[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 155 (Wednesday, September 25, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5681-S5691]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RESOLUTIONS TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will
report the resolutions to instruct.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 330) instructing the managers on the
part of the Senate on the bill S. 1790 (116th Congress) to
require certain measures to address Federal election
interference by foreign governments.
A resolution (S. Res. 331) instructing the managers on the
part of the Senate on the bill S. 1790 (116th Congress) to
insist upon the inclusion of the provisions of S. 2118 (116th
Congress) (relating to the prohibition of United States
persons from dealing in certain information and
communications technology or services from foreign
adversaries and requiring the approval of Congress to
terminate certain export controls in effect with respect to
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.).
A resolution (S. Res. 332) instructing the managers on the
part of the Senate on the conference on the bill S. 1790
(116th Congress) to insist upon the provisions contained in
section 630A of the House amendment (relating to the repeal
of a requirement of reduction of Survivor Benefit Plan
survivor annuities by amounts of dependency and indemnity
compensation).
A resolution (S. Res. 333) instructing the managers on the
part of the Senate on the bill S. 1790 (116th Congress) to
insist upon the provisions contained in subtitle B of title
XI of the House amendment (relating to paid family leave for
Federal personnel).
A resolution (S. Res. 334) instructing the managers on the
part of the Senate on the bill (S. 1790) (116th Congress) to
insist upon the provisions contained in section 316 of the
Senate bill (relating to a prohibition on the use of
perfluoroalkyl substances and polyfluoroalkyl substances for
land-based applications of firefighting foam).
A resolution (S. Res. 335) instructing the managers on the
part of the Senate on the bill S. 1790 (116th Congress) to
insist upon the members of the conference to include the
provisions contained in section 2906 of the Senate bill
(relating to replenishment of certain military construction
funds).
A resolution (S. Res. 336) instructing the managers on the
part of the Senate on the bill S. 1790 (116th Congress) to
insist upon the members of the conference to consider
potential commonsense solutions regarding family and medical
leave, including voluntary compensatory time programs and
incentives through the tax code.
Thereupon, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolutions to
instruct conferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Unanimous Consent Agreement
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
recess from 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. today for a briefing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Clinton 12
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, in a few minutes, I want to speak about
President Trump's nomination of Eugene Scalia to be the Secretary of
Labor, but first I want to introduce two speeches that I made in
Tennessee into the Record. I notice the room nearly cleared when I
observed I was about to make some speeches, but at least there are some
people watching.
The first speech was on August 26 of this year in Clinton, TN. It had
to do with the Clinton 12. These were 12 students, some as young as 14
years of age, who walked down a hill and enrolled in Clinton High
School in 1956--63 years ago--and became the first students to
integrate a public school in the South.
Many of us remember what happened the next year in Arkansas, when
Governor Faubus stood in the door, and President Eisenhower had to send
in the troops to integrate Little Rock Central High School. I remember
those days very well. I was in high school myself then.
It is hard to imagine the courage it must have taken for those
children to walk down that hill and integrate that school. Most of them
were there in Clinton, TN, when they were honored in the month of
August.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my remarks on the Clinton
12 Commemorative Walk we took that day be printed in the Record
following my remarks about Mr. Scalia.
Tennessee Valley Fair
Secondly, the Tennessee Valley Fair. It is a big event in Knoxville,
TN, that was held on September 6. It was attended by almost everybody
who has anything to do with politics in Knox County, which means the
room was full with 500 or 600 people.
It was an opportunity for me to make a suggestion to the people of
Knoxville about what to celebrate. Many of us had been watching Ken
Burns' ``Country Music'' special on PBS. He reminds us that Tennessee
has a lot to celebrate in terms of country music. His first two hours
were about Bristol, TN, which is the birthplace of country music. It is
where Ralph Peer of New York City went to Bristol, in 1927, put an ad
in the paper, saying: ``Hillbillies, come down out of the mountains
with your music,'' and here came the Carter family, Jimmy Rogers, and
several others.
One of the people on Mr. Burns' show this week was Charlie McCoy, the
harmonica player, a great musician. It reminded me of a time when I was
Governor and recruiting the General Motors' Saturn plant to Tennessee.
We had the executives coming from Detroit. We talked about what to
serve them for dinner. We served them country ham. We talked about whom
to have play a piece of music after dinner, and I invited Charlie McCoy
to play his harmonica.
A Nashville woman came up to me and said: Governor, I am so
embarrassed.
I said: Why is that?
She said: You had all those fine people from Detroit, and then you
had that harmonica player. She said: What will they think of us? Why
didn't you offer them Chopin?
I said: Madam, why should we offer them average Chopin when we have
the best harmonica player in the world?
The better people of Nashville had resisted for a long time calling
Nashville Music City, but of course Music City is a wonderful
signature, a great personality, and it is one reason Nashville is such
a celebrated city today.
In the same way, Knoxville has violated the Biblical injunction about
don't keep your light under a bushel because it rarely talks much about
Oak Ridge. So the speech I made would suggest that the sign at the
Knoxville airport, which says, ``Welcome to Knoxville: Gateway to the
Great Smoky Mountains,'' ought to say instead, ``Welcome to Knoxville:
Gateway to the Great Smoky Mountains and the Oak Ridge Corridor.''
There are nearly 3,000 scientists, engineers, and technicians who
work at
[[Page S5682]]
the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the largest science and energy
laboratory in America, and at the University of Tennessee and at the
Tennessee Valley Authority. That part of the personality of the
Knoxville area needs to be celebrated.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks on
the Clinton 12, that my speech at the Tennessee Valley Fair on
September 6 be printed in the Record.
Nomination of Eugene Scalia
Mr. President, in my remaining time, I would like to say a few words
about Eugene Scalia and the President's nomination of him to be
Secretary of Labor for the United States.
The Senate will vote, probably tomorrow, on whether to confirm Mr.
Scalia. I certainly hope the Senate does, and I believe the Senate
will.
We have known for two months that President Trump intended for Mr.
Scalia to be the Secretary. He announced that intention on July 18. We
have had all of his papers since August 27. Those are the government
ethics papers and the committee papers that are necessary. They all
came a month ago. He gave us a copy of all of his writings. He came to
a hearing the other day. The Presiding Officer was there. He testified
for three hours. We had two rounds of questions. Senators could ask
anything they wanted. He offered to visit, over the last month, with
every member of our committee and did with all but two. So we know
plenty about Mr. Scalia. He answered another 418 questions that
committee members asked him after his hearing.
I think two months is long enough to consider him and consider all
that information.
I remember when President Obama's Secretary of Education stepped down
in the last year of the President's term. I encouraged the President to
nominate John King, whom the President wanted to nominate, but he was
afraid he couldn't be confirmed because we, the Republican majority,
disagreed with him. I disagreed with him. I said: Mr. President, it is
important for you to have a confirmed member of your Cabinet and to
have that person considered and confirmed promptly. It is important to
the Senate to have a Cabinet member who goes through the process of
questions and advice and consent. That is our most important function
in many ways.
We confirmed John King in a month.
We have had two months to consider Mr. Scalia, and that should be
enough. He has a broad background in labor and employment law. He is a
partner in a major Washington, DC, law firm, so he knows all the
issues. He spent a year as Solicitor of Labor in the George W. Bush
administration. He left the firm to be Special Assistant to the
Attorney General of the United States in 1992.
Academically, he is very well prepared. He went to the University of
Virginia. He was editor in chief of the University of Chicago Law
Review. He has been a guest lecturer at the University of Chicago Law
School and an adjunct professor at the David A. Clarke School of Law at
the University of the District of Columbia. He is very well qualified.
It is important for the Department to have a well-qualified, steady
leader. I like the demeanor that Mr. Scalia showed in his hearing. The
Democratic members of the committee were there, and they were very
vigorous in their questioning. I also like the fact that they were
courteous to him. They didn't take the attitude that sometimes happens
in U.S. Senate--that you are innocent until nominated. They took the
attitude that he was a well-qualified person with whom they disagreed,
so they asked him questions. He answered them, and he did a good job.
