Angus King

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, on January 9 of this year, the President of the United States said: We are going to come up with DACA. We are going to do DACA, and then we can start immediately on phase two, which will be comprehensive. I think we have to do DACA first. Later that evening, he tweeted and said that in addition to DACA, we need to do the border. This is that bill. Much of the criticism are for things not in this bill. They weren't intended to be. This is a narrow bill dealing with DACA and border security. This is what the American people want us to do, and they are going to be puzzled if anyone in this body votes against a bill that will deal with DACA and border security.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I came in the Chamber just in the middle of a couple of these statements that have been made, and I was confused because I thought we were talking about the tax bill, the bill that went through the Senate in December with no hearings and no amendments. It didn't even have a fig leaf of bipartisanship. I am puzzled regarding my two colleagues, who seem so worried about the deficit, both of whom I believe voted for that bill, which, according to the Congressional Budget Office, is going to add $1.5 trillion to the deficit. There are two issues; one is process, and one is results. I myself am concerned about results. I am concerned about the deficit, and I think it is a legitimate question, but it ill-behooves one who, less than 6 weeks ago, voted for a massive, unfunded tax cut that will increase our deficit by well over $1 trillion. So it is OK as a matter of deficit politics to be for that bill and against a bill that funds community health centers in my State; that funds opioid treatment, which is desperately needed across this country; that funds our military in a way that they can operate and actually meet the needs of the national security of this country. That is what the bill before us does. So we can argue about those things, but it is touching, frankly, to hear these very lugubrious comments about process when the process on the tax bill was one of the worst processes in the history of this body. When tax reform was passed in 1986, there were some 33 hearings before the Finance Committee. It took 14 months, and the vote in the Senate was something like 90 to 10. That was a process. The process on the tax bill in December was atrocious. It was an embarrassment. The city council in Bangor, ME, would not have amended the leash law using that process. Now, tonight, people are coming and complaining about process--the people who voted for that bill. I am sorry, I am not very persuaded by that. At least now there has been some process in the sense that it has been bipartisan, that our leaders have been able to negotiate, that there has been input from the Appropriations Committee, from Members of the rank-and-file on both sides and in both Houses. I admit it is not a great process, but it seems to me those who are raising that issue tonight forfeited the right to raise that issue when they voted for the tax bill, as far as I know, without a peep about process or about deficits. I agree that we ought to get back to regular order. We ought to get back to working together. We ought to get back to committee hearings. But let's not have this amnesia from 6 weeks ago when we made one of the most significant decisions--a once-in-a-generation decision--about permanent tax policy that is going to affect the budget and the debt of this country for a whole generation. Here, tonight, we are getting all of this strong emotional plea about process, about what amounts to a 2-year budget, which, by the way, is the way we should do it--not according to this process, but we ought to be talking about 2-year budgets. So I am sympathetic on both the deficit issue and the process issue, but the lawyer in me says that you are estopped from raising that argument if you voted for the tax bill. You can't have it both ways. I listened to my esteemed colleague from Utah, and I understand his concerns. I share his concerns. If only he had said that in December. But, instead, he says it tonight when we are talking about funding our military, opioid treatment, and children's healthcare. I think you have to work it both ways. You can't just take one side of the debate and say that it is OK to do a tax cut with no process but it is not OK to take a bipartisan, negotiated arrangement on the budget because all of a sudden we are concerned about process. I yield the floor.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I would like to recognize the town of Mexico, ME, as they will celebrate their 200th year since incorporation on February 13, 2018. Located in Oxford County, Mexico is bordered by the Androscoggin River, as well as Dixfield and the historic mill town of Rumford. Recognized as the gateway to the Western mountains, visitors and residents enjoy the town's colorful fall foliage, quaint downtown, and proximity to the great Maine outdoors. The town of Mexico's unique name stemmed from the local interest in foreign politics. In the early 1700s, the territory was known as ``Township Number One'' until the area was bought by Colonel John Holman near the end of the 18th century. Just a few years after the American Revolutionary War, Holmanstown was renamed to honor the country of Mexico's fight for independence from Spain. Though the Mexican War for independence was occurring almost 3,000 miles south of the small town, locals were known to be sympathetic to supporting North America's decolonization from European powers. In the spirit of celebration, the town of Mexico has 13 bicentennial events planned throughout the year. The multigenerational festivities will include a parade, a carnival, a talent show, as well as ``Mexicoploy,'' a familiar board game specifically designed to recognize local businesses and organizations for their everyday accomplishments. I would like to commend the community members of Mexico for all that they have done during this time of celebration and historical remembrance. Maine is proud to honor a community that has successfully evolved and adapted with the changing times.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from Florida for yielding and congratulate him on the success of this launch in Florida. As he said, it is a huge boost, if you will, for the space industry in his State and a huge advantage for our country. It is a really amazing technological feat that I think will be positive. Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling Mr. President, I rise just for a few minutes to talk about the decision to allow drilling for oil and gas off of our coasts. This is a very consequential and serious decision involving important policy questions, and it has important implications for all of the coastal States and indeed for our country. My concern, to echo some of the comments that have already been made, is that there was very little, if any, consultation with the interested parties along our coastal States. In Maine--which, by the way, according to geographers I have talked to, has the longest coast of any State in the country; I am sure I will get some debate about that from some of my colleagues--we depend upon our coast. Tourism and visitation to our beaches and coastal communities are a billion-dollar industry-- the largest single employer in our State. So that is an enormous economic engine that is currently working and running and powering at least a portion of the economy of our State. Of course, on my tie, I have lobsters, which is a $1.7 billion-a-year industry in Maine, and it promises to be even stronger as processing is developed. We also have an offshore fishing industry--shrimp, shellfish. It is enormously important. It is a part of who we are in the State of Maine. In my view, this is a pretty straightforward decision. What are the benefits, and what are the costs? The benefits are speculative at best, limited at best, and the costs are immediate and an enormous challenge for us. The cost of a single incident along our coast, which would affect our lobster industry or our visitor industry in the summertime and in the spring and the fall, would be catastrophic for our State. I hope that the Department of the Interior will back off and enter into a process by which they make this decision by talking to the people who are most directly involved. I think this is a very important issue for all of the coastal States, and some may say that this could be advantageous to us. But let's get the facts, let's get the data, and let's understand the upside and the downside. The entire Maine congressional delegation, nonpartisan--that is, a Democrat, an Independent, and two Republicans--came out against this designation within hours of its having been made. This is one where I think the people of our State, through their elected representatives, need to be heard. I hope that the Department of the Interior will back away from this unilateral decision, make it in a much more considered way, listen to the residents, the industries, and the businesses that are affected by a decision like this, and let our States have the important role that they should play in a decision of this magnitude, affecting their citizens. As I said, I think this is an important decision. It deserves much deeper consideration, and I believe the people of Maine will very promptly say that this isn't something we are willing to support. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I appreciate the question of the Senator, and it is one I have given a great deal of thought. I think there have been a lot of discussions around here about fancy changes to the budget process and new bills and new budget processes and new rules and everything. I always stop and say: Wait a minute. We could have a budget process written by Aristotle and Thomas Jefferson, but if we don't do our job, it is not going to work. That is essentially where we are now. That is one of the reasons I voted no last night. I have had it with CRs--continuing resolutions--which really means ``can't resolve.'' We can't make decisions. I want to talk, with the indulgence of the Senator from Montana, a bit about this part of why we are where we are. I think this is a deeper issue because where we are today is going to simply be repeated 6 months from now, a year from now, 3 months from now, and 5 years from now. It just keeps going on. It is one of the reasons we can't get where we are going. I was a Governor of Maine in the 1990s. I remember vividly, and I can almost tell you where I was standing in my office when a group of legislators--we had a budget deadline of July 1. A group of legislators came to me because budgets are hard. We all know that. It is hard to resolve some of these issues. They came to me a week or so before the expiration date and said: Governor, we have never done it before here in Maine, but will you go along with a continuing resolution like they do in Washington, and we can solve this in an extra week? I said: Not on your life. Why did I say that? Because that is what we do here, and it doesn't work. That is what has gotten us into trouble. Governments all over the country don't do continuing resolutions. They struggle, they argue, they debate, and they get their budgets done. Yet here we have this constant escape hatch that is in the background. I have done a lot of reading and thinking about the Framers, who were geniuses--the people who wrote the Constitution. If you read the Federalist Papers, read Madison, read Hamilton, they understood human nature. That is why the Constitution has withstood the test of time for 200 years, because it is based upon a deep understanding and perception of why and how people do this. This is a human nature question. If you are confronted with a difficult decision, and you have an easy way out, you will always take it. That is what a continuing resolution is. It is basically a statement that says: We can't solve this. We are just going to kick it down the road a few months or 6 months or a week or a couple of months, and maybe something will happen then. My problem is, we will not know anything in a month that we don't know now, and there is no reason to delay it. The problem is, this government by continuing resolution--and I will give you the figures in a minute; they are breathtaking--but government by continuing resolution is, in fact, like a slow-motion shutdown because the agencies--particularly the military--can't plan. They can't commit. They can't commit to long-term contracts. The military--I am on the Armed Services Committee. I don't think we have had half a dozen hearings in the last 5 years where we haven't talked about sequestration and continuing resolutions. In fact, the Secretary of Defense came to us just a couple of weeks ago and said: Please don't do another continuing resolution. It is crippling to our military. Yes, DACA is important. All the other issues wrapped up in this are important. But I think there is an underlying issue about the functionality of this organization we really need to address. I went back and looked at the last 20 years. Here is some of the data I find amazing: In the last 20 years, we have averaged 5.6 continuing resolutions a year--every year for 20 years. The average number of days before we got to a budget after the deadline was 137 days, approaching half a year. If we can do it 6 months late, why can't we do it on time? What did we know 6 months later that we didn't know when we should have done it in the first place? I believe this is really one of the reasons this place doesn't work very well. If we continue to provide this exit, this easy way out, we will always find ourselves in positions like this, and that is where the problem is. If you could go to your chemistry teacher and say ``The Tuesday exam is looking a little tough for me; I would like a continuing resolution until Friday,'' who is not going to do it? That is what we are doing, and we are going to do it as long as we keep allowing it to happen. Frankly, I have talked to a lot of my colleagues off the floor in the last few days. We need to have a peasants' revolt here where we say we are not going to vote for these things anymore. Then the leadership and the committee chairs and the President are going to have to make the deals and the arrangements they have to make when they have to make them. Last fall, we blew through all kinds of deadlines. We blew through the CHIP deadline. We blew through the FQHC deadline. We blew through, of course, the biggest deadline of all--the budget, September 30. Oh, let's do a continuing resolution. And I voted for them. I voted for a bunch of them. But I am tired of it. This is at the core of one of the reasons this place doesn't work. All we have to do is do our job and do it now. It is not going to be easier 1 month or 2 months from now. Assuming we can find some resolution here in the next couple of days--and I deeply hope we can. Nobody wants to shut down the government. It is not good for anybody. But the deeper issue is that we have to get out of the continuing resolution business because as long as that escape hatch is there, it is going to be used. Madison would say that is human nature. I think we as a collective body have to weld that escape hatch shut so that people can't take it and we would have to get our job done at the time that is required. That would go a long way. We don't need fancy changes in the budget process; we just need to do the job we are assigned to do under the current system. As I said, I deeply hope our leadership can negotiate a solution to this problem. It seems to me they were very close last night. Hopefully, we can do it. I frankly don't understand--at the end of the evening last night, when the Senator made the motion for a 3-day continuing resolution so that we didn't have to shut down the government last night--we could have kept talking and found a solution--it was objected to. I found that very puzzling. I don't really understand those who are saying this side of the aisle shut down the government. Well, as of midnight or 10 minutes after, when you made your motion, it was the other side who shut down the government because they had before them an option that would have kept it open for 3 or 4 days to try to get this done. I appreciate the Senator raising these issues. I would like to ask him what is on the minds of the people of Montana. If they are like the people of Maine, they are just puzzled why we can't get these things taken care of.

Mr. KING. The same thing. I wish we could banish the phrase ``continuing resolution.'' I know of no business that does business that way. I know of no school district or very few States--I think some States allow 1 or 2 days if they are in really close negotiations, and I understand that. It would be one thing if we were right on it, and just give us a couple more days, and we can iron this out, or, on the other hand, if we had an agreement and it would take several days or perhaps even several weeks to actually do the writing of the bill. I understand that. I think people just scratch their heads because this is so alien to most people's common, everyday experience. This is one of the few places I know of where we have this kind of operation. I have a modest suggestion: no budget, no recess. If we don't get these things done, which is the most basic job we have, let's stay here until it gets done. Maybe that is another reflection of using human nature as an incentive, because everyone wants to have a break every now and then. I am glad we are here on this Saturday. At least we didn't shut down the government last night and then go home. We are going to be here tomorrow, as far as I am concerned and as far as I know. I am certainly going to be here. We have to have some discussion. The Senator mentioned the four leaders. I think this has to involve the President as well. One of the powers of the President is as a convener. I think the President has to be involved in this, he has to make some decisions, and he has to help guide the decisions--here is what I will take, here is what I won't take--and work with this party so we can get a comprehensive agreement on some of these important issues. I understand they have nice meeting rooms in the White House. They probably have sandwiches. I think they can bring the group down there and say: Nobody leaves this place until we get this done. As I say, I think the people of Maine are just scratching their heads and saying: Why can't we do this? I think another important point is that if this were a body and an institution that was one party, if everybody was of the same party, there wouldn't be any dispute--somebody would lay down the law, and that is what would happen. But this is an institution intended to represent the entire country and different views. That means that if you are in the majority--particularly in the Senate--you have a responsibility to get input from the minority, for people. In my case, I am in a minority of two. Everybody here has valid input. To just say: This is it. Here is the deal. Take it or leave it. And if you leave it, we are going to hammer you for not going along--that is no way to make good policy in the long run. There is a lot of good thinking in this Hall. There are a lot of smart people. In fact, I told somebody at home that I have never been in an outfit that has more good people and gets less done. There is something about this structure. I don't think there is anything in the water down here, but there is something about how this structure works that just keeps us from getting there. I respect that the majority has the majority, but there also has to be some role to work together, and that is what the 60-vote margin is all about. I think this is a place where there needs to be some compromise. One of my favorite philosophers, Mick Jagger, said: ``You don't always get what you want, but if you try sometime, you might just find you get what you need.'' I think that is where we are right now. Everybody can't get what they want, but if we work together, if we listen to each other, if we respect each other, and if we quit taking the easy way out, we will get what we need. That is what the people of Maine want us to do.

