I can tell you that too.
  But, anyway, it has been a pleasure calling you my friend, and you 
always will be my friend. God bless and Godspeed, my friend.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I, too, rise to thank Senator Toomey 
for his distinguished public service. I first got to know Pat Toomey 
back in 2011.
  For those who have been around here a long time or at least a medium 
amount of time, you may remember the budget impasse in 2011 between the 
House and the Senate. At that time, there were constant threats of 
government shutdowns. There was, of course, the issue of the debt 
ceiling.
  What finally happened was that a piece of legislation or an agreement 
was reached that said: We are going to create what was then called a 
supercommittee to try to work out some of these budget issues, and if 
the supercommittee did not reach an agreement, then this Rube Goldberg 
machine would take effect, providing automatic budget cuts both to 
defense and nondefense spending.
  Everybody agreed that having this automatic sequester take place 
would not serve the best interests of the country and hoped that this 
supercommittee would be able to come up with a solution.
  Senator Toomey was new to the Senate then, but because of his great 
expertise and because of the fact that he was trusted by Leader 
McConnell, he was appointed as one of the very few people--about three 
or four people from the Senate--to participate on the supercommittee, 
and I was appointed by Speaker Pelosi to serve on the supercommittee.
  We did not, in the end, succeed in reaching an agreement, but one of 
the really good things that came out of that supercommittee from my 
perspective was getting to know and work with Pat Toomey. We disagreed 
on a lot of those issues, and, of course, ultimately the disagreements 
in the supercommittee overwhelmed our ability to get to some kind of 
yes. But what I learned during that process was, when you are talking 
to Pat Toomey, you are talking to somebody who is incredibly 
knowledgeable and presents his perspective very well.
  You also found somebody who was trustworthy. Pat Toomey never said 
anything in that process where he went back on his word. He was always 
very clear about where he stood. Once he said he was for something, he 
would stick with it, and if he was against it, you would know he was 
against it.
  You also knew he was someone you could trust in terms of confidence 
because when you are in a situation like the supercommittee--and we 
worked for weeks. It was a good-faith effort. We worked for weeks. But 
you have to learn to trust each other because you are talking about 
different proposals that ultimately would require a compromise, and we 
all know that compromise can sometimes be very difficult and 
politically charged.
  So during that period of time, I recognized that Pat Toomey was 
someone you could trust. Because of that, when I came to the U.S. 
Senate, it was a great privilege to work with my by then friend Pat 
Toomey on a range of issues.
  Senator Toomey talked today about his passion and conviction for 
expanding freedom. That passion extends to extending freedom to people 
around the world. We were able to team up on a number of measures to 
try to do exactly that. One was the Otto Warmbier BRINK Act, which was 
legislation that has been passed into law to try to make sure that we 
hold North Korea accountable for its nuclear program and also hold them 
accountable on human rights. It is named after an American who was 
mistreated in North Korea and then came home and died.

  We worked on that legislation, and, again, it was always a back-and-
forth. It was secondary sanctions legislation, which has now been used 
by multiple administrations to apply sanctions to try to advance our 
policies to try to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula and bring more 
pressure on the North Korean regime.
  In that same vein, we worked together on the Hong Kong Autonomy Act 
after we saw China violate its commitments and agreements with respect 
to Hong Kong. That empowered the executive branch to apply sanctions on 
officials in China who were participating directly in depriving 
citizens in Hong Kong of their freedom, and that legislation passed as 
well.
  Now, even in the closing days of this session, we are working 
together with respect to our efforts to cut off Putin's bank account 
that funds his war machine against Ukraine by backing up the Biden 
administration and G7's proposal for the oil price cap, which many have 
heard more about recently since this just took effect. We believe that 
in order for it to be effective in the long term, we need to be sure we 
have global compliance. To do that, that also should be backed up with 
a measure to provide more teeth and the prospect of sanctions.
  I just wanted to come to the floor to say that, Pat, it has been 
great working with you on these issues. As others have said, we can 
always disagree, but you know how to disagree agreeably. You know how 
to argue your point in a respectful manner, and you have found common 
ground wherever you could. I am grateful.
  I said a few good words about Pat Toomey the other day that were 
picked up in the Philadelphia Inquirer, and Pat said: You know, you 
might have gotten yourself in trouble.
  I said: I have probably gotten you in just as much trouble. Of 
course, you are now stepping down after 12 distinguished years.
  But that is the kind of trouble we should all be willing to get into, 
working together for the good of the country and the people of our 
States.
  Pat, to you and Kris and your three children, as you leave here, we 
give you all our very best wishes, and I know and I am confident you 
will remain engaged in the public debate going forward. But you have 
earned this departure from the United States Senate. Thank you for your 
distinguished service to the people of Pennsylvania and to the people 
of the United States of America. Godspeed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________