I like the fact that the Trump Administration has taken steps to
create a more stable environment by having a more sensible joint
employer standard that doesn't make it more difficult for American
families to own and operate franchises. There are more than seven
hundred thousand American franchise establishments. That is the way you
get into the middle class in America. We need a steady hand there to
make sure that happens properly.
I like the fact that the administration has a more reasonable
overtime rule. The overtime threshold needed to be changed, but the
last administration raised it too high too fast. It caused church camps
to have to lay off people and close in the summer. It had all sorts of
unintended consequences and bipartisan opposition. The administration
announced yesterday a more reasonable step.
Next, association health plans. Among the people in America who have
the hardest time paying for insurance are those who make $50,000 a year
and don't get a government subsidy. Association health plans help
people who work for small businesses to be able to get the same kind of
insurance that people who work for IBM or big businesses get--insurance
that covers preexisting conditions and offers the same sort of consumer
protections.
It has been estimated by Avalere that the association health plan
rule that the Department of Labor put out would help three to four
million Americans be able to afford health insurance and save their
premium costs by several thousand dollars a year. Mr. Scalia can work
on that.
Mr. President, I received 32 letters in support of Mr. Scalia's
nomination from small business owners, employers, industry groups, and
his colleagues. I will mention a couple.
Former Obama administration official Cass Sunstein wrote:
His decency is part of what makes him someone who tends to
go case-by-case, and to end up where the facts and the law
take him. . . . He does not have an ideological
straightjacket. He takes issues on their merits.
Thomas Susman, who was Senator Ted Kennedy's counsel, wrote:
Gene is precisely the kind of person that our country needs
in the Cabinet: experienced, ethical, professional, open-
minded, fair, and brilliant.
There are a number of other letters from former Department of Labor
career attorneys, Chicago Law Review editorial board members, Fraternal
Order of Police members, and others.
Suffice it to say that the country is fortunate the President has
nominated Eugene Scalia to be the U.S. Secretary of Labor. He has
conducted himself admirably in the two-month process of going through
the Senate confirmation. We have a chance to bring that to a conclusion
tomorrow. My hope is that the Senate will confirm him and that he will
be in office by the end of the week.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Commemorating the Clinton 12 Walk
Thank you Mayor Frank. To Lt. Governor McNally, Congressman
Fleischmann, Representative Bob Clement, Judy Gooch, students
and teachers, and especially, to members of the Clinton 12
and their families and friends.
It is hard standing here to imagine the courage that it
took the Clinton 12, some of them as young as 14 years of
age, to take a walk that we just took this morning and become
the first students to integrate a public high school in the
south.
In that year, 63 years ago, I was a rising junior at
Maryville High School, about an hour away.
I remember reading in the Knoxville newspapers about John
Kasper, and the demonstrations, and how the men and women we
honor here today couldn't be intimidated.
I remember the uncommon courage of then-governor Frank
Clement, whose son Bob is here, who sent in state troopers
and national guardsmen in support of the Clinton 12.
Today it seems like it would be an easy decision, but it
was not an easy decision for the governor.
I remember that the very next year in 1957, it was a
different story in Arkansas.
The Governor of Arkansas stood in the door and stopped
students from coming into Little Rock Central High School,
and President Eisenhower mobilized the National Guard to
support the students.
It's unpleasant to remember some of the things from then.
It's unpleasant to remember the Boys' and Girls' State
program that we high schoolers would attend, was then
segregated by race.
That the Alcoa student, who later became the first African
American basketball coach at the University of Tennessee,
when he was a teenager and wanted to go to the University of
Tennessee football game, had to sit in a section of the
stadium that was reserved for blacks.
It's unpleasant to remember that there never had been an
African American athlete who played in the Southeastern
Conference, or there hadn't been a black Supreme Court
Justice in Tennessee, or a black chancellor, or a local
judge.
It's unpleasant to remember that African American students
couldn't sit at the front of the bus, couldn't sit at a lunch
counter, and when traveling across our state and some other
states in the South, had to sleep in the car because no motel
would admit them because of their race.
[[Page S5683]]
So it is good to celebrate that things are very different
today, and it's important to remember the courage of the
Clinton 12 and to celebrate that progress.
But it's also important to remember, as we celebrate the
Clinton 12, that things could be even better.
We still have a ways to go.
We have a United States Senator from South Carolina, whose
name is Tim Scott.
He is an African American Senator elected from that state.
He told me that he was arrested seven times within the last
few years in his hometown in Charleston, South Carolina,
basically for being a black man in the wrong place.
And at the time, he was the Vice Mayor of Charleston.
When I first came to the Senate several years ago, your
city manager, Steve Jones, came to see me to tell me
Clinton's vision for preserving the story of the Clinton 12.
It's been a great pleasure to work with him and the city
and so many of you to try to help him do that.
Our former senator, Bill Frist, worked with us to help us
secure some of the first funding for Green McAdoo Cultural
Center.
And a new law we passed in 2009 directed the Secretary of
the Interior to take the first step to making it part of our
National Park System.
The late reverend Benjamin Hooks, a Tennessean who was
President of the NAACP, once told me this: ``Remember, our
country is a work in progress.
In my life, I have seen us come a long way, but we have a
long way to go.''
That is why the story of the Clinton 12 is so important to
remember and celebrate today. Thank you.
Tennessee Valley Fair
You know, it says in Lamar Alexander's Little Plaid Book
that if you want a standing ovation, seat a few friends in
the front row.
Thanks to those of you right there.
Thanks to Tim Burchett and to Kelly and Isabel.
I want you to know that Tim is not only good at the Vol
Market, he's good in the United States Congress, and I
appreciate the chance to serve with him in his good work
there.
To Speaker Cameron Sexton, congratulations to Cameron. I've
watched his career, he's off to a terrific start.
Mayor Jacobs, Mayor Rogero, Congressman Jimmy Duncan--my
good friend for many years, and he still is--and Wanda Moody,
with whom I worked for a long time.
Distinguished ladies and gentlemen: Coming up here, I was
thinking that our favorite son, Howard Baker, used to remind
us that it was wise to try to be an eloquent listener, but
that gets harder to do the older you get.
For example, you may remember Bobby Bare who sang Detroit
City.
He's in his eighties now.
He was on the Grand Ole Opry stage the other night.
Somebody asked him, ``Bobby, how long you've been wearing
your hearing aids?''
He said, ``Well, it's like this. A few years ago, my wife
said to me, `Bobby, I'm proud of you.' And I said back to
her, `I'm tired of you too.' ''
He said, ``I've been wearing them ever since.''
A few years ago, when I was buying a car in Nashville, the
salesman pulled out his billfold, and he pulled out a picture
of his two-year-old and he said, ``What do you think of
her?''
And I said what a politician always says. I said, ``That is
a beautiful baby.''
And he looked up at me and said, ``She won second best baby
at the Wilson County Fair.''
I've always remembered that because that's what we do at
fairs. We celebrate the best among us.
We celebrate the tastiest tomato, and the biggest pumpkin,
and the prettiest girl and the strongest man, the craziest
quilt, the biggest tractor and the best baby.
And for a century, the Tennessee Valley Fair has been doing
that.
Bob Booker wrote this morning about some of the history
even before then, and I was thinking so much happened in
1919.
I know over in one county, a Maryville high school was
started that year.
Proffitt's Department Store was started that year.
The Kiwanis Club started that year.
The West Plant was being built that year and this fair
started that year.
And I think it was because the war ended in 1918 and
everybody came home and had a burst of enthusiasm about our
country.
They wanted to celebrate what was good about it.
And so here came the fair.
So this fair has been celebrating all the things I just
talked about.
And also, had you come to the Tennessee Valley Fair over
the last century, you could see pigs jumping through hoops,
you could see dancing horses, you could see African American
cultural exhibits, you could see the wildest roller coaster
ride, and you could see the fastest new car.
That's why people came to the fair.
But in the depression, Professor Harcourt Morgan, who later
was the U.T. president and the TVA Board Chairman, suggested
this. He said, ``We ought to use the fair to try to think
differently what we have to celebrate in the Knoxville
area.''
So in that spirit, let me take about five or 10 minutes and
suggest to you what I think we ought to be celebrating in the
Knoxville area.
