[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 120 (Tuesday, June 30, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3993-S3998]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Multiemployer Pension System
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, since I reclaimed chairmanship of the
Finance Committee at the start of this Congress, one of my top
priorities has been to fix the failing multiemployer pension system and
to help secure retirement benefits of more than 10 million workers and
retirees in these multiemployer plans.
This is especially important since 150 multiemployer plans have
failed or terminated, and many others are expected to run out of money
in the coming 10 years. In the decade after that, many more plans are
expected to fail. In all, more than 1.5 million Americans would be
affected by the failure of these multiemployer pension plans.
Now, the coronavirus has had its effect on these plans as well. We
don't yet have a firm read on how much the economic downturn has
affected plans' funding or even the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation's insurance fund backing up those plans that have failed.
We expect more details on those issues later this summer.
Now, one thing that we do know for sure is that this problem is only
going to get worse and more costly to resolve if we wait longer to
solve it. That is why all this concentration at this point. Now we have
a real opportunity to get it fixed--and hopefully this year.
Last November, Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee
chairman Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and I released a draft plan to
reform the multiemployer pension system, protect retirees, and at the
same time secure the PBGC's insurance fund. We received many thoughtful
and constructive comments, and we worked over the past several months
to address those comments to make our reform plan as effective and
balanced as possible.
So what is standing in the way? The usual thing: You have got to have
bipartisanship to get anything done in the U.S. Senate. The short
answer is that the Democratic leadership doesn't seem to be very
interested in working to find that bipartisan solution. They seem to
think the no-strings bailout which they tried to force into the CARES
Act in March and which now appears in the House's HEROES Act is somehow
a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. That doesn't work very well,
particularly in the Senate, where it takes bipartisanship to get
anything done.
I would also hope that they are not playing election-year politics.
If they are, then they are playing those election-year politics with
the retirement security of millions of Americans. As every day goes on,
the prospects of people retiring on what they thought they were going
to retire on--these multiemployer plans--is getting less and less.
Delaying a solution until next year is only going to make it more
costly, and it will still require bipartisan support.
We can and we must do better if we want a healthy multiemployer
system for the long haul. We have a chance to fix this problem long
term. Otherwise, we will be right back here in 5 or 10 years dealing
with the same problem.
[[Page S3994]]
To put this in perspective, let's consider what it means to do
nothing and to leave the current law unchanged, versus what Chairman
Alexander and I propose in several key areas.
First, for retiree benefits, doing nothing means the PBGC insurance
fund runs out of money in 2027. If the fund goes broke, that means the
PBGC will only be able to pay benefits equal to the premium revenues
that it receives, which are minimal compared to the potential claims.
That means retirees could receive cuts in the range of 90 percent.
Let me say that another way. If these plans go broke and these people
are forced into the government-run insurance backup plan, they are
going to potentially get 90-percent cuts in their retirement. That is
the necessity for us to work hard now to get this job done
Now, in contrast, the plan Senator Alexander and I are proposing
would preserve benefits and ensure solvency of the PBGC's multiemployer
system over the long run. It would save many failing plans by having
the government pay a portion of benefits earlier than under current
law. That would help the plan to stretch its assets much longer and at
the same time preserve benefits as promised under that plan.
Second, for plans that aren't able to be saved, our proposal would
increase the insurance guarantee amount from the current $12,870
maximum for a retiree with 30 years of service to over $20,000.
Benefits will be preserved with the help of additional support from
employer and union stakeholders and a modest retiree insurance premium
for retirees in plans that face financial challenges. That premium
would be no more than 10 percent and eliminated entirely for older and
disabled retirees, as well as for plans that are well funded. That is
far better than the 90-percent cut that I already told you about if we
just do nothing.
Doing nothing also means more and more plans will become underfunded
or maybe even worse, insolvent, resulting in major benefit cuts and
then only that very small benefit that is covered by the government's
guaranty program, the insurance fund that we call the PBGC.
The Grassley-Alexander plan would provide relief to the failing
plans, and, without an upfront benefit cut, it would restore the
benefit cuts that some plans chose to make under the Multiemployer
Pension Reform Act in 2014. It would also increase the PBGC insurance
guarantee amount by more than 50 percent.