Mr. KING. I thank the Senator from Montana for his clear thinking, as always, and his contribution to this discussion. I hope our colleagues will pay heed, as they always should, to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. KING. I don't understand why we are adjourning when we are in this urgent situation. We could vote tonight on cloture and have an entire day tomorrow to work on this matter. This is irresponsible, and I just don't understand it, so I object to the motion.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Madam President, I rise today to talk not about legislation or about the tax bill--well, I may talk about the tax bill a little-- but I do wish to talk about deadlines and how we all do our work, whether it is in the Senate, in our businesses, or in our personal lives. I wish to talk about deadlines missed and deadlines that don't exist. One of the realities of this place that I think is very unfortunate is that we rarely make our deadlines. These are self-imposed deadlines. These are deadlines that we create. We pass a law that says something has to happen by September 30. We set the deadline, and then we don't make it. Most notoriously, it happens with budgets. I don't know the last time we had a budget on time. I think it is about 17 years ago. I suspect there are probably less than a dozen Senators in this Chamber who were here when we last passed a budget on time. There is no excuse for that. The problem is that when we put it off, we don't know anything more than we did at the time of the deadline. We could have done it, and yet, because we are able to, we put it off. That is human nature, unfortunately. Who among us would not have put off the deadline for a book report if we could have said to the teacher: Gee, I don't think I can make that Monday morning deadline. I will just do my book report on Tuesday. Life doesn't work that way. In the real world, there are deadlines. There are consequences if you don't get your work done on time. Things happen, and if you don't get your work done on time, usually, those things that happen are bad. I don't know where else, other than in this body, where deadlines, which have enormous implications and enormous importance, are simply ignored. I just sat down in the last day or so and put together real deadlines that we have in the law right now. What are they? Well, the Children's Health Insurance Program's deadline is September 30, 2017. That is gone. That has passed. I can give you 23,000 reasons that we should have met that deadline. That is the number of young people in Maine who are covered by the Children's Health Insurance Program, and there are 9 million nationwide. But we missed the deadline. Why? I can't find any reason. We don't know anything now that we didn't know in the middle of September or in August when we could have passed this program, but we just blew right by it. Maybe it is because none of our kids are in this program. I venture to say that if the children of the Members of the Senate were in the CHIP program, we would have met that deadline, but we didn't. What is another one? Community health centers had another deadline of September 30, which was missed. I will give you 200,000 reasons that we should have met that deadline. That is the number of people in my State of Maine who are served by federally qualified health centers. I was at one just on Friday. They serve people who otherwise wouldn't get care. They fill an enormous gap, particularly in a rural State, to provide healthcare to people who need it, but we didn't make the deadline. There was no particular reason not to make this deadline. We just blew right by it. It was not all that important. I venture to say that if our families were covered under this program, we would have gotten it done. No Senators' families are covered by federally qualified health centers. If they had been, we would have gotten it done. Of course, the granddaddy of all of deadlines mentioned is the budget: October 1, 2017. We missed it--no deadline. We just went right by it. Nothing happened. Well, what we did was to pass a continuing resolution. A continuing resolution really should be called a ``cop-out resolution.'' It is basically saying that we are not going to make the hard decisions in a budget. We are just going to push them forward for a month or two. But the problem is that the month or two comes. In fact, it is coming this Friday, and now we are talking about another continuing resolution to go into January or February. No business would do this. Families can't even do this. Some time ago, I was the Governor of Maine. I remember vividly. I can practically tell you where I was standing in my office. We have a deadline in Maine of July 1 for our budget. We always make it. Members of the legislature of one of the parties came to me. They were having a hard time getting a budget. It was very contentious, as it is every year. He said: Governor, let's just do a continuing resolution like they do in Washington, and we can solve this problem in the next 2 weeks. I said: Not on your life, because if we do, once we open the Pandora's box of continuing resolutions in Maine or in Iowa or in Mississippi or Florida, then we are stuck. We will never get a budget on time again because it is too easy to put off the hard decisions. What do we know now about the budget that we didn't know in August? What will we know in January that we don't know now? By the way, a continuing resolution for the entire budget is bad for the government and disastrous for national security. I serve on the Armed Services Committee. We have hearings both from our civilian leadership and our military leadership, and they have told us repeatedly: Please get us a budget. The continuing resolution doesn't allow us to plan. It locks us into last year's priorities. It doesn't allow us to look forward and make commitments that will save the taxpayers money if we have the authority. It is a disaster for national security, but a deadline was missed on September 30. It looks like we are going to miss another deadline on December 22, and we will be here talking about funding the government, doing the budget, sometime in January or maybe in February. There is no reason for it. There is no reason for it except that we are simply avoiding making difficult decisions. The next one is DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. The real deadline started on October 6. That is when people started to lose the ability to re-up their qualifications for DACA. Over 100 people a day are losing their DACA status. In the last week it has been, I think, something like 1,700--in the last week or 10 days. These are people who are going to go into the holidays unsure about whether they are going to be able to continue to live in this country. These are young people, as we all know. This is the only country they know. They were brought here as little kids. They weren't illegal immigrants. They were brought here as children, and they are contributing to our society, and they are working and paying taxes. But we missed the deadline starting in October. Now, even the President said we should fix this program, and he gave us 6 months. He said: I am going to disallow the program, but not until March 5, 2018. I don't know whether it is legal to bet in the District of Columbia, but I would be willing to bet that we are still struggling with this question on March 4, 2018. I deeply hope not because lives are being toyed with here unnecessarily. We could make the decisions now. We could decide to reach a compromise agreement on this program, which Members of both sides of the aisle think needs to be done, including the President. Let's get it done. But it is one more missed deadline. Next is the National Flood Insurance Program, with a deadline of December 22, which is 4 days from now. I don't think we are going to make it. If ever there was a time of importance for the National Flood Insurance Program, it is now. We have had enormous flooding issues with the hurricanes in Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Yet the flood insurance program expires on December 22. Why don't we get it done? Because it is not our houses. It is not our houses that are at risk to get the flood insurance. I suspect if we had the houses that were part of this problem, it would be solved. Medicare extenders expire on December 31 of this year. Are we going to get those done? I deeply hope so, but I am not so sure. FISA section 702, one of the most important national intelligence provisions that we have, also expires at the end of the year. Are we going to get that done? I deeply hope so, but I am not optimistic. Next, we have the wildfires and FEMA disaster aid for Harvey, Irma, Maria, and the wildfires. These are huge disasters. We have partially funded them, but