We have plenty to celebrate.
I mean, telling Eddie earlier, you'd come down to the
airport and there's a sign that says, ``Welcome to Knoxville,
Gateway to the Great Smoky Mountains.'' We've got the biggest
mountains in the East, the most visited park. That's
something to celebrate.
Ken Burns is going to have on television this year his
series on country music.
He thinks it may be more popular than his Civil War series.
Where was the birthplace of country music? Right here in
East Tennessee.
The Tennessee Valley Authority has become the largest
public utility in the United States.
The University of Tennessee has become a major research
institution and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory has grown
from a Manhattan Project to build a bomb to win a war, to
becoming the nation's largest science and energy laboratory,
the home of the world's fastest computer, and the home of the
best new work on 3-D printing for manufacturing.
So we've got a lot to celebrate.
Let's add up those last three. Let's add up TVA, U.T., and
Oak Ridge for just a minute.
When I do that, here's one thing I get: about 3,000
scientists and engineers.
You know that's as large a concentration of brainpower in
the Knoxville area as exists in North Carolina's research
triangle, Route 128 of Massachusetts, or it even rivals the
Silicon Valley--which we know a lot about--in California.
The trouble is when we come to Oak Ridge, the rest of us in
this area are guilty of violating the parable that Jesus
talked about in Matthew, which was don't hide your light
under a bushel.
We just don't talk about it much.
It's not so unusual. It just doesn't happen to us.
About every 10 years at night in Nashville, some of the so-
called ``better'' people will come up and say, ``We're
getting a bad reputation. We'll get known for all this
hillbilly music in Nashville. Can't we remind people we have
a symphony?''
I remember one night when I was governor, we invited the
General Motors executives from Detroit to have dinner at the
mansion.
We were recruiting the Saturn plant like everybody else
was.
So Honey and I decided we would serve a country ham, and I
invited Charlie McCoy to play the harmonica after dinner.
A Nashville lady came up to me afterwards and said,
``Governor, I'm so embarrassed about what I see. About that
harmonica player, what will those fine people from Detroit
think of us?'' And I said, ``Madam, why should I offer them
average Chopin when we got the best harmonica player in the
world?''
Nashville is pretty happy about being Music City and off
they go.
Then I go to Memphis and they're worrying about Nashville.
They said, ``Nashville's got this, Nashville's got that.''
I say, ``Well, wait a minute. Okay, let's have a jobs
conference.''
So we had a jobs conference and what'd they do? Well, they
said, ``We've got Beale Street, we'll clean it up, we'll
build an agricenter. Nashville doesn't want to do that, that
fits us. We'll get the ducks back walking in the Peabody
Hotel.''
And there went Memphis.
Then here come the people from Chattanooga, ``You gave
Memphis money, we want to build a $2 million aquarium.''
I said, ``Why would you build such a stingy aquarium? If
you're going to do it, build the biggest aquarium from
Baltimore to Miami so people will come to see it.''
And that is what they did. And in the meantime they noticed
they had the beautiful Tennessee River Gorge and a great
downtown. And look where Chattanooga is today.
So let's think about Knoxville, just a minute, and all
those cities.
The idea of hiding our light under a bushel doesn't just
belong to the cities.
It's all over the state.
Some of you will remember Tennessee homecoming '86 when I
asked everybody to find something to celebrate in your
community--invite everybody who lived there to come do it,
and then have a celebration.
And in the Forest Brook neighborhood in Knoxville, they
invited everybody to come home on the 4th of July and they
had a celebration.
And in Hickman County, Minnie Pearl and the people who
lived there made a quilt with all the names of the little
communities in Hickman County so the children would know, for
example, where Bona Aqua came from.
And in Nashville, they invited all the writers who grew up
in Tennessee to come home and they did. And the Festival of
Books still is going on in Nashville.
So I think it's important to stop worrying about what
you're not and start celebrating what you've got, which is
why I have a suggestion to make in the spirit of Professor
Harcourt Morgan, who said, ``We ought to use the fair to take
a little different look about what we have to sell them.''
I suggest that we change the sign at the Knoxville airport
and we say ``Welcome to Knoxville, Gateway to the Great Smoky
Mountains and the Oak Ridge Corridor.''
Now our new governor, Bill Lee, who is an engineer,
understands why we need to do that.
[[Page S5684]]
He told a group from Nashville, ``What Tennessee needs is a
magnet to attract jobs and capital.''
Then he came up to Oak Ridge the next day and said, ``We've
got a magnet right here.''
The first time I met Glenn Jacobs, he talked to me about
the Oak Ridge Corridor before I could talk to him about it.
He's the mayor of Knox County, but he saw the
interconnection.
So I'm sure Mayor Rogero must see those connections every
day.
Tim Burchett is pretty good at the Vol Market, but the
first visit he had with me in Washington was to come talk to
me about the 8,000 Oak Ridgers who live in Knox County and
what he could do to support Oak Ridge and Randy Boyd and
Chancellor Plowman of University of Tennessee.
You know, U.T. now manages the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, and they started a new hundred million dollar Oak
Ridge Institute at the University of Tennessee to recognize
the importance of that connection.
Last week, I talked to Sam Beall, who, many of you know.
Just like this fair, Sam Beall is 100 years old.
When he came to Knoxville in the 1930s, there was basically
no Oak Ridge.
The Great Smoky Mountains National Park and TVA had just
been created.
And there were no doctoral programs at the University of
Tennessee and no one in their wildest dream could imagine a
personal computer.
Today, Oak Ridge has the largest science and energy
laboratory in America, TVA is the largest public utility,
U.T. is a major research university, and the fastest
computers in the world are about 15 miles away at Oak Ridge.
So things have changed.
When Sam Beall came here in the 1930s, which was about the
time Professor Harcourt Morgan said, ``Let's think about a
little different way to celebrate the Knoxville area.''
When Sam came in the 1930s, Oak Ridge was a secret city.
While a lot of people from around here work there, there
didn't seem to be much relationship between Oak Ridge and
Maryville, or Oak Ridge and Madisonville, or Oak Ridge and
Sevierville, or even Oak Ridge and Knoxville.
So, my suggestion is that we take Professor Harcourt
Morgan's advice in the 1930s and use it this year.
That, along with the prize chickens, the best babies, the
birthplace of country music, and most visited national park.
Let's celebrate the fact that the Knoxville area is the
home of one of the largest concentrations of brain power
anywhere in the United States, rivaling the Research
Triangle, Route 128 and even the Silicon Valley.
And it's also home to one of the best-known brand names in
the world, a brand name that stands for science, energy, and
excellence.
So my suggestion in the spirit of the fair and with the
suggestion of Harcourt Morgan, is let's change the sign at
the Knoxville airport from ``Welcome to Knoxville, Gateway to
the Great Smoky Mountains'' to ``Welcome to Knoxville,
Gateway to the Great Smoky Mountains and the Oak Ridge
Corridor.''
If we want to take the professor's advice and celebrate
what's special about where we live today, that would be the
best way to do it.
Thank you.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
S.J. Res. 54
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, earlier this month, I went to Joint Base
Andrews, which, as I think many of you know, is not far from here. It
is where the President boards Air Force One. The mission at Joint Base
Andrews is broad. The Air Force does an incredible job in service to
our country. I went there to take a look at the Child Development
Center. The Child Development Center that I visited was first
constructed in 1941 not as a childcare center but for other purposes.
It has had serious challenges, as the Air Force put in their request to
build a new childcare center--a new child development center.
I visited classrooms that had to be closed because of a sewage
backup, which happens regularly and flows into the kitchen area of this
particular facility. I saw the results of a roof that had collapsed
during a heavy snowstorm that now has been replaced, but the use of
that part of the building is compromised. I saw the concerns expressed
about pest control, about an HVAC system that does not work properly,
and about a facility that doesn't have the capacity they need in order
to deal with the needs of our Air Force personnel.
It was for that reason that the Air Force has made this one of their
top priorities in military construction, to replace this 1941 facility.
Through the competitive process that is used under the Department of
Defense, this project rose to a top priority and was included in the
President's budget and approved by Congress at $13 million for a
replacement.