Third, for other plans not on the brink, doing nothing would mean
that the current minority of multiemployer plans that are better funded
would continue to shrink, with many more likely to move into the danger
zone in the coming years. Our plan would provide significant funding
reforms--with emphasis on reforms--to help prevent that from happening.
In other words, those that are in pretty good shape wouldn't get worse.
Key variables, like the discount rate that plans use to estimate
future assets and liability values, would be subject to new standards
to help ensure that plans are funded to provide the benefits they
promised. But we have taken to heart comments we have heard from
stakeholders that those changes need to be phased in over a sufficient
period of time to allow plans to transition smoothly.
Our plan would institute other changes to improve the early warning
system so multiemployer plans can avoid flirting with the underfunding
danger zone. It also provides needed oversight for plans in trouble,
and it would provide unions and employers the opportunity to set up
composite plans--a new type of hybrid retirement plan that enjoys wide
bipartisan support.
Something pretty important to note, the fundamental tenet of the
Grassley-Alexander reform plan is that all stakeholders have a role in
fixing the multiemployer pension system that has been on the current
path to failure now for four decades.
Employers and unions have a role in ensuring that adequate
contributions are made to the plans to ensure sufficient funds to pay
the promised benefits.
Plans have a role in ensuring that the PBGC insurance fund backing up
those benefits is adequately funded through reasonable premiums, with
higher risk plans contributing more for that insurance backup.
Employees and retirees have a role in contributing to the insurance
coverage that protects their benefits, just like they do now for auto,
home, and life insurance.
Last, but not least, is the Federal Government. I don't want to shock
people, but if you study this, you will know that the government had a
role in setting out the rules that have governed these plans and
regulating the operation of these plans, so the government has a role
in fixing the resulting situation we are in this very day. That means
taxpayer funds may be needed to help the PBGC provide the partition
relief for plans on the brink of failing, but those funds must come
with important reforms to ensure that taxpayers are not back here on
the hook again in 5 or 10 years.
This legislation I am talking about looks way ahead, solving two
problems: the multiemployer pension plans individually--dozens of
them--and also the insurance fund, the PBGC, that the government has
for backup so it doesn't go broke by 2027. We take care of two big
problems all at once. As I just said, we don't want to be back here in
5 or 10 years.
Unfortunately, no matter how sensible of a reform plan we come up
with, it has no chance of success unless our Democratic colleagues are
willing to sit down and discuss a comprehensive solution.
The other side has the idea of ``my way or the highway.'' That
approach is not the pathway to a successful solution. That was clear
when they tried that tactic during the negotiations of the CARES Act in
March.
So how many times do I have to say it? We all know it, all 100
Senators know it--nothing happens in Congress without bipartisanship.
I invited our colleagues on the other side of the aisle--I have had
more than one conversation with Speaker Pelosi--asking all to join me
and Senator Alexander in finding a bipartisan solution. That invitation
still stands, and we remain ready to talk. Let's use the time that we
have to negotiate a balanced, sensible solution to this increasingly
critical problem so that we are ready whenever that opportunity
presents itself to enact that solution this year. The retirees in each
of our States, the businesses in each of our States, and the unions in
each of our States that support these pension plans and our long-term
Federal budget deserve no less consideration than what I have laid out.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 2740
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, it may seem like a long time ago, but it
was only 3 months ago when Congress came together, in a rare bipartisan
fashion, and we passed the CARES Act. We did that to help address the
unprecedented needs of the country and the American people as we began
to address the global pandemic. It was the third emergency
appropriations bill Congress has passed this year to address the impact
of the coronavirus. Yet despite its scope and size, we knew then, and
we all acknowledged then, that absent a miracle, it would not be the
last emergency appropriations bill required.