certainly not to the point that is going to be required. Those deadlines were all this fall. At the bottom of my chart of priorities is tax reform. Boy, are we going to make that deadline. The only problem is that it doesn't exist. There is no deadline for that. There was no deadline. It is not December 22. It is not Christmas. It is not New Year's. It is a self- imposed deadline that is not in law anywhere. I agree that we need to do tax reform, but we have been doing it on an unprecedented scale and speed that is unnecessary. We have missed and ignored all these real deadlines in exchange for focusing all of our attention on a fake deadline. Sure, it would be nice to get it done, and we could have gotten it done. It could have been done on a bipartisan basis. We could have started last summer, and we would have had a bill just like the bill that emerged from the HELP Committee with regard to healthcare, on a bipartisan basis. But instead it was a closed process, done with unprecedented speed, with virtually no hearings--well, no hearings, no real hearings on the bill, no serious outside experts, no analysis of what is in it. We have been given a 500-page bill that we are going to vote on in probably a day or so. Yet we are racing to meet a deadline that didn't exist. It is boring to talk about process, but that is what I am really talking about today. I just don't understand an institution that doesn't make its real deadlines and yet races and throws everything aside to try to make a deadline that just came out of the air. It is not in any law, any rule, any expectation--let's do it by Christmas or by the end of the year. It is no way to run a business, and it is certainly no way to run the government on behalf of the American people. I have never been in an institution or in a group of people who are as capable as the people who are here, and I find it genuinely puzzling as to why we perform so poorly and why the public opinion of us is so low. These are good people on both sides of the aisle. Yet something about the way this institution works keeps us from meeting the rules and expectations that the rest of society takes for granted, such as making deadlines, doing your job, doing what you are paid to do. One of the most fundamental responsibilities is to pass a budget. We have members of our Appropriations Committee who have been working for a year to put the budget together. It is done, and we could do this, but instead we are putting it off and putting it off and putting it off. I wouldn't be surprised if, come January or February--assuming we don't make it by this Friday--there are going to be people who say: Let's just do a continuing resolution for the rest of the year--a cop- out resolution, a nonresolution, a nondecision on behalf of the people of this country. I think we can do better. I think we can begin to regain the trust of the American people by going back and doing things the way we are supposed to according to the old norms, with hearings and considerations and making deadlines and meeting our obligations to our citizens and to our country. I deeply hope that as the year turns, we also make a turn and that we make a turn to do this place better, to do our work that the American people hired us to do, to do it on a timely basis, and to meet our responsibilities. I believe we can do it. I believe we can do it better, and I deeply hope that we do so. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, a little bit later this afternoon, I am going to be offering a motion to instruct conferees in connection with the tax bill that may be one of the most simple, straightforward motions ever offered in this body. I will read it in its entirety: We move that the managers on the part of the Senate at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill, H.R. 1, be instructed to insist that the final conference report not increase the Federal budget deficit for the period of the fiscal years 2018 through 2027. It could not be more straightforward: Don't increase the budget deficit. Why? This chart basically tells the story. We are headed, literally, into uncharted territory with regard to our national debt. It is a threat to this country. It is a threat to our national security. It is a threat to every man, woman, and, especially, to every child, because they are the people who are going to have to pay this debt. This is the history of our debt, in constant dollars, going all the way back to the Revolutionary War, and it tells a very powerful story. At the very beginning of our country, in 1790, we incurred a big piece of debt to pay for the Revolutionary War. They paid it off. There was another mountain of debt to pay for the Civil War. It was paid off. The debt goes up again to pay for World War I, and it was paid off. Then it goes up for the Great Depression and then to a peak in World War II. What happened after World War II? As we all know, World War II was fought--our country was defended, and victory was achieved--by something that has been called the ``greatest generation,'' and the ``greatest generation'' paid its bills. It paid off the debt from World War II. It went down in the seventies and then back up again in the eighties. Here is where we are today. The bill that was passed in the dead of night, early on Saturday morning, adds $1.5 trillion to that debt--$1.5 trillion. We are adding to the debt at a time of low unemployment, enormous growth in the stock market, and a relatively strong economy. It is not perfect, by any means, but compared to where we were 5 or 6 years ago, we are in positive territory on the economy. That is when you should pay down debt, not add to it unnecessarily. If we were in a crisis, if we were in a recession, if we were in a conflict that required immediate mobilization, that is when you would want to add to the debt. That is what you borrow for. We are borrowing to pay park rangers' salaries, and we are borrowing to pay for the ordinary operation of government. Now we are borrowing to give major tax cuts during a time of relatively positive economic growth. I know that it is not as high as it should be and as high as we want it to be, but this bill we passed, which is going to add to the debt, is not going to do much of anything to assist us with growth. The analysis of the Joint Committee on Taxation is that it will add eight-tenths of 1 percent to GDP growth in 10 years. That is almost immeasurable. It doesn't come close, by the way, for paying for itself. It doesn't come close--maybe 15 or 20 percent. By the way, that is an interesting number because all of the studies that I have seen about tax cuts and their effects on economic growth indicate that they do about 20 percent of their cost. The other 80 percent is eaten by our kids. It is unethical what we are doing. If 5-year-olds knew what we were doing and could vote, we would all be out of a job because they are the ones who are going to have to pay this bill. You see this mountain climbing, and it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see that we are going to be higher than at World War II in a matter of a few years, added to by this bill that we just passed the other night. It is unconscionable. It is unnecessary. If, indeed, we were going to expand the economy by 3 or 4 percent a year and everybody were to say that that was what we were going for, then, maybe--OK?--3 percent a year times 10 is 30 percent growth. We are talking about eight-tenths of 1 percent over 10 years--not per year, over 10 years. My motion is very, very simple: Don't come back with a bill that adds to the deficit. There are lots of ways that we can do tax reform. There are lots of ways that we can cut corporate taxes and make ourselves more competitive. We can do offshore tax cuts. There is a lot of ability to do this without hammering the deficit. In fact, I understand that, as of this morning, we improved the finances of this bill by mistake to the tune of $389 billion--a mistake in the bill that we passed--because we did it so fast that nobody knew what was in it. I have a new rule. The faster a bill goes through the Congress, the worse it is, and I think that is what we have seen in this case. We can deal with tax reform. We can increase our competitiveness. We can get our taxes aligned, particularly our business taxes, with the rest of the world without loading this debt onto our children. A tax cut, when all you are doing is borrowing to fill the hole, is not a cut. It is a shift of the tax from you to your kids. You are on your deathbed. You are lying there, and you say to your children: Come on over. I will give you my last words. They go over, and they are listening. They want wisdom. What you say is this: Here is the credit card. We had a great trip to Acapulco. You can pay for it. That is not responsible. Nobody would do