Let me read from the Air Force's justification in requesting these
funds. It says:
Not providing this facility forces members to use more
expensive, less convenient and potentially lower quality off-
base programs. These off-base child development centers
typically cost $9,400 more than on-base, creating a severe
financial strain on military personnel. Quality of life will
be severely degraded, resulting in impacts to retention and
readiness because Airmen and their families will not have a
safe and nurturing environment for child care.
That will be the consequences if we don't replace the structure. Why
do I talk about that? Because this was one of 64 projects that were
included in the President's emergency power transfer, taking this $13
million from the replacement of a child development center and using it
for his wall. It was one of three projects in Maryland. We had $66.5
million.
There was another project at Joint Base Andrews dealing with
hazardous material, the place where they unload hazardous material.
They want to do it away from where the President's plane flies. That
makes abundant sense. That was cut and transferred over to the wall.
For those of you who have been to Ft. Meade--an incredibly important
facility--try to get there when you have a traffic problem. It is
almost impossible. Part of the moneys that were transferred was to
alleviate those concerns--the traffic.
The President took 64 projects--$3.6 billion, including this Child
Development Center at Joint Base Andrews, to use to pay for his wall.
He told us during the campaign that this was being done in an effort--
that Mexico would pay for it. We now know that the airmen families at
Joint Base Andrews are going to pay for this wall--$9,400 more per
child because they don't have a safe facility. This facility has a hard
time passing accreditation considering the situation. That is not me
telling you this; this is the Air Force telling you this. Yet those
funds were taken away. Why were they taken away? Because the President
used his emergency declaration power to do this.
I believe this was an unconstitutional abuse of power. Let me quote
from the President himself. This is what the President said in the Rose
Garden in announcing the so-called emergency. I am quoting the
President of the United States:
I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn't
need to do this. But I'd rather do it much faster.
Is that an emergency? Is that contradicting the direct dictate of
Congress? Let me just remind my colleagues of the Constitution, article
I, section 9, clause 7. It is the Congress that has the power of the
purse strings. We are the ones who appropriate the money, not the
President of the United States. He carries out our instructions. Yet he
uses, by his own words, something he wanted to do for himself rather
than a national emergency to transfer those funds. It is wrong. It is
not just this Senator saying it is wrong; we got a letter from several
Senators, former Senators and former Members of the House--
Republicans--who commented on this. The signatories to this letter
include Senator Danforth, Mickey Edwards, Chuck Hagel, Jim Kolbe,
Olympia Snowe, and Richard Lugar. They are respected Republican Members
of this body. Let me quote from their letter.
Our oath is to put the country and its Constitution above
everything, including party politics or loyalty to a
president. . . . The power of the purse rests with Congress .
. . if you allow a president to ignore Congress, it will be
not your authority but that of your constituents that is
deprived of the protections of true representative
government.
This is not about loyalty to a President or a party loyalty; this is
about exercising the constitutional responsibilities of the article I
legislative branch of government.
We just took a vote. We can do something about it--S.J. Res. 54,
terminating the national emergency. We got a majority of the Senators
who voted for it, 54 to 41, so it will move forward. We expect this
will not be the last word, and that is why I am taking the floor time
now. We are going to have
[[Page S5685]]
another opportunity to do this. We may have an opportunity to override
a Presidential veto. We are going to need more support. I urge my
colleagues to please look at the Constitution of the United States we
took the oath to uphold. Look at Members who have served here in the
past who are warning us that this will come back to haunt our
constituents in their constitutional checks and balances, having the
Congress be the people's body here--not the President of the United
States--in passing laws and making appropriations.
Let us do the right thing. Let us exercise the checks and balances
that are in our system. Let us see this S.J. Res. 54 become law. Let us
reverse this emergency declaration. Let's do it for the Constitution.
Let's do it for the U.S. Congress. Let's do it for the men and women in
our military service who are being denied the necessary military
construction projects, including those service men and women at Joint
Base Andrews who need a child development center that protects the
welfare of their children.
For all those reasons, I hope this becomes law.
With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Medical Billing
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, for the past couple of weeks, New
Hampshire and many other States across the country have been flooded
with millions of dollars' worth of dark money advertisements. These ads
have been all over TV and social media.
Let me just be clear. They haven't been running just against me in
New Hampshire; they have been running against Democrats and Republicans
in competitive races across this country.
We have also had flyers that have been jammed in the mailboxes all
across New Hampshire. I even got several of the flyers myself. This is
an example of one. I will read it in just a minute.
I want to point out that the goal of this campaign has been to stop
Congress from acting to address surprise medical bills.
For example, this flyer makes the dishonest claim that addressing
surprise medical bills would lead to hospital closures and doctor
shortages. In fact, you can see, it says:
Imagine if the care we needed wasn't there when we needed
it the most. Rate setting is a healthcare nightmare--hospital
closures, doctor shortages, windfall profits for big
insurance. Say no to rate setting. Don't put big insurance
companies in charge of our healthcare. Stop surprise medical
bills.
Then you turn it over, and it says:
Tell Jeanne Shaheen to stop rate setting. Say no to putting
big insurance in charge of our healthcare. Say no to making
it harder to see our chosen doctors when we need them the
most. Say no to big insurance profits at our expense. Tell
Senator Jeanne Shaheen to put patients first.
You read that, and you think I am all about trying to put insurance
companies ahead of patients. It doesn't tell you who is sending it. But
you look at it--and we did a little digging, and we found out that the
ads say that they are paid for by an organization called Doctor Patient
Unity. You read that, and you think, well, they are worried about
patients. You look at that, and you think they are worried about
hospital closures. This is from Doctor Patient Unity, so this must be
someone who cares about patients. Don't believe it.
The truth is, these flyers and the ads that have been running in New
Hampshire and across the country are paid for by two private equity
firms on Wall Street. They don't care about patients. They care about
profits.
They have spent over $2 million in New Hampshire. If you look across
the country, they have spent tens of millions of dollars. Just imagine
that instead of trying to pad their own bottom line and worrying about
surprise medical billing, they had put those tens of millions of
dollars into improving healthcare for the people of this country.
The public doesn't know this because they have been left completely
in the dark. Due to the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision,
special interests can spend unlimited amounts of money and stay
anonymous. So the average person throughout the country who gets one of
these flyers is not going to know who paid for these ads. They are not
going to know who is getting the benefit of the costs from surprise
medical billing.
This ad campaign is not only confusing to voters; it is exhibit A in
how our campaign finance system is broken. The voices of Granite
Staters who are struggling to pay surprise medical bills are being
drowned out in this case by private equity firms on Wall Street that
are making billions off of the status quo.
Here is how these private equity firms are exploiting patients.
First, surprise medical bills usually occur when a patient visits an
in-network hospital. Let's say my insurance says that I can go to the
hospital in my hometown. As part of the treatment, I go to the
hospital, but the doctor who sees me is not a doctor who is in the
network of my insurance company. So unbeknownst to me, as I go into the
emergency room, that doctor is what is called out of network. These
doctors often are working for physician staffing companies that have
gone out of network so they can aggressively pursue surprise medical
bills. These physician staffing companies are also using these surprise
medical bills to negotiate--to command in-network payments from
insurers that are often twice as high as the average, which can result
in higher premiums for everybody.
So they have these surprise medical bills, and you pay more for
those. The insurance companies and the physician staffing companies go
to the insurers and say: Look, these doctors are getting paid this much
from surprise medical bills, so you have to raise your payments for
doctors in your network, and everybody is going to pay more as the
result of that.
Again, this is frequently done at the behest of private equity firms
that own the physician staffing companies.
Surprise medical bills can be a tremendous shock to patients. This is
what happened to Donald and Kathy Cavallaro. They live in Rye, NH. Don
works at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. When Kathy needed emergency
surgery, Don's insurance covered the hospital costs, but the doctor
performing the surgery was out of their insurance network. The result
was that they got a surprise medical bill for $5,000. Now they are
appealing that cost.
Unfortunately, what the Cavallaros are going through isn't a rare
occurrence. One in six emergency room visits in New Hampshire results
in a surprise bill for Granite Staters who have large employer
coverage.