At that time, we all knew the number of COVID cases would continue to
grow at an alarming rate, as would the number of deaths. Each death has
left in its wake friends, family, and loved ones, all devastated by a
loss that can never be undone. In those 3 months, we have also seen our
economy grind to a halt. More than 47 million men and women have filed
for unemployment. Families are struggling to pay their bills. They are
worried about putting food on the table, paying their rent, and caring
for their children. Lines at food banks are at historic highs,
including in my home State of Vermont. For many, the situation is
desperate.
I wish we could say we were through the worst of it and things could
now return to normal. We know that we cannot. Florida, Texas, Arizona,
North
[[Page S3995]]
Carolina, Alabama, and Oklahoma, just to name a few, are seeing an
alarming spike in cases. Health experts are ringing the alarm bell,
including the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who had
previously spent a lot of time trying to defend this administration's
anemic response.
We all know this virus is far from vanquished. As numbers continue to
rise across the Nation and new hot spots emerge, it is clear we are
going to need another emergency appropriations bill to address this
epidemic, and, frankly, we need it now.
At times like this, the country needs real leadership and vision. We
need to get out in front of this crisis, not make all kinds of response
after the fact. We know our leadership is not coming from the White
House. The President has made very clear in his statements that he
believes opening the economy and fighting the virus are competing
actions. He gives the American people a false choice.
I believe that only if we effectively fight the virus are we then
able to open the economy, whether in my State or any other State. Now,
6 weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed the Heroes Act. It is
a strong proposal. It provides assistance to struggling families. It
supports State and local governments. It battles the virus by
sponsoring a responsible testing program. It recognizes the sacrifices
being made by grocery store clerks, first responders, nurses, doctors,
truckers, and more. It makes critical changes to programs such as SNAP,
which supports those among us who are struggling the most.
Let's talk about what we have done. The first week or the second week
or the third week or the fourth week or the fifth week or the sixth
week since the House passed that bill, what has the Senate done?
Nothing. Despite numerous calls from myself and Democratic leadership
in the Senate, weeks have gone by and the White House and the
Republican majority refuse to move forward on a bill, or even start
negotiations.
In fact, the majority leader has publicly stated that he and the
White House want to take ``a pause'' before considering any further
emergency legislation related to COVID-19. The White House alternates
between silence on the issue and sending contradictory messages of what
it thinks needs to be done. While we wait, cases continue to climb; the
death toll mounts; and people continue to struggle. You cannot tell the
people who have COVID to pause and it will go away.
You cannot tell the doctors and nurses who are working around-the-
clock and to the point of exhaustion to just pause. That does not work.
The fact is, they are dealing with this every single day and night, 7
days a week. They would love to have a pause, but the reality is such
that they cannot.
To those who say it is premature to act on another bill--well, let's
look at what we already know. At the end of July, the Federal pandemic
unemployment compensation program that Congress included in the CARES
Act expires. That is next month. Next month starts tomorrow. This
program provides an additional $600 per week in unemployment benefits
to more than 28 million Americans. In many cases, the money is the
difference between paying the rent and getting evicted. The money keeps
the electricity on and food on the table. It feeds the children. At the
same time, many State-initiated eviction moratoriums expire next month,
which begins in just a few hours, as does the eviction moratorium for
people in federally assisted housing included in the CARES Act. It is a
one-two punch with the end of Federal benefits and the end of eviction
protections, which will potentially displace a record number of
Americans into homelessness. As eviction proceedings mount and
Americans find they have no way to pay for alternative housing, the
homeless shelters will almost certainly swell. But the shelters
themselves are already over capacity and ill-equipped to handle an
influx. We must act.
What about our struggling small businesses? The small businesses in
my State of Vermont are the backbone of our economy. What about them?
As of today, the Small Business Administration can no longer approve
loans for the popular Paycheck Protection Program.
Parents are worried about their children. They struggle to find safe
childcare. They wonder, Are schools going to open in the fall or not?
And when they open, many schools will be using some form of online
instruction. Over 16 million children in this country do not have
internet service at home, and 12 million children do not have a home
computer or laptop to use. This is the wealthiest nation in the world.
We need to close this gap by providing reliable internet and broadband
service to the millions of households in this country who do not have
it. All kids deserve a good education, not just those from families who
can afford it. Coming from a rural State, this is something I am
particularly concerned about. We can't wait until the fall to figure
this out; it will be too late.