that. Yet that is exactly what we are doing in this bill. It is wrong, and it is not necessary. I think one of the questions that we are going to have to ask and answer and that we are going to see--it is going to play out--is what companies are going to do with this newfound income when the taxes are cut dramatically from 35 percent to 20 percent. Is that money going to go into new plants and equipment? Is it going to go into wages? Is it going to increase people's wages and productivity? Is it going to go into stock buybacks, which raise the values of the stocks? That is great for the owners, but it doesn't do a thing for the workers, and it doesn't do much for the U.S. economy. Again, my motion could not be more straightforward and simple: Work on the tax bill in conference, but I think that you are going to have a hard time making a good bill out of it. Whatever you do, come back with something that is deficit-neutral. By the way, that is where this discussion started. Last January, the leadership in both Houses and in both parties was talking about deficit-neutral tax reform. Somewhere along the way, it became: Let's break the bank; let's add new debt for our kids; let's create a situation in which we are not going to have any slack when we need it. No business would run this way, and it is wrong for us to try to run the country this way. I am going to make this motion. Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have been talking to me and to the country for years about the dangers of the deficit. Suddenly, I predict, if this bill becomes law, at about the time the ink is dry, they are going to say: Oh, my Lord. We have a deficit. Look at that. I didn't know that. We are going to have to cut spending. We are going to have to cut Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security because we have this huge deficit. We don't have to add to it and make it worse in this tax bill. That is what is really bothering me, because the very people who have been talking to me and to whom I have been listening for 20 years about how serious the deficit is, I was fool enough to believe. I think it is a serious problem, and I think we need to address it, but this is the opposite of addressing it. We are making it worse at the very time that we should be talking about paying down the debt, not adding to it. We can do better. The American people expect more of us. We can do better, and I believe and deeply hope that we will come to our senses and do better in connection with this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. KING. Mr. President, this could not be a more simple motion. It simply says to the conferees to bring us back a tax bill that is deficit-neutral. It can be done. It should be done. We are in a period now where we have no business adding to the Federal deficit. We know this bill will add at least $1 trillion to the deficit--probably more--if the middle-class tax cuts are extended, as everyone expects they will be. This is a burden we are placing on our children and our grandchildren. We are giving ourselves a tax cut and letting them pay for it. I believe that is wrong. It is bad policy. We are also utilizing whatever slack we have, as far as debt goes, now, when we are in relatively good times, and we will not have it available when we have a problem, such as a recession or some kind of-- heaven forbid--attack on our country. The motion is very simple. This is a time when we should be paying down debt and not adding to it. If our children--if our 5-year-olds-- knew what we were doing in this bill and could vote, we would be out of a job.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I called my motion up that is now on the floor of the U.S. Senate. It is a very simple one. It may be one of the most straightforward, short motions to be offered in the course of this debate. The motion is very simple. It refers this bill back to the committee with instructions to bring back a bill which is deficit- neutral. I believe that can be done, and I think it can be done in a very short period of time. I think it is important, and I am going to outline why. Before I get to that, I will mention that Senators Tester, Whitehouse, Harris, Van Hollen, Kaine, Warner, Bennet, Udall, Heitkamp, Manchin, Coons, Feinstein, and Donnelly are all announced supporters of this motion. I offer my thanks and appreciation to them for their assistance. Again, the motion is very simple. Recommit the bill. Have the committee work it once more, and come back to the Senate floor with a bill that does not bust the deficit. This is one of the most important votes any of us will take in this body. I think it may be the most important. This is a bill that will affect America and Americans for a generation. If past history is any guide, this will be the major tax reform bill for the next 20 to 30 years. It will affect every business, every citizen, and our entire economy. The stakes, in other words, are incredibly high, and it is my assumption that when the stakes are high, the bar for the process will also be high. If you are doing something with such enormous ramifications, it is common sense that you take a great deal of care to thoroughly understand the provisions of the bill, its implications, its impacts, its possible unintended consequences and be as careful as possible in order to determine how this bill will affect our country and our economy. Instead, we have the worst possible process. In other words, we have the highest stakes and the lowest process. It is the worst process, I think, I have ever seen in a public body. The Bangor City Council would not amend the leash law using this process. We are talking about one of the most important bills that any of us will ever vote on that has had zero hearings before the U.S. Senate. It has had no input from the citizenry, no input from outside the community of this body--in fact, outside the committee that has brought the bill to the floor. There has been no outside expert analysis. There are bound to be mistakes in this bill. In fact, I have a new rule I am proposing today. I am calling it, modestly, King's law. King's law is: The faster a bill goes through this body, the worse it will be. That is what we are talking about today. We are talking about bringing something through the U.S. Senate--supposedly the world's most deliberative body--with little or no deliberation, and the impacts are going to be enormous. I just believe we can slow down and do this right. The last time there was major tax reform in this country was 1986. It is very instructive to look back and watch and look and see how they did it. No. 1, it was bipartisan from the beginning, and the Senate Finance Committee had 33 hearings on the bill--33 as compared to 0. Have we really fallen that far in this institution that we cannot even have a series of hearings to understand what it is we are doing? It took 10 months to consider that bill, come to a conclusion, and have a vote on the Senate floor--10 months. We are talking about a matter of days for the consideration of this bill. The final point about the 1986 bill is that it had passed the Senate with 90 votes. That could happen here. Two days ago, I was on a stage with 16 colleagues--Members of the Democratic caucus--all of whom were prepared, ready, anxious, and able to support tax reform, including cutting the corporate tax rate to make our businesses more competitive, but there has been no process to let them in, to allow them to talk. The point I am trying to make here is, the vote we take tonight or tomorrow morning--or whenever it is--does not have to be the end of this process. It can be the beginning of a real process, which is what it should be. Now, one of my concerns--there are a lot of problems with this bill, but the concern I want to focus on today and is the background of my amendment which recommits and asks that the committee come back with a deficit-neutral bill--is the debt and deficit itself. This is a chart that should strike fear into the heart of every American. This is basically the history of our national debt as a percentage of the gross domestic product. This isn't dollars because that can be misleading. Dollars, of course, are worth less now than they were in 1930 or in 1850. This is a percentage of the gross domestic product. It started back in 1790, when the early Americans were paying off the debt from the Revolutionary War. If you will notice, there is a pattern here that stops right here. The pattern is, when we get into major catastrophes, including wars, that is when we have to borrow money, and that is what we did. Here is the Civil War, but it was paid down in 1910. Then there was World War I--another huge expenditure. This is why you preserve your borrowing power for when you actually need it. Then there was World War II. Now, this line that goes down right here is of the ``greatest generation.'' The ``greatest generation'' not only fought World War II, but they paid for it. They paid down the debt, and it goes down into the 1970s. Then we have a bump up and then down. Look at where we are headed. We are headed to a place where we are not going to be able to sustain this debt. Everybody knows that. Yet the bill we are voting on today expands the deficit by somewhere between a half trillion dollars and two and a half trillion dollars, depending upon how it is all sorted out. Of course, there is a little bit of fake bookkeeping, where the personal changes to the Tax Code expire in order to not bump up the cost within the budget window, but everybody knows, and the people in the majority who are supporting this bill are winking and nodding and saying: Of course, those will be extended. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say they are going to be extended and take credit for that and then turn around and say but don't worry about the deficit. This is the ``greatest generation.'' This is the ``me too'' generation that is not paying for things, and it is shameful. It is going to come back to haunt us. Here is why. We are now in a kind of ``Alice in Wonderland'' of interest rates-- the lowest interest rates that we have had in my lifetime. Around 2 percent is what we are paying on our Federal debt. The problem is, the average for interest rates on our Federal debt over the last 50 years has been about 5.5 percent. It is a really easy calculation when the debt is $20 trillion, for 1 percent on the debt is $200 billion a year. If you go to 5.5 percent, just interest on the debt is $1.1 trillion. Now, if that number rings a bell for anyone in this room, that is because that is the size of the entire current Federal discretionary budget, defense and nondefense--$1.1 trillion just in interest. Interest rates are already starting to creep up. This is not an abstract fear; this is a high likelihood. I have been around public life and politics for a long time, and I have heard a lot about deficits. People have been concerned about deficits until today. The deficit doesn't seem to be a big deal anymore. I predict that after this bill passes, within a couple of years when the deficits start to mount up, the same people who are voting for this bill today are going to say: Oh, my goodness. We have these huge deficits. What are we going to do? I think we have to cut entitlements; we have to cut Social Security; we have to cut Medicare; and, certainly, we have to cut all of those domestic programs. I do not think that is right. We had a hearing this morning in the Armed Services Committee with a group of people who were talking about our national defense strategy. Virtually everyone at that table--I think there were five or six-- agreed that the cost of rebuilding our defense capability over the next 10 years will be about $1 trillion. That is over and above the current defense budget. We are talking about an additional $1 trillion. That happens to be the amount that this tax bill will suck out of the revenues of this country and be unavailable for any purpose, including defense. Those who are concerned in this body about national security should be very concerned about this bill. I believe it will make it impossible to do the kind of restoration of the national security apparatus in this country that is necessary because we are not going to have the money. What we are doing is simply borrowing money from our children to give ourselves tax cuts. That is really the essence of what is going on here. If we were cutting taxes on a revenue-neutral basis, that would make sense. I think you could make an argument for broadening the base and lowering the rates. All of those kinds of things could be done, and you could get the stimulative effect. Instead, all we are doing is shifting the tax to our kids. If you are already in a deficit situation and you cut taxes further, it makes a hole. You fill the hole with borrowed money, and that borrowed money is going to have to be paid back by these young people who are sitting in this room today. If 5-year-olds knew what we were doing and could vote, none of us would have jobs because we are spending their money. It is as if you are lying on your deathbed, you call your children over to hear your last words, and your last words are: Here is the credit card. We had a great vacation, your mother and I. You pay the bill. That is what we are doing. It is wrong. It is unethical. We are passing the bill on to our children. I know that the purpose is to stimulate economic growth, and I am all for it. I believe, and said earlier on, that I can see where a reduction of corporate tax rates and offshore rates is called for to make us competitive in the world economy, but the idea that these tax cuts are going to pay for themselves--it has never happened. It has never happened. It hasn't happened. It didn't happen with the Bush tax cuts. It hasn't happened in Kansas. It just hasn't happened. We are talking about a dramatic increase in the Federal deficit on top of what is already coming. That is what is really bothersome about this. We can't talk about this bill in isolation without acknowledging we are already spending half a trillion dollars per year more than we are taking in--in relatively good times. These are the times when we should be paying back this debt, not making it worse. No rational business would be taking on debt when they are doing well. When you are doing well, you pay down your debt, and then you have a reserve for when you need it. We have no reserve. We are using up our cushion. We are using up whatever cushion we might need for disasters, for some kind of, heaven forbid, conflict, or simply for a recession. This is an incredibly destructive bill, and it doesn't have to be that way. It doesn't have to be that way. This is a place where I believe we can work together. This isn't a yes-or-no issue. I understand the healthcare debate was a yes-or-no issue: Do you want to repeal the Affordable Care Act or not? Yes or no? This, however, is about numbers. Should the corporate rate be 25, 22, 28, or 20? Or how do we deal with the AMT or the estate tax or the personal exemption? All of those dials can be changed in order to achieve a targeted growth, which is what we all want. I realize growth is the best way to solve this problem without, at the same time, exacerbating this really serious deficit problem that we are headed into. There are provisions of this bill that have nothing to do with economic growth. The estate tax--what does that have to do with it? Eliminating the AMT--what does that have to do with economic growth? There are provisions in this bill that don't meet the theory of the bill, yet significantly aggravate its fiscal effect. My motion is straightforward: Recommit the bill and come back with a deficit-neutral bill, which I think can be done. It wouldn't take a month. We can have some hearings that will give us some information about what the impacts of this bill will be, and we will have a much better bill. It will be a bipartisan bill, and we can meet the responsibilities we have to the American people. I believe we owe the people no less. As I said at the beginning, there will be no more important bill we can vote on in this body in our careers, and we owe it to the American people to, No. 1, understand fully what we are voting on and, No. 2, to do it in the most careful possible way to be the most targeted and most effective and most responsible change that we can make in order to help our economy and also to help all the people of this country. There are many other issues with the bill, but I chose today to focus my remarks and also my motion on the effects on the deficit because I think it is one of the most long-term threats. In fact, the former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that the national debt is the most serious threat to our national security in the long run, and to aggravate it unnecessarily, as this bill would do, I think is irresponsible. We can do better, I am sure, if we will slow down, listen to one another, and do what the American people expect of us. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, before addressing the topic that I want to take up--and I know it is one that is near and dear to the Presiding Officer's heart--which is rural healthcare, I want to express my admiration and thanks to Senator Reed, the Senator from Rhode Island, and Senator McCain for their incredible leadership of the Armed Services Committee. They show us what it is like to lead. They show us what it is like to take on difficult issues and to work out difficult problems, and I would like to express my appreciation to them for that. I see the Senator----

Mr. KING. Absolutely.