Nationally, the average cost of a surprise bill from an emergency
room visit is more than $600, and the average surprise bill for
inpatient care is over $2,000. So we can see what is happening as a
result of surprise medical bills. Surprise bills like these can easily
put a family budget in the red, and Congress desperately needs to put a
stop to them.
Today, I strongly encourage my colleagues in the Senate to move this
effort forward. The special interests that are pushing these surprise
medical bills and pushing up all of our healthcare costs have to be
tuned out.
This is about making sure that when a Granite Stater or any American
goes to a hospital, they can have faith that their insurance is going
to cover their costs. We should not--we must not--let private equity
firms on Wall Street bully Congress or derail the bipartisan efforts
that are taking place in this body to address surprise medical bills.
These advertisements should also serve as a reminder that Congress
has to reform our broken campaign finance system. Special interests
shouldn't be able to hide behind nice-sounding front groups like Doctor
Patient Unity.
We know these private equity firms are responsible for these ads only
because of investigative reporting that was done by Bloomberg, the New
York Times, and some others. Sadly, this is the exception rather than
the norm because usually dark money never gets exposed.
In closing, I want to send a very clear message: I don't care how
many ads these special interests run, how many
[[Page S5686]]
mailers they send out, or how many millions they spend. Granite Staters
who have had their family budgets upended by surprise medical bills
must be prioritized over the special interests who want to profit off
of them. Healthcare costs are out of control, and tackling surprise
medical bills must remain at the top of the Senate's agenda.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
FUTURE Act
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, right now, HBCUs, like Wilberforce and
Central State in my State of Ohio, and other minority-serving
institutions are facing a fiscal cliff. If we don't act now, this week,
HBCUs and other schools will face crippling funding cuts. These schools
are a critical part of our Nation's higher education system. They have
a rich legacy and a proven track record of educating students of color
and other underrepresented students.
Wilberforce was founded in 1856 as the Nation's first private
institution of higher education for Black students in this country--an
institution that we are so proud of in southwestern Ohio. Central State
has a rich legacy of educating students and is an 1890 land-grant
institution.
Many of us worked in the last farm bill to right a historical wrong
and to make sure all 1890 land-grant universities, including Central
State, have access to the funding they deserve. They have fostered
generations of African-American students. We know that without HBCUs,
millions of Black students would have been denied the opportunity to
pursue higher education. There simply was no place for them in many
places in this country. They would have been left out of careers in
law, academia, agriculture, politics, the sciences, and so many other
fields.
Our country owes an enormous debt to HBCUs. Key funding for HBCUs and
minority-serving institutions--MSIs--expires September 30. Without this
funding, school budgets will be thrown into chaos. They will likely
consider program cuts and layoffs. We need to pass a clean extension.
The House has done its job and passed the FUTURE Act. It seems the
House is always doing its job. It passes legislation, and then the
legislation dies in the Senate graveyard. We have seen it on issue
after issue. This is as important as any of them. We must protect the
HBCUs. We must extend the mandatory funding for all MSIs for 2 years.
It is time for the Senate to do the same. HBCUs and MSIs have to
overcome enough hurdles every day to educate their students. The Senate
should not be one of those hurdles. We need to pass the FUTURE Act now.
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. COTTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Nomination of Eugene Scalia
Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I would like to speak today about an old
friend and mentor, Gene Scalia. Gene is a devoted husband and father, a
brilliant lawyer, and a fairminded advocate for workers and the rule of
law, and he is an outstanding choice to be our next Secretary of Labor.
Gene has proven himself as a top legal mind both in government and in
private practice. During the Presidency of George W. Bush, he served as
the top lawyer for the Department of Labor, where he stood up for
workers by vigorously enforcing the law. When Enron's executives
defrauded and bankrupted the company, Gene fought to recover the
retirement savings of employees and pensioners.
In private practice, Gene fought out-of-control bureaucrats who
threatened to undercut America's position as an industrial power. When
Washington bureaucrats tried to stop Boeing from building its world-
class Dreamliner in South Carolina, he fended off the attack. As a
result, thousands of South Carolinians today are employed in good-
paying manufacturing jobs, and the world's best airplanes continue to
be made right here in America.
Gene's resume tells the story well enough. It proves that he is a top
expert in labor law who has devoted his life to ensuring that workers
and industry alike get a fair shake.
But his resume doesn't tell the whole story. I met Gene early in my
short career as a lawyer. He was one of my very first bosses. So I got
a window into his leadership style and legal mind. I have relied on his
hard-earned wisdom and counsel ever since, although, I have to say,
Gene was one of the very few lawyers I knew who discouraged me from
leaving the law and joining the Army. I think that is less a commentary
on my skills as a young lawyer and more a commentary on his need to
keep his lawyers on his cases. But he came around and introduced me to
his brother Matt, who remains an Army officer to this day, and the
Scalia family have been good friends all along.
Gene Scalia is one of the most capable and decent men I know in
Washington. His dedication to the law and its just application is
absolute. Working folks in this country deserve a Labor Secretary of
such integrity and conviction, and Gene Scalia will be just such a
Secretary.
I urge all of my colleagues to confirm him as our next Secretary of
Labor.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Overtime Rule
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, something happened in the last 48 hours or
so that affects 40,000 to 50,000 people in my State and affects,
literally, probably 1 million people or more around the country. These
are people who are making $30,000, $35,000, $40,000, or $45,000 a year.
Essentially, the President of the United States robbed them of their
overtime. This isn't histrionics. It is not alarmist. It is fact. This
is how it works. If you are managing a fast food restaurant and you are
making $40,000 a year, and if the company decides to call you the night
shift manager--the management decides to declare you as management--it
means they can work you 45, 50, 55, 60 hours a week and pay you not a
cent--not pay you time and a half. They don't pay you time and a half.
They don't even give you another cent more than your 40 hours.
In other words, if you are a moderate-income worker making $35,000 or
$40,000 a year--not enough to have a middle-class lifestyle like you
could have had in this country 20 or 30 years ago--and management
decides they are going to classify you as management, they can work you
as many hours as they want without a cent of overtime.
Now, that has been a problem for years. Five years ago, we fixed it.
The Vice President of the United States with Secretary Tom Perez came
out to Columbus, OH. I worked on this issue. We made this announcement
at a small manufacturing firm. They supported this agreement, and many
businesses did. This would have meant that for anybody making up to
about $46,000 a year, if they worked those extra hours and they were
called management, from then on they were going to get overtime--time
and a half. That is what overtime pay is about. That is what the
overtime rule is about.
President Trump loves to say that he is on the side of workers, but
you can't say you support workers individually if you don't support
workers collectively. The President says: I care about these individual
workers. If he really cared about these individual workers, he wouldn't
have, in essence, robbed 40,000 to 50,000 Ohioans--and I don't know how
many million Americans--of their overtime pay. We passed that rule. The
Obama administration sent the Secretary of Labor to Columbus, OH, and I
was there when we made this announcement. On behalf of 150,000 Ohio
workers who were making $30, $40, $45, and up to $46,000 a year, we
celebrated
[[Page S5687]]
that they were going to get time and a half. If they were away from
their family, working those extra 10 hours, which meant working 50
hours a week, or an extra 20 hours and working 60 hours a week, they
were going to take home thousands of dollars in overtime pay if they
did that week after week.
This President says he is for workers. Then, he changes this rule. In
a sense, he robbed those people. This new rule deprives millions of
workers, literally, of the pay they have earned. It is as disturbing as
anything I have seen from the President.
Like the Republican leader's office down the hall, I know the White
House looks like a retreat for Wall Street executives. In the White
House, whatever corporate America wants, this White House gives them
every single time. If corporate America wants to block the minimum
wage, which hasn't been increased in 10 years, the President of the
United States blocks the minimum wage. If corporate America wants this
overtime rule done away with, compromised, or half-obliterated, saving
millions of dollars for corporate America, the President of the United
States does their bidding.
To do a renegotiation of NAFTA, or the North American Free Trade
Agreement, right to help workers, you enforce worker rules, and you
enforce labor rules. The President backed off from his campaign promise
and didn't do it.