I know that every Senator here has rural areas in his or her State,
and in a lot of those areas there is no internet service.
We also know we need to protect our elections. Due to the pandemic,
voters are using common sense, and they are choosing to vote by mail in
record numbers, something we have already done in Vermont, but many
States aren't prepared to meet this demand. They look at us. Every one
of us will say, yes, of course we want to protect voters; of course, we
want to protect voters; of course, every vote counts; of course, it is
the American way to vote; of course, we want people to vote. Ha, ha,
and ha. Congress has provided only a fraction of the funding needed by
States to prepare for the general election. Voters don't have to choose
between exercising their constitutional right of voting or getting very
ill.
Now, we know States cannot cover election costs on their own. They
are cash-strapped already from responding to the coronavirus pandemic.
The Wall Street Journal has estimated that State and local governments
have already furloughed or eliminated 1.5 million jobs since the
pandemic began. That might look like just a statistic to some, but
these are teachers; these are firefighters; and these are healthcare
workers. Congress, for the sake of this country, needs to enact another
tranche of funding for State and local governments. We have to help
them deal with lost revenue or our economy is not going to recover. It
will never recover.
As revenues fall and costs to address COVID increase, Native American
Tribes have also been forced to furlough workers, curtail healthcare
services, and in some cases close down clinics entirely.
There are numerous other examples of urgent needs, too many to list.
Due to declining revenues and incoming fees, the United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services--USCIS--may be forced to cut back
drastically on services and furlough at least 13,000 employees,
including up to 1,700 in Vermont, by August 2. That is 4 short weeks
from now. The notice to these employees went out this week, leaving
these dedicated employees and their families in limbo wondering if they
will have a job in August and wondering why Congress will not act to
prevent it.
COVID has caused a 3-month delay in field operations for the Census,
and the Department of Commerce needs additional money to ensure we get
an accurate count. Our federal prisons, a hotspot for COVID, have
already depleted the money we provided to them in CARES and need more
if they are to prevent further outbreaks. Even the Senate has depleted
the funding Congress provided in CARES to conduct deep cleaning of the
Capitol and Senate and House buildings and to provide important
personal protective equipment for Senators and staff.
It is also imperative for America to step up and address the pandemic
abroad. We are part of the world. The COVID-related needs around the
world are spiking. We cannot defeat the virus right here at home if we
do not act now to assist other countries in the global fight against
this pandemic as we have in the past. Senate Republicans and President
Trump must demonstrate leadership. You are not going to stop this
health crisis by tweets; you are going to stop it by real action.
Now, in a few short days, the Senate is going to recess for 2 weeks.
If we do nothing else before the Senate goes out of session, we should
do what all the experts agree is needed if we are going to defeat this
virus: Create a comprehensive testing and contact tracing
[[Page S3996]]
program and provide the resources needed to implement it for all 50 of
our States. This is how other countries have succeeded in flattening
the curve and containing the spread.
Yet, in a shocking abdication of leadership, the President has thrown
up his hands. He has walked away from this issue. He even said at a
recent campaign rally that we should be doing less testing, not more.
That is not leadership; that is politics. That is not keeping Americans
safe. I want all Americans to be safe. I do not care whether they are
Republicans, Democrats, or Independents. I want all Americans to be
safe.
His political Press Secretary tried to say he was kidding, but he
said he was not. The Federal Government recently announced it shut down
numerous federally funded testing sites across the country, including
seven in Texas where cases are rising. It is astonishing.
I have been in the Senate with Republican and Democratic Presidents
alike, from the time of President Ford. All of these Presidents, in
both parties, were willing to show leadership in serious matters, but
if this President cannot or will not show leadership, then the Congress
must step in and do it.
I will tell you what I learned when I came here. I never expected to
become the dean of the Senate, but I think about it often. I was told
by both Republican and Democratic leaders at that time that the Senate
can and should be the conscience of the Nation. I have seen Republicans
and Democrats come together and exercise that conscience at times when
we so need it. Where is that now? Nobody owns a seat in the U.S.