Mr. KING. I thank the Senator. I say to Senator Reed, I appreciate your leadership.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I did a mathematic calculation a couple of years ago, and it resulted in an interesting conclusion. The Senate is a rural body. Eighteen Members of the U.S. Senate represent a majority of Americans. That means 82 percent--or 82 out of 100 Senators-- represent smaller States, more rural communities. Today, I want to talk about a disastrous development that is headed for our rural communities that we have the capability to fix, and it is one we should fix sooner rather than later. I am talking about Federal funding for federally qualified health centers, which expired on October 1. Seventy percent of the funding for the FQHCs expired on October 1. One hundred percent of the National Health Service Corps funding expired on October 1. These are vital programs that serve rural America and provide incredibly important healthcare services. They are an overlooked part of our national healthcare system, in part because they are traditionally in rural and outback locations. In Maine, we have 20 centers and 70 facilities scattered all over our State, and they are providing services every day to over 200,000 people. This is a vital part of our healthcare system. Yet the funding expired at the end of September, and so far nothing has been done. How important is it? In Maine, there are 1,700 employees at these facilities; a total economic impact of over $300 million a year; $8 million in State and local tax revenue and $32 million in Federal tax revenue. They provide $16 million worth of uncompensated care that goes to Maine people who need the help. They are efficient. In Maine, they have saved Medicaid over $100 million, and $257 million is the estimate for what they have saved the overall healthcare system. Again, FQHCs provide 1,700 jobs and support another 1,000 jobs in their communities. But this isn't only about economics and economic development and jobs; it is about healthcare. One in six people in Maine gets their healthcare from FQHCs--210,000 people. They accept everybody who comes to their door. I have been to them all over the State. They use a sliding-fee scale for people who are low income, who don't have insurance, and they provide all manner of services. It depends on the center; different centers have different services. They have medical, behavioral health, dental, substance abuse treatment and support, case management, optometry, podiatry, OB/GYN, prescription assistance, outreach and enrollment, pharmacy, radiology, and school-based healthcare services. These are the healthcare providers for rural America. And it is not only Maine; it is across the country. There are 10,000 sites across the United States. Some 26 million patients are at risk. Well, what is the big deal? The big deal is that people are going to lose their healthcare services. We estimate that in Maine, we are going to lose about 400 clinicians and administrative and support staff who will have to be laid off at the beginning of the year unless we solve this problem in the immediate future. At least 25 of these sites will be forced to close, and we believe there will be almost 30,000 Maine residents who will lose access to their healthcare system. Most of the FQHCs--federally qualified health centers--are getting by on their funding from last year, so the expiration of the funding hasn't hit them yet, but it will begin to hit them on January 1. That is what we have to respond to. It is also already having an effect just by creating uncertainty. I got an impassioned letter from the leader of one of our centers in Maine about the fact that they have been very diligently recruiting a dentist to come to their community. Dentists are very hard to come by in rural America. They had one who was ready to come, and then suddenly they heard about the uncertainty surrounding the funding--that it may or may not come through--and that dentist is now reconsidering their decision to go to this Maine community. That is a tragedy. That is a tragedy for the people of that town, where these services are literally not available. So what does it matter? It matters because we are talking about people losing their healthcare services. This has never been a partisan issue. I don't think there is a heck of a lot of debate around here about the importance of FQHCs and that we need to get them refunded. In fact, the Presiding Officer and Senator Stabenow have sponsored a bill, the CHIME Act, that would resolve this issue. We just need to get it on the floor and get it done. We have proved today by the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act that we can take major issues, bring them to the floor, and move them forward, especially those that aren't particularly controversial. But my concern is that even though there doesn't seem to be controversy, it is just not happening, and now our centers are having to make plans for layoffs, for closures, and for closing their doors to the people who need the care. This is something we can do. This is something we can resolve. It is within our power. The legislation is ready to go, and we should get this done. We are leaving today for the Thanksgiving holiday, but if we leave at the end of the year and haven't done this, it will be a tragedy for rural America. It will be a betrayal of rural America. It will be a betrayal of our constituents. All of us have been to these centers and seen the care that they provide, the caring that they provide, the passion that the people bring to the services in their communities, and how much they mean to their communities. This is one of the best Federal programs ever created, and it has always been supported on a bipartisan basis. I urge my colleagues today to prepare ourselves to get this done as soon as we possibly can when we get back after Thanksgiving. We have so much to be thankful for, and I want my people in Maine to realize that they can be thankful for those health centers that are literally lifelines in their communities and mean so much to them. I believe this is something we can and should and will do. Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you for being a leader on this issue. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the efforts of the many organizations that have agreed to come together to establish a single continuum of care for the State of Maine. Continuums of Care are supported by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to promote a communitywide commitment to the goal of ending homelessness. They are a vital partner in the works to quickly rehouse homeless individuals and families to minimize trauma and dislocation; promote access to and effective use of mainstream programs; and optimize self- sufficiency among individuals and families experiencing homelessness. Continuums of Care make important decisions about priorities for Federal funding of programs that provide significant services. Prior to establishing this single continuum of care for Maine, there were three separate entities that existed: the City of Portland, Greater Penobscot, which was centered on Bangor, and everything else fell under the ``Balance of State'' Continuum. While receiving funding to operate a continuum of care funding requires a competitive application process, these three groups have consistently worked closely together and coordinated their means. In 2012, the Greater Penobscot Continuum and ``Balance of State'' merged together to create the Maine Continuum of Care. Then, in 2017, the Portland Continuum consolidated with the Maine Continuum--achieving a single continuum of care--an effort that greatly advanced the level of collaboration among the member agencies and has proven to be an important step in streamlining efforts and assuring available resources are meeting the needs of those who become homeless. The merger of the two continuums has resulted in more accurate collection and management of data about the extent and characteristics of homelessness in Maine. A single continuum of care has achieved efficiencies in administrating the responsibilities delegated by the Federal Government to meet the challenge of ending homelessness in Maine. As a unit, they identify the homeless service priorities and distribute resources accordingly. The organizations and agencies that participate in continuum of care include: Maine's network of 37 emergency shelters serving the entire State; MaineHousing and the Department of Health and Human Services; homeless youth providers; veterans groups; mental health and substance abuse service providers; supportive housing developers; local governments and public housing authorities; and homeless advocacy organizations. In addition to providing housing and services, the members of the Maine Continuum of Care play a major role in several other statewide initiatives, including participating in the data collection and entry for the annual homeless assessment report AHAR, and new system performance measure reports. This significant merger was a collaborative endeavor involving Maine's homeless provider organizations, social service providers, and State and Federal agencies. I especially want to thank the leadership and guidance provided by MaineHousing, the State's housing authority, and the chairs of Maine's continuums throughout the merger process. I am honored to recognize all who were involved and to thank them for placing the individuals and families who are struggling to meet this basic human need for a warm, safe, and stable home at the center of our collective efforts to end homelessness in the State of Maine.