There were lots of tax cuts for the rich. Almost 80 percent of the
corporate tax bill that President Trump pushed through Congress goes to
the richest 1 percent of the people. It is a betrayal. It is a White
House betrayal of workers every single day. For people making $30,000,
$40,000, $50,000, $80,000, or $90,000 a year, this White House betrays
them.
It is pretty simple. Think about the dignity of work. Whether you
punch a clock or whether you swipe a badge, whether you are raising
children, whether you are taking care of aging parents, whether you are
working on tips, or whether you are working on a middle-class salary,
all work has dignity. Instead, the President has undermined that
worker.
And we all know something about CEOs. When I was a kid, CEOs made
about 30 to 1 in CEO pay versus the average worker. Now it is about 300
to 1. Who gets the tax cuts in this country? The CEOs. Who gets hurt
every time? It is moderate wage earners.
I hear this talk of populism, that the President is a populist. Well,
populism is never racist or never anti-Semitic. It doesn't divide
people. It doesn't push some people down to lift people up. That is
what we have seen far too much of.
To me, this overtime rule was sort of the last straw. You give tax
cuts and massive giveaways to the wealthiest 1 percent and encourage
more corporations to move overseas.
The President's tax bill says this, which is almost not even
believable: If you have a company in Mansfield, OH, or Toledo, OH, you
pay a corporate tax rate of 21 percent. If you shut down that
production in Mansfield and Toledo and move to Guadalajara or
Guangzhou, you pay 10.5 percent. What does that do? That means more
companies are going to move overseas as wages continue to be depressed
in this country.
I was in the White House with the President in his Cabinet Room one
day during the tax bill. After he signed this tax bill, he said: You're
going to start seeing a lot more money in your paycheck.
We know that was a lie. Corporations reaped the benefits, and then
spent their windfall not on workers' wages or growing the company but
on stock buybacks.
General Motors received huge tax cuts. They moved more jobs overseas
and they shut production in Hamtramck, MI, and in places like
Lordstown, OH. He stacked his Cabinet and the National Labor Relations
Board with corporate stooges who spent their whole careers undermining
workers on behalf of corporations. His new Labor Secretary, Eugene
Scalia, is a corporate lawyer who has fought over and over against
worker rights. Think about this. The Secretary of Labor--whether it is
a pretty conservative Secretary of Labor, whom Republicans over here
are likely to support, or a more progressive, pro-worker Secretary of
Labor, whom Democrats are more likely to support--is usually somebody
who cares about workers and workers' rights. The new Secretary of Labor
appointed by President Trump is a corporate lawyer. He spent his entire
career attacking workers, attacking workers' rights, trying to put
unions out of business, trying to encourage decertification of
elections, and trying to come down every time on the side of
corporations against workers.
I said this before. You can't say you care about workers
individually, but then you don't side with workers collectively. What
does that mean? It means when that workers have a union, they get
better pay, they get better benefits, they have retirement, they have
healthcare, and they have more job security and more safety in the
workplace. But if you say you care about individual workers but you
don't care about workers collectively, then you simply don't care about
workers.
It comes down to this: Whose side are you on? Are you on the
corporations' side or American workers' side? Do you fight for Wall
Street or fight for the workers and fight for the dignity of work? Do
you honor work? Do you respect work? Do you pass legislation that
supports workers and rewards work or do you pass legislation to take,
literally, thousands of dollars out of the pockets of workers who
should be getting overtime but, because of this new Trump rule, they
lost their overtime.
The President promised to fight for American workers. He has broken
that promise over and over. If you love this country, you fight for the
people who make it work. We don't see that over here. We don't see that
in the majority leader's office, and we sure don't see that in the
White House.
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. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Climate Change
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here for my 254th ``Time to Wake
Up'' speech. In the time I have been giving these speeches, I have
watched the shifting trajectory of climate denial. First, climate
change was a hoax. Then, there wasn't enough science. Then, the science
is still uncertain. Then, solving this problem would hurt our economy.
Then, innovation will magically save us, and now there is a new entrant
in the climate denial lexicon: China. ``China isn't doing enough on
carbon emissions,'' goes the argument. So we shouldn't do anything at
all.
It is a talking point you hear all the time from the fossil fuel
industry and its array of front groups working to block climate action
here in Congress.
Now, China has done plenty to complain about. China has stolen our
intellectual property, manipulated its currency, jailed its political
dissenters, set unfair labor rules, and more. I have been front and
center with those complaints about China. Yet, before we offer up China
as the latest ``climate denial lite'' excuse for doing nothing, let's
take a look at what China is really up to.
For starters, China is still a party to the Paris climate accord, and
China's President doesn't say stuff like ``wind turbines cause
cancer.'' OK--a low bar, I concede.
Our President recently tweeted:
Which country has the largest carbon emission reduction?
AMERICA! Who has dumped the most carbon into the air? CHINA!
Actually, that is not quite true. We have still dumped more
CO2 into the air than China because we have been at it
longer, and we still dump a lot more than China per capita, but China's
1 billion people do put out more carbon pollution than our 300 million.
They overtook us as the world's top national emitter in 2007. Last
year, China accounted for about 28 percent of global CO2
emissions, and the U.S. accounted for 15 percent. Cumulatively, China
accounts for 13 percent of emissions, and the U.S. accounts for 25
percent, which is about twice as much. Americans' per
[[Page S5688]]
capita carbon emissions are among the highest in the world. The average
Chinese citizen--China is here--accounts for less than half the per
capita emissions of the average American.
We actually don't have lots to brag about on our emissions, but that
is not where it looks the worst for us. Forget the past. Look to the
future at climate action. That is where China is blowing us out of the
water.
As the Trump administration slavishly fronts for fossil fuel--and is
even turning the agencies of our government over to this corrupting
industry--China is leaning in hard on a green energy future. China is
resetting its economy for a clean energy future. China began
implementing a national cap-and-trade system--a price on carbon--for
its power sector in 2018, which will go into full force across the
country next year. Several provinces already run cap and trade locally.
This year, China is launching a mandatory renewables quota, requiring
that 35 percent of its electricity be renewable by 2030, and its energy
plan seeks 50 percent of total electric power generation from nonfossil
sources by 2030.
China is also investing to dominate clean energy manufacturing and
technology. In 2017, nearly half of the world's new renewable energy
investment took place in China--triple the investment made in the
United States. China leads the world in renewable power deployment with
there being more than twice as much capacity as in any other nation.
Almost 30 percent of the world's renewable power capacity right now is
in China, including the most solar, the most wind, and the most hydro.
China dominates the global deployment of solar panels. It has several
times greater installed solar generation capacity than the United
States. In fact, we virtually lost solar panel manufacturing to China.
On this graph, China is the yellow, and it shows China outdoing all
of the other countries in total capacity. We are here compared to China
there, and the gray is the general category for the rest of the world.
China is even bigger than the rest of the world, not counting the
United States, Japan, Germany, and India.
So that is China's lead in total renewable electricity deployment,
with more than double the installed capacity of the United States and
nearly a third of the total global renewable electricity capacity. Here
is the world's total. There is China at 404. Then you actually have to
scale down the graphic to get over here to the United States at 180--
180 to 404. If you count nuclear power as clean energy, there is China.
China currently has the world's largest nuclear power construction
program. It has 37 nuclear reactors in operation, 20 under
construction, 40 in planning, and proposals for an additional 100. Next
generation nuclear technologies originally designed in the United
States are among those Chinese proposals. If all of those reactors are
built, China will end up with twice the U.S. nuclear fleet.
In the transportation sector, we feel pretty good in the United
States. We all see Teslas driving around, and Chevy has its terrific
Bolt. There are emerging EV manufacturers, like Rivian, that are
proposing extremely cool vehicles. Again, there is China--far out front
in building electric vehicles and in deploying the infrastructure
needed to run electric vehicles. China now requires that 10 percent of
vehicles sold be electric or plug-in hybrids. This quota increases to
12 percent in 2020. By the end of 2018, 45 percent of all of the
electric cars on the planet were in China. Last year, China
manufactured nearly half of all of the electric vehicles that have been
manufactured in the world.