Senate, but we are given 6-year terms in which we should be able to
think of doing the right thing and not just worry about the next tweet
or the next newsbreak or what is said 5 minutes from now. We have 6-
year terms so that we can sit back and do what is right. Let us be the
conscience of the Nation. I have always been proud of this body when I
have seen Republicans and Democrats come together and do that.
The Heroes Act passed 6 weeks ago in the House. It created the COVID-
19 National Testing and Contact Tracing Initiative. It requires the
Department of Health and Human Services, in coordination with State and
local governments, to develop a comprehensive testing, contact tracing,
surveillance, and monitoring system. It provides $75 billion to
implement it. If we want to save lives, if we want to reopen the
country, and if we want to get our economy going again, we ought to at
least pass this initiative. I want my family to be safe. I want my wife
and my children to be safe and their children and their spouses to be
safe. I want all Vermonters and everybody in all 50 of our States to be
safe, and we need testing.
I am soon going to ask unanimous consent on a particular item, and I
understand that Senator Alexander is going to come to the floor to
object, so I will withhold making that request.
There are only 100 of us. We represent over 320 million Americans,
across the political spectrum. They are all races and all economic
backgrounds. They are all ages. But they have 100 people who can speak
for them and speak for the conscience of this Nation
I am proud to be a U.S. Senator, but I am not proud when we don't
stand up and act as the conscience of the Nation. What is the use of
being one of the 100 people who represent this great country, who
represent and know and hold the history of this country, who have
helped shape the history of this country through treaties, through
constitutional amendments, and through debates on everything? What does
it do to be a Member of the 100 in this body if we cannot reflect the
conscience of the Nation?
Now, as Senator Alexander is not yet here, I am going to suggest the
absence of a quorum, but I want to ask unanimous consent that I be the
person next recognized to call off that quorum call.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, as I noted before, I was withholding a
unanimous consent request until the very distinguished senior Senator
was here.
So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration of Calendar No. 140, H.R. 2740; that the Leahy substitute
amendment that would provide funding for COVID testing and tracing and
is at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended,
be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no
intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I am glad to see my distinguished
friend from Vermont of many years, and what I would like to say to him
is that we, all together, appropriated a record amount of $3 trillion--
another $3 trillion in credit--most of which, much of which has not
even been spent yet, and some of which hasn't been distributed to
States yet. We are in the midst of reviewing the spending of that
money. I know our own committee has had five hearings this month on
COVID and its consequences, and I think the wiser course with the
taxpayers' money is to wait until the $3 trillion we have appropriated
has been distributed to States, has been spent, and is carefully
reviewed. In the meantime, we will work very closely with our friends
on the other side to determine what else needs to be done during the
month of July. So I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). The Senator from Vermont.
S. 4049
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, in this unprecedented moment in
American history, I think there is a crying out all across this country
for us to rethink who we are as a nation and what our national
priorities are.
Whether it is fighting against systemic racism and police brutality,
whether it is the need to combat climate change and transform our
energy system away from fossil fuel, whether it is the absurdity of
being the only major country on Earth not to guarantee healthcare to
all people as a human right, or whether it is the grotesque level of
income and wealth inequality, where three people today own more wealth
than the bottom half of our Nation, all across this country people are
crying out for change--real change.
When we talk about the need for real change, it is beyond
comprehension the degree to which Congress continues to ignore our
bloated $740 billion defense budget. We talk about everything.
Democrats and Republicans disagree on almost everything, but when it
comes to this huge budget, which has gone up by over $100 billion since
Trump has been President, there is, unfortunately, a broad consensus,
and that is wrong.
Year after year, Democrats and Republicans come together with minimal
debate to support an exploding Pentagon budget, which is now higher
than that of the next 11 nations combined and represents some 53
percent of our discretionary spending. We are spending more on the
military than the next 11 nations combined. That is Russia, China, UK,
France, and you name it. That is more than all of them combined, and we
are spending on the military budget over half of our discretionary
spending.