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, I don't wish to take much of the Senate's time, but I want to emphasize and echo the comments made by the Senator from Tennessee. He and his ranking member, Patty Murray of Washington, have done a magnificent job. What I want to emphasize is not necessarily the content of the bill, which he has outlined expertly, but the process by which this bill has come to the U.S. Senate. To me, it is an example of how this place can and should work. There were a series of essentially four all-day hearings. There were workshops to which all Senators were invited, and I think at least half of the Senate attended several of those workshops. We had a bipartisan witness list. We had Governors. We had insurance commissioners. We had experts on the health services industry from around the country. The result was a piece of negotiated, compromised but thoroughly worked through, and important legislation that can do exactly what the Senator from Tennessee outlined: Lower premiums, end the chaos in the individual market, save the Federal Government money over the period of the next 10 or 20 years, and really make a difference for the people of Maine. I particularly want to compliment and express my appreciation to Senator Alexander and Senator Rounds for the work they have done to bring the issue to this point. I deeply hope, as the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, just said, that when the President returns from his trip, he will see this bipartisan agreement--or in my case, a nonpartisan agreement--that has come forward to solve some serious problems. It doesn't solve all the problems, but it is a step forward. It also is exactly what the American people want us to do--to talk to each other, listen to each other, gather the data and the information, and come up with legislative proposals that make common sense and will make a better place, a better healthcare system, and serve our citizens and our people across the country in a better way than the current arrangement. Again, I want to compliment my colleague from Tennessee and also my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Rounds, for the work they have done on this. We are at a place where we can really do something good, not only substantively but also by showing the Nation how this body can and should work. I yield the floor.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the significance of Maine Veterans Cemetery-Caribou and the individual and community spirit of generosity that sustains it as an honored and hallowed resting place for our Nation's veterans. Conceived in 1998, the Maine Veterans Cemetery in Caribou was created because of a small but determined grassroots effort in Aroostook County, ME, that I was proud to support when I was Governor of Maine and am proud today to acknowledge as Senator for Maine. A diverse team of dedicated people came together to create the Northern Maine Veterans Cemetery Corporation, NMVCC, comprised of members from various veteran service organizations, community members, and veterans themselves who knew the significance of this undertaking. Since the first concept many hands have helped develop and beautify these 46 acres which provide inground burial for 12,000 and columbarium wall niches for over 1,000 more of our honorably discharged veterans. But this cemetery represents so much more than a final resting place. It is fitting to include in this statement the name of John T. Noble, the distinguished veteran who epitomizes the efforts behind this cemetery. John would not want all the credit to go to him, and indeed there were many who worked tirelessly to make their dream come to fruition; however, it was the late John T. Noble, along with his wife Joyce, who made the first significant and lasting donation of 33 acres of his family's land to honor veterans and their families for their service and sacrifice. They went on to donate even more land and provide countless donations to ensure this cemetery was one to be proud of. John lived by example as a person of great ethics, compassion, and generosity. He possessed these traits throughout his life as a member of the U.S. Armed Forces, a businessman, a husband, and a quiet philanthropist who didn't seek recognition for his good works. His motivations were never about himself but about how he could give back to others. Our veterans risk their lives in the service to our great Nation. They make countless personal sacrifices to protect freedom, and many go on to continue to find ways to serve others--like the honorable efforts of a small community in northern Maine to turn what once was farmland into a reverent final resting place for those who gave so much. It is my honor to recognize the Maine Veterans Memorial Cemetery-Caribou and to pay tribute to John and Joyce Noble. Due to the generosity they demonstrated, the northern region of Maine is able to provide a proper final resting place for our brave veterans.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today we remember the life of Bernard ``Bernie'' Shaw, who passed away earlier this year at the age of 88. As a lifelong resident of Maine, a wonderful husband and father to three, and a champion for agriculture, future generations will continue to remember Bernie by the lasting impact he has left on the State. Originally from Limestone, Bernie attend the Limestone schools and later the University of Maine. It was after this that he met his beloved wife, Norma. In over 65 years of marriage, Bernie and Norma raised three children--Steve, Susan, and Sara--all while running a successful family farm and giving back to their community in numerous ways. Bernie first began farming with Norma's father, Herman Ward, and eventually took over the family business, before moving to Augusta in 1987. From 1988 to 1994, Bernie served the State of Maine as the commissioner of agriculture. Over the years, he served on local, State, and national level agriculture committees, drawing from his own experience as a former Aroostook County potato farmer. Only a few out of the many groups he championed for, Bernie devoted his time to the Maine Potato Council, the Maine Potato Board, the Agricultural Bargaining Council, and the Land For Maine's Future Board. After retiring, Bernie devoted much of his time to volunteering at the Augusta Food Bank, and the Windsor Fair. He was honored for this commitment back in 2012, when he received the Agriculture Commissioner's Distinguished Service Award, along with his wife, Norma. Both were lauded for their weekly efforts with the food bank and their success in expanding the number of families able to be helped. Bernie Shaw represented in so many ways the values we hold dear in Maine: family, faith, community, service, and tradition. We have much to be thankful for in Maine because of Bernie's dedication and service to the State, and he will be deeply missed by many.

Mr. KING

Mr. KING. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the 40th anniversary of the Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence, MCEDV, and its nine member organizations and resource centers: Hope and Justice Project, Partners for Peace, Next Step, New Hope for Women, Family Violence Project, Safe Voices, Family Crisis Services, Caring Unlimited, and Immigrant Resource Center of Maine. I am humbled and thankful for their tireless service to end the cycle of abuse existing in too many homes across Maine, our Nation, and the world. Originally formed in 1977 as the Maine Coalition for Family Crisis Services, and renamed the Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence in 2001, the MCEDV has spent four decades being advocates for victims of domestic violence and have never lost their focus. Their efforts have helped countless people find their own voices and regain their strength to live a violence-free life. The MCEDV has helped ensure there are direct service programs, shelters, transitional housing, and court advocacy available to everyone throughout our State. Not only do they partner with the nine member-projects mentioned above, but they also coordinate efforts and give voice to the education of the public, lawmakers, law enforcement, friends, and neighbors to make domestic violence a community-State-national and global issue that each of us has a responsibility to confront. It is not possible to put words to the significant impact the MCEDV has had, the lives that have been saved, and terrifying existences turned into futures of peace. However, it would not be fair to their work to not acknowledge the lives that have been lost to domestic violence. All genders, all ages, all races, all socio-economics categories, domestic violence knows no boundaries, and fear continues to be a strong silencer. However, with the support and services provided by the MCEDV and its membership, many victims have found exceptional strength to tell their story, found their courage to name the abuse and the abuser and support others to shine a light on this pandemic of violence. I cannot overstate how awe-inspiring the exceptional staying power and determination of this coalition of advocates is and how impactful their efforts are. They have not only mobilized a state-wide interest in the topic of domestic violence but have also inspired people to work with them to even further strengthen the message that there is no excuse for domestic abuse. It has been said that peace in the world starts with peace in the home. Thank you to the MCEDV for living those words and helping to change the world for the better.