In other areas, it is China, China, China. China dominates global
markets for electric buses and two-wheelers. Exxon fabulously predicted
to its shareholders that there would be zero electric buses by 2040;
China is already operating 400,000.
High-tech batteries will power transportation and balance the
electric grid of the future. China is planning for three times as much
battery manufacturing capacity as the rest of the world combined.
Carbon capture will grow as an industry as soon as it has a business
model, which, by the way, carbon pricing, including China's cap-and-
trade plan, will provide them. On carbon pricing, there is China, with
20 carbon capture projects under construction or in development--more
than in any other nation.
Of course, it is not all good news on climate out of China, not by
any stretch. The Chinese continue to build more coal-fired powerplants
than any other country, not just in China but around the world.
However, the difficult truth for us is that China's progress on climate
change is real, and it is way more than ours. China is not doing this
to be nice. It is doing this to outdo us economically and politically.
If we keep kicking our own renewable industries in the teeth here in
America just to please Trump's coal industry donors while China invests
in these new technologies, we will be making a losing bet. China's one-
party government has put economic growth above all else. Chinese
scientists see the same data that ours do. Chinese economists see the
same economic risks that ours do. Chinese businesses see the same
threats and opportunities for their workers and their supply chains
that ours do. Chinese cities see the same threat from sea level rise
that ours do. Yet the Chinese Government has chosen a smarter path
because it is not under the thumb of the fossil fuel industry. The
Chinese are acting out of self-interest. They are acting on climate
because they want their country and their economy to succeed. They want
to own these industries of the future. Rather than compete, we are now
helping them win--all to make some grubby political donors happy.
The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate reports that strong
climate action could deliver at least $26 trillion in economic benefits
worldwide through 2030 compared with business as usual--a $26 trillion
relative benefit. Over that period, these actions would generate over
65 million new low-carbon jobs globally and avoid over 700,000
premature deaths from air pollution, by the way. Whoever acts swiftly
will get the biggest share of these riches.
Last year, Stanford's economists found that keeping global warming to
1.5-degrees Celsius as opposed to the riskier 2-degree safety limit
would likely save more than $20 trillion in economic damages around the
world by the end of this century--$20 trillion.
The world power that positions itself to reap the economic benefits
of a carbon-neutral technology and that helps lead the world away from
runaway climate calamities will garner tremendous economic, strategic,
and diplomatic advantage. In particular, China recognizes the
diplomatic advantage to acting on climate as the United States
withdraws from its traditional position of international leadership.
The last century has been called the American century. We are fast
handing over the next century to become the Chinese century. We are
doing it to ourselves, and we are doing it for the worst of all
possible reasons--to cater to and kowtow to a corrupt industry. Making
sure that the next century is the American century, as well, is as good
a reason as any for us to wake up and act on climate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Ukraine
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, once again, I come to the floor to call
for action in light of revelations that President Trump appears to have
no problem in seeking the assistance of a foreign government for his
own political gain. Today's summary of the telephone call from the
White House between him and a foreign leader exposes this in black and
white. Given this White House's lack of transparency, I have little
faith that this so-called transcript reflects the totality of the
conversation, but what it did release was shocking enough.
He clearly pressured the Ukrainian Government to investigate former
Vice President Biden for his own political benefit. He mentioned the
Attorney General of the United States or his personal lawyer six times,
and in using the levers of State, the President sought to weaponize the
Justice Department to pursue a personal political vendetta.
We now know that for more than 2 months, the President urged Ukraine
to investigate a political opponent while holding $391 million in
urgently needed security assistance that Congress appropriated to
support U.S. national security interests. In fact, Congress approved
this security assistance,
[[Page S5689]]
including $141.5 million from the U.S. State Department and $250
million from the Pentagon, with overwhelming bipartisan support.
Indeed, for years now, the Republicans and the Democrats have come
together to offer America's support to Ukraine in the face of
relentless Russian aggression. We have stood together on Ukraine
because we have known what has been at stake. Our friends in Ukraine
sit on the frontlines of a struggle against the Kremlin's vision of a
world that is not guided by democratic values or the rule of law but,
instead, ruled by Putin and his corrupt cabal of oligarchs. The
Democrats and the Republicans have stood together behind a free and
independent Ukraine because, together, we stand behind our shared
values of freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and human rights.
We have stood in support of Ukraine in pursuit of our own strategic
interests in the region. That is why we came together when Russian
forces illegally invaded Crimea in 2014 and worked to bolster American
support of Ukrainian sovereignty. I was proud of that moment as the
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee at the time; that we passed
the Ukraine Freedom Support Act with strong bipartisan support. In an
era of growing political divides, our support for a democratic, free,
and sovereign Ukraine inspired us to transcend partisanship and to work
together in common cause.
I applaud my Republican colleagues who have worked on these efforts,
who have traveled to Ukraine, who have been strong advocates for our
partners, standing up against Kremlin aggression.
That is why it is all the more puzzling that Republicans have largely
been silent over the past few days. Whatever happened to solidarity
with Ukraine? Whatever happened to standing up to Russia? Whatever
happened to putting the national security of the United States ahead of
petty partisan politics?
We have found ourselves with a President in the White House who has
now sought to manipulate aid to Ukraine to advance his own personal
political agenda.
Let's examine what we know.
President Trump admitted that he spoke with President Zelensky and
raised the issue of investigating the family of Vice President Biden.
That was included in today's so-called transcript of the congratulatory
call with President Zelensky.
We know that after Congress appropriated this funding, the Department
of State sent a notation to the White House Office of Budget and
Management on June 21. We know deliberations over this kind of funding
typically just take 5 days. Instead, the White House sat on this
funding for 2 whole months.
My staff met with the State Department last Friday. We tried to glean
what could be the cause for this delay. Did the Department have an
objection to this money moving forward? No, they did not.
Did they know why the White House sat on it for 2 months? No, they
did not.
Did the White House ask them any substantive questions on the
security assistance to Ukraine over these months? No, they did not and
neither did the Defense Department.
In other words, the State Department was unaware of any policy
motivation that could have delayed the dispersal of urgently needed
security funding to Ukraine. There was no policy motivation.
On the contrary, the revelations of the past few days suggest a
political motivation. It appears that President Trump's willingness to
use the powers of his office for grossly inappropriate behavior on the
international stage is pretty vivid.
We need to know exactly who in the Trump administration played a role
in the improper withholding of congressionally appropriated funding for
Ukraine and how. That is why today I am calling for unanimous consent
for my bill, the Ukraine Foreign Assistance Integrity and
Accountability Act of 2019.
This bill would require an inspector general, State Department,
investigation into the Office of Management and Budget's delay in
obligating these funds.
My legislation would require the State Department to share all
records in its role in facilitating the President's personal lawyer's
engagement with the Ukranian Government.
It would require that the administration obligate all Ukranian
security assistance funds and authorize additional funds to counter
Russia malign influence across Europe.
It would also express solidarity with the Ukranian people by imposing
new sanctions on Russia for its continued aggression in eastern
Ukraine. Those sanctions would target Russia's shipping sector,
oligarchs, and cyber attacks.
I want to be clear that I am an advocate of regular order in the
Senate, but we are in a crisis. It is a crisis potentially of
constitutional proportions, a crisis that goes to the heart of our
democracy, and how we respond to it will forever define our willingness
as a Congress to defend the rule of law and live up to our article I
responsibilities.
President Trump has once again stood in the way of congressional
efforts to support Ukraine and all of Europe in the face of Russian
aggression. The administration has once again flouted the rule of law,
this time with the Acting Director of National Intelligence refusing to
disclose to Congress the whistleblower complaint on President Trump's
conversations with President Zelensky--and we don't know what more--as
he is mandated to do.
It is time for this Congress to stand up for its article I powers. We
need to act quickly to send a message to the White House and to the
Kremlin.
If there is anything we have learned from President Trump, it is that
lawlessness begets lawlessness. It is time for us to remind the
American people and the world that the rule of law means something.
We will not allow the corrupting of our national security assistance.