Incredibly--and I know we don't talk about this too much--after
adjusting for inflation, we are now spending more on the military than
we did during the height of the Cold War, when we were in opposition to
the Soviet Union, a major superpower, or during the wars in Vietnam and
Korea. After adjusting for inflation, we are spending more today than
we did during the time of the Vietnam war.
This extraordinary level of military spending comes at a time when
the Department of Defense is the only agency
[[Page S3997]]
of our Federal Government that has not been able to pass an independent
audit. It comes at a time when defense contractors are making enormous
profits while paying their CEOs exorbitant compensation packages and
when the so-called War on Terror will end up costing us some $6
trillion. This is an agency that has not passed an independent audit.
I believe this is a moment in history when it would be a very good
idea for the American people and my colleagues here in the Senate to
remember the very profound statement made by Republican President
Dwight D. Eisenhower back in 1953. I think all of us remember that
Eisenhower was a four-star general who led the Allied forces to victory
in Europe. He knew a little bit about the military.
Eisenhower said:
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every
rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from
those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are
not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its
scientists, the hopes of its children.
What Eisenhower said 67 years ago was true then. It is true now. If
the horrific pandemic we are now experiencing has taught us anything,
it is that ``national security'' means a lot more than building bombs,
missiles, jet fighters, tanks, submarines, nuclear warheads, and other
weapons of mass destruction.
``National security'' also means doing everything that we can to make
sure that every man, woman, and child in this country lives with
dignity and security, and that includes many people and many
communities around this country that have been abandoned by our
government decade after decade.
Without a moment's hesitation, we spend billions and billions on the
military, while we come to work and step over people who are sleeping
out on the streets and move away from communities where children are
getting totally inadequate educations and where teachers are underpaid.
I believe that the time is long overdue to begin the transformation
of our national priorities, and I cannot think of a better way to do
that than by cutting military spending.
I have, for this bill, filed three separate amendments, and I would
like to discuss them briefly.
The first amendment would reduce the military budget by 10 percent
and use the $74 billion in savings to invest in distressed communities
around the country that have been ravaged by extreme poverty, mass
incarceration, deindustrialization, and decades of neglect. We are
proposing to transfer money from the military into distressed
communities all over this country where people are suffering, where
people are hurting, where people are unemployed, where people don't
have any healthcare, where infrastructure is crumbling, where people
need help.
This amendment is being cosponsored by the Senators from
Massachusetts--Senator Markey and Senator Warren. Importantly--and I
hope my colleagues hear this--this amendment has the support of more
than 60 organizations throughout this country, representing millions of
workers, environmentalists, and religious leaders, including Public
Citizen, Union of Concerned Scientists, Physicians for Social
Responsibility, Greenpeace, and the United Methodist Church.
At a time when more Americans have died from the coronavirus than
were killed in World War I, when over 30 million people have lost their
jobs in recent months, when tens of millions of Americans are in danger
of being evicted from their homes, when education in America, from
childcare to graduate school, is in desperate need of reform, when over
half a million Americans are homeless, when close to 100 million people
are either uninsured or underinsured, now is the time to invest in our
people, in jobs, in education, in housing, and in healthcare--not in
more nuclear weapons, not in more tanks, not in more guns.
Under this amendment, distressed cities and towns in every State in
this country would be able to use these funds to create jobs by
building affordable housing, building new schools, childcare
facilities, community health centers, public hospitals, libraries,
sustainable energy projects, and clean drinking water facilities.
These communities would also receive Federal funding to hire more
public schoolteachers, provide nutritious meals to children and
parents, and offer free tuition at public colleges, universities, or
trade schools.
This is a pivotal moment in American history, and it is time to
respond to those crises that we are facing by transforming our national
priorities.
Do we really want to spend more--billions more--on endless wars in
the Middle East, or do we want to provide decent jobs to millions of
Americans who are now unemployed? Do we want to spend more money on
nuclear weapons, or do we want to invest in a childcare system that is
dysfunctional, in an education system where community after community
lacks the funds to provide decent, quality education for their kids? Do
we want to invest in affordable housing when half a million Americans
are homeless and 18 million families in America are spending half of
their incomes on housing?