We will not allow our relationship with Ukraine to become a political
football, and we will not let the foreign policy of the United States
be corrupted for campaign purposes.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2537
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign
Relations be discharged from further consideration of S. 2537; that the
Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be
considered read a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider
be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action
or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. RISCH. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, first of all, let me say I concur with the
good Senator from New Jersey that we should follow regular order.
He, like myself, has spent decades of service in a legislative body,
and we both know this system works when the committee system works.
Every legislative body is set up with a committee system. Now, why is
that? One of the reasons is because people develop an expertise in a
certain lane, and they can use that expertise on the committee.
Most importantly, the issues regarding a bill--whether it is good or
bad or whether it should be amended or whatever should happen to it--is
best handled in the committee system, where people have an expertise in
the area that the bill goes to.
This bill goes to the Foreign Relations Committee, which I chair--
which my good friend from New Jersey previously chaired--and it will be
handled in the regular order by that committee, but it is a bad way to
do a piece of legislation to draw it, drop it, and then come to the
floor and try to pass it unanimously.
This piece of legislation was brought to the committee yesterday, and
it is a piece of legislation that certainly deserves consideration but
not this way.
I have not had a chance to even read it, let alone study it, and that
is true of virtually every Member of the majority party. I frankly
don't know whether the other members of the committee who serve in the
minority party have had an opportunity to read it or to study it or,
for that matter, to prepare amendments to it to make it better and to
move it along.
So given that, the committee system is really important here. I don't
want
[[Page S5690]]
to really go into the merits of all this. A lot of it is being debated
out in the hallway right now with the national media and that sort of
thing.
Look, what has happened over the last few days here is really a
poster child for what has happened to the entire Trump Presidency. A
fair amount--not all but a fair amount--of the national media and a
fair amount of the minority party here have done everything they can to
delegitimize this President, not the least of which is taking anything
that comes along and attaching to it some nefarious idea, some
nefarious purpose.
Let me give you an example. My good friend said: What happened to
standing up to Russia? This administration has imposed more sanctions
on Russia than the entire 8 years of the previous administration. So
what has happened to standing up to Russia? We continue to stand up to
Russia.
I think my friend from New Jersey and I would be able to agree on the
many sins Russia has committed starting way back, but if you go with
fairly recent history, their invasion of Georgia and then their promise
to back off and to get out of Georgia--they still occupy two of the
regions in Georgia.
Of course, the invasion and takeover of the Crimea, their cause of
problems on the eastern border of Ukraine, their interference in
Ukraine, their interference in our elections, their interference in all
kinds of European elections, and it goes on and on, poisoning people in
London--I mean, that is about as far out as you can possibly get.
So we all need to stand together. We all need to stand up to Russia,
and this administration has been doing it. They are going to continue
to do it. I think virtually everybody here is urging them to do it, and
we are going to continue to do it.
Look, the argument that there was some significant delay in moving
funds to Ukraine is simply not well-taken, and the reasons for it, with
all due respect to my friend, I think, are well known.
In fact, if you read the transcript of this telephone conversation,
the President himself raises the important issue that he has raised
with all of us from time to time, and that is that any time he sees the
United States getting on the short end of the stick with whatever you
talk to him about, it raises an alarm with him.
In this particular case, he has been very distressed by the fact that
we have been carrying the bulk of the dollars and cents for helping
Ukraine. We want to help Ukraine.
Senator Menendez, I think, very clearly laid out many of the problems
that have to do with Ukraine. The country has serious problems, not the
least of which is corruption, but the first reason he had issues with
the spending was the fact that Europe just simply is not doing what
they should be doing in helping to fund this, and that is clearly laid
out in this transcript.
The second thing is the corruption itself. When money goes into
Ukraine, it is a well-known fact that there is tremendous corruption
and graft within the country and a lot of the money disappears.
The most notorious institution within the country is the gas
company--interestingly enough, the gas company board on which Vice
President Biden's son sat and was appointed to and has received $50,000
a month to sit on after the Vice President was tasked by President
Obama to look into the corruption and do something about the corruption
in Ukraine.
In any event, corruption is a big problem and funds get diverted.
I am just going to close by saying, look, every American that is
interested in this talking that is going on back and forth about this
call that the President had with President Zelensky should look at that
transcript and read it. It will take just a few minutes to read it, and
it will not take long to figure out that the mischaracterization of
this is off the wall.
It is absolutely amazing to me that people would take this
conversation, which was a standard, ordinary, regular conversation that
a head of state has with another head of state, and characterize it the
way it is being characterized.
It was a congratulatory call. There was a lot of banter in it. My
good friend knows--he has met with a lot of heads of state, as I have.
Sometimes we even meet together with heads of state. It is common to
have bipartisan meetings with heads of state.
I don't know whether people think these things are scripted and that
they are focused directly on issues, but there is always a lot of
banter. The banter can be in the form of having conversations about
family. It can be talking about sports. Frequently, if one of the teams
has done well or poorly, one party or the other will raise it and talk
about it. These things are very informal, as this phone conversation
was.
In my experience, one of the frequent issues that is discussed in
these conversations is local politics--what is happening in your
country, what is happening in my country--and then also a discussion of
mutual issues with friendly countries or, for that matter, countries
that are not friendly.
This call that the transcript was released on is very, very rare. If
you are looking for a window to see what actually happens in these
calls, this transcript is a really good characterization of what
happens in these calls.
It is not a good thing to be releasing these calls. I think heads of
state should be able to have these conversations--all of us should be
able to have conversations with our counterparts, with a head of state,
with Ministers in the other countries without having to be thinking
about every word we say is going to wind up being analyzed and pulled
apart and taken by your political enemies and badly misrepresented.
Look, don't take my word for it. Don't take Senator Menendez's word
for it. The transcript is all over the internet right now. It is going
to be published in every newspaper probably in America tomorrow. It
takes just a few minutes to read it. Read it and take away for yourself
the feelings you have about it.
The President of the United States is tasked with being the frontline
of foreign policy. Yes, foreign policy is shared by both the first and
second branch. It is one of those things the Founding Fathers did not
resolve 100 percent for one branch or the other, such as appointments
for the second branch or such as appropriating for the first branch.
There is sufficient authority given to each branch of government, but
the head of state, in this case, the President of the United States, is
tasked with carrying on these relationships with other countries.
This phone conversation that he had is clearly, clearly, part of
that. Don't take my word for it. Everybody make up your own mind on
this. It isn't rocket science. As you can see, the English is very
straightforward. It can be understood. I think everybody will come away
with their own belief.
If people hate Trump, they are going to look at that and say that
this is terrible, as a lot of people in this town have done. I think
most ordinary, good, straight-thinking Americans are going to look at
this and say: What is the big deal? It was a conversation between two
people talking about various issues they were interested in, and it
isn't a problem.
In any event, in order to preserve the regular order, in order to
preserve the jurisdiction and the hard work of the Foreign Relations
Committee, Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I understand we are supposed to be
heading to a briefing on Iran. I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes,
and then I will cease, and I ask unanimous consent for my entire
remarks to be included in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MENENDEZ. No. 1, it is not unusual for--there have been many
times when the urgency of the moment has had legislation come to the
floor. I think this is one of those moments. But I do appreciate the
Chairman's suggesting that he will take up consideration of this issue,
and that is something I think is incredibly important.
On Russia, I would just say the congressionally mandated sanctions,
which the committee and the Congress passed, gave very little
flexibility to the administration and have been the driver on sanctions
on Russia. But
[[Page S5691]]
there is a lot that hasn't been done that Russia has done subsequently,
which we should be ultimately pursuing, and I look forward to the
Chairman's having a markup on DASKAA and other related legislation to
actually continue to fight Russia.
Lastly, I would simply say that holding money from Ukraine doesn't
make other countries give money to Ukraine. That was money that was
directed by the U.S. Congress, which was promoted, as well, by the
State Department and the Department of Defense. They had no concerns
about corruption as it relates to this money. They understood the
importance of the security assistance.
Finally, on the question of the transcript, overwhelmingly, there
wasn't banter there so much as there was a direct effort to get
President Zelensky to use his powers to investigate former Vice
President Biden's son. That is crystal clear, and any plain reading
will do it, and I do hope the American people will read the summary.
I yield the floor.
____________________