Those are the choices that we face, and I think the American people
are clear that the time is now to invest in our people, not in more
weapons systems.
When we analyze the Defense Department budget, it is very interesting
to note that Congress has appropriated so much money for the Defense
Department that the Pentagon literally does not know what to do with
it. According to the GAO, between 2013 and 2018, the Pentagon returned
more than $80 billion in funding back to the Treasury
People sleep out on the streets, children go hungry, schools are
crumbling, people have no health insurance, but we have given the
Department of Defense so much money that they are actually returning
some of it back to the government.
In my view, the time is long overdue for us to take a hard look not
only at the size of the Pentagon budget but at the enormous amount of
waste, cost overruns, fraud, and the financial mismanagement that has
plagued the Department of Defense for decades.
Let us be clear. About half of the Pentagon's budget--and people, I
think, don't know this--goes directly into the hands of private
contractors, not the troops. Over the past two decades, virtually every
major defense contractor in the United States has paid millions and
millions of dollars in fines and settlements for misconduct and fraud,
all while making huge profits on those government contracts. This is at
a time when we are not very vigorous in terms of our oversight.
Despite that, since 1995, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and United
Technologies have paid over $3 billion in fines or related settlements
for fraud or misconduct--$3 billion. That is what they have been caught
doing. That is what they have been found guilty of or agreed to in a
settlement. God knows what else is going on that we still don't know
about.
Yet those same three companies received around $1 trillion in defense
contracts over the past two decades alone.
Further, I find it interesting that the very same defense contractors
that have been found guilty or reached settlements for fraud are also
paying their CEOs excessive compensation packages.
Last year, the CEOs of Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grumman both made
around $20 million in total compensation, while around 90 percent of
the companies' revenue came from defense contracts. In other words,
these companies--and I am talking about Lockheed Martin and Northrup
Grumman--for all intents and purposes, are governmental agencies. Over
90 percent of their revenue comes from the taxpayers. Yet the CEOs of
those companies made over 100 times more than the Secretary of Defense.
It is not too surprising, therefore, that we have a revolving door
where our military people end up on the boards of directors of these
major defense companies.
Moreover, as the GAO has told us, there are massive cost overruns in
the Defense Department's acquisition budget that we have to address.
According to GAO, the Pentagon's $1.8 trillion acquisition portfolio
currently suffers from more than $628 billion in cost overruns, with
much of the cost growth taking place after production. In other words,
they quote a price, and then they come back after they get the contract
and say: Oh, we made a slight mistake; you are going to have pay
[[Page S3998]]
twice as much or 50 percent more, whatever it might be, for the weapons
system you wanted.
GAO tells us that ``many DoD programs fall short of cost, schedule,
and performance expectations, meaning DoD pays more than anticipated,
can buy less than expected, and, in some cases, delivers less
capability to the warfighter.''
A major reason why there is so much waste, fraud, and abuse at the
Pentagon is the fact that the Department of Defense remains the only
Federal agency that hasn't been able to pass an independent audit. That
is why I have filed an amendment with Senators Grassley, Wyden, and Lee
that would require the Defense Department to pass a clean audit no
later than fiscal year 2025.
When you have an agency that spends some $700 billion, I don't think
it is too much to ask that we have an independent audit of the
Department of Defense
Interestingly enough, many of us will recall what then-Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld--not one of my favorite public officials--told
the American people on the day before 9/11 about the serious financial
mismanagement at the DOD. Here is what Donald Rumsfeld said. Needless
to say, the following day was 9/11. That was the terrorist attack
against the United States, so what Rumsfeld said the day before that
never got a whole lot of attention. But this is what a conservative
Republican Secretary of Defense said:
Our financial systems are decades old. According to some
estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We
cannot share information from floor to floor in this
building--
That is the Pentagon.
because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that
are inaccessible or incompatible.
And yet, nearly 20 years after Donald Rumsfeld's statement, the
Defense Department has still not passed a clean audit, despite the fact
that the Pentagon controls assets in excess of $2.2 trillion or,
roughly, 70 percent of what the entire Federal Government owns.
The Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan
concluded in 2011 that $31 billion to $60 billion spent in Iraq and
Afghanistan had been lost to fraud and waste.
Separately, in 2015, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan
Reconstruction reported that the Pentagon could not account for $45
billion in funding for reconstruction projects. More recently, an audit
conducted by Ernst & Young for the Defense Logistics Agency found that
it could not properly account for some $800 million in construction
projects.
It is time to hold the Defense Department to the same level of
accountability as the rest of the government. That is not a radical
idea. And support for this concept is bipartisan. That is why I am
delighted that this amendment is supported by Senators Grassley and
Lee, as well as Senator Wyden, and we hope it will be supported by a
strong majority of the Members of the body.
I believe in a strong military, but we cannot continue to give more
money to the Pentagon than it needs when millions of children in our
country are food insecure--there are kids all over this country, in
every State in this country, who are hungry--and when we have 140
million people who cannot afford the basic necessities of life without
going into debt.
Further, let us be very clear, when we are talking about the need to
protect the American people, we are talking about the need to defeat
our most immediate adversary right now, an adversary that has taken in
recent months over 120,000 American lives, and that, of course, is the
coronavirus.
When we talk about defense, when we talk about protecting the
American people, we must get our priorities right and do everything we
can to protect the American people from the coronavirus. I don't think
nuclear weapons are going to do it. I don't think tanks are going to do
it. I don't think F-35s are going to do it. But we need to do
everything we can to protect the lives and the health of the American
people in terms of the coronavirus.
What virtually every scientist who has studied this issue will tell
us--and they just told me that this morning as a member of the HELP
Committee--is that the most effective way to prevent the transmission
of this deadly virus and to stop unnecessary deaths from COVID-19 is
for everybody in this country to wear a mask. It is not rocket science,
not very complicated, but if you wear a mask when you are in contact
with other people, the likelihood that you will spread the virus or get
the virus is significantly reduced.
That is why I have filed an amendment which requires the Trump
administration to use the Defense Production Act to manufacture the
hundreds and hundreds of millions of high-quality masks that this
country needs and to deliver them to every household in America.
This is not a radical idea. It is an idea that is being implemented
all across the world, in countries like South Korea, France, Turkey,
Austria, and many other countries; that is, they are distributing high-
quality face masks to all of their people for free or at virtually no
cost. That is what I believe we have to do.
There was a study that just came out from the University of
Washington very recently, which suggested that if 95 percent of the
American people wore face masks when they interact with others, we
could save some 30,000 lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.
I think this is a commonsense amendment. It is beyond my
comprehension how in the wealthiest nation in the world, with the
strongest economy, we have not been able to produce the personal
protective equipment--the masks, gowns, gloves--that our doctors and
nurses and medical personnel need. We have to do that, but we also have
to produce the masks that the American people need.
As everyone knows, over the past 3 months, the coronavirus has
infected more than 2.5 million Americans and caused nearly 130,000
deaths. More Americans have died from the coronavirus than were killed
fighting in the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq combined.
Sadly, there is new evidence that this pandemic is far from over and
may kill many tens of thousands more. In the past few days, new COVID-
19 cases in the United States have increased dramatically--jumping to
their highest level in 2 months and returning to where they were at the
peak of the outbreak.
If we take bold action now, we could prevent tens of thousands of
Americans from dying. That is exactly what we have to do.
Unfortunately, the Trump administration continues to endanger millions
of Americans by ignoring the most basic recommendations of medical
professionals and recklessly downplaying the most effective tool we
have to contain the pandemic; that is, simply wearing a mask.
This amendment is nothing more than listening to science and saving
lives. Again, this morning, I participated in a hearing with Dr. Fauci
and many others from the Trump administration. They were very clear:
Masks work. Social distancing works. And we should listen to the
scientists.
We are, as I mentioned earlier, at a pivotal moment in American
history. We as elected officials have to respond in a transformational
way. We have to stand up for people. We have to rethink the way we have
done things in the past. The amendments I have offered begin the
process of changing American priorities. I hope all three of those
amendments will pass.
With that, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Kentucky.
____________________