Mike Lee

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1044 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the Lee amendment, No. 939, be agreed to, that the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I reserve the right to object after raising a couple of observations. It is important to know that this bill was passed by the House of Representatives Thursday night. We just received the paperwork from the House of Representatives yesterday. This is a bill that did not pass unanimously in the House of Representatives--far from it. There were at least 158 Republicans who voted against it. There are a number of my colleagues in the Senate who, like me, would like to see this and many other bills considered but would also like the opportunity to adequately review the legislation as passed and to propose amendments and have those amendments voted on. So passing this bill right now without that opportunity to review it, to propose amendments and have those considered, and just passing this unanimously is not the way we ought to be passing this legislation. I am happy to work with my distinguished colleague and my revered friend from Illinois in moving in that direction, but we are not ready to pass this by unanimous consent right now. We have amendments to propose. So on that basis, I object.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, there is a quote that has long been attributed to St. Augustine, who, during his conversion to Christianity, famously uttered a prayer: Lord, help me be chaste. Grant me chastity, but not yet. The idea behind this is as old as human nature itself, which is that it is easier to have a thought of doing something later than to do that thing now, especially when it is a difficult task. It is one of the reasons New Year's resolutions often result in a spike, an abrupt increase in gym enrollments and memberships. People develop New Year's resolutions; they decide they are going to lose weight; they are going to exercise more; they are going to eat less. Then it becomes more difficult as time goes by, and perhaps over time, some of them might find it easier to say: Well, I will lose weight later in the year. After starting the new year off to a good start, they might say: Well, I will lose more weight in the last half of the year. Later in the year it might occur to them that they will lose more weight in the last 2 months of the year. Regardless, as they continue to delay that moment, the task doesn't get easier; it often gets harder. The budget and spending and debt limit deal that was announced earlier this week reminds me a little bit of this aspect of human nature. It is understandable why this happens. It is especially understandable why it happens in a place where people are elected and where people want to be liked, where supporting greater government spending often results in praise, and calling for even a mild tapping on the brakes often results in rather severe criticism in the press, even by one's own constituents. But that doesn't mean that we can pretend things are different than they really are. So, yes, you can suspend the debt ceiling, and you can waive budget rules, but you can't suspend or waive or ignore the laws of mathematics. We have to remember that at a time when we are talking about a significant expansion of the role of the Federal Government, when we are talking about suspending the debt ceiling for an additional 2 years, we are talking about paving the way for us to spend a whole lot more money through the Federal Government than we would otherwise spend. This is occurring at a time when Americans are already required to work many weeks and, in some cases, many months out of every year just to pay their Federal taxes. In addition to this, after that they are told: By the way, that is not enough. It is not nearly enough because, for a long time, the Federal Government has been spending a lot more money than it takes in. Lately, it has been to the tune of many hundreds of billions of dollars a year. We have never in our history brought in more money or as much money into the Federal Government's coffers as we are bringing in right now. We are at the very top of the business cycle. We have nearly record-low unemployment, in the range of roughly 4 percent or a little below, which is, we are told by economists, basically full employment in America. At a time when all of these things seem to be going our way and we are enjoying a period of relative peace in the world and in our country, we have record-breaking deficits, and this budget and debt ceiling deal would expand the path, would pave the path for even more of that. That begs the question: If we can't control spending now, when the economy is performing about as well as it possibly can, then when can we? To borrow a phrase from John F. Kennedy, ``If not us, who? If not now, when?'' Let's talk for a minute about America's history with expanding its debt limit, expanding its debt footprint. What we see through this chart that I have to my right is that during a number of periods of crisis in American history, we have accumulated more debt--that is, a more-than-average amount of debt--as a percentage of our gross domestic product. We see various peaks, most of them following and brought about as a result of a major war and, in some cases, some other type of crisis. We have the Revolutionary War. The Revolutionary War was fought and, mercifully, won, and our debt as a percentage of GDP went down. It peaked a little bit a few years later when we had to fight the War of 1812. We won that war, too, and then debt as a percentage of our GDP went down. It remained low for many decades. When we fought the Civil War, it peaked again. It went back to close to 40 percent of our gross domestic product. The Civil War ended, and it went back down. It peaked again at World War I and then went back down. It peaked to a very significant degree at World War II and then promptly went back down. See, through this period of time following World War II--the late forties into the fifties--we had a whole lot of revenue coming in. We weren't accumulating new debt, and we were paying off our debt at the same time that our economy was expanding. Consequently, even though every year didn't result in a balanced budget, our debt held by the public as a Federal Government went down as a percentage of our gross domestic product. But in each of these instances that I described, there was a reason; there was a distinct, unmistakable, finite reason why these things happened. Once those reasons went away, once we had won the wars in question, our debt as a percentage of our gross domestic product--that is, the volume of economic activity in America--went back down. We saw a couple of other peaks. We had the Gulf war and a recession in roughly the same period. It resulted in an increase of debt as a percentage of GDP. That war ended, and that recession went away, and it went back down. Something interesting has been happening. In the last few years, as we came out of the great recession, as we have enjoyed a very significant, historic recovery in our economy, the economy has been expanding, and jobs abound. The economy in which we now live has more people employed in basically every demographic than we would have considered likely a few years ago. Yet, notwithstanding that fact, our debt as a percentage of our gross domestic product continues to go up. This graph in some ways even understates the matter relative to where we were at World War II. We hit the peak during World War II at, I believe, 106, 107 percent of gross domestic product. We are not quite at that level yet today by standard metrics, but if you include in this figure not only the debt held by the public--that is, the debt held by those who purchase U.S. security bonds and U.S. Treasury instruments generally--if you add to that the so-called intragovernmental debt, the IOUs the Federal Government has written to Social Security and Medicare to try to make up for funds that Congress wants access to but doesn't have, we are actually well over 100 percent in terms of our debt-to-GDP ratio. In other words, we are about where we were at the peak of the crisis we were addressing during World War II. That begs the questions: When does this end? How does this end? There is not a world war in which we are involved right now. We are experiencing relative peace. There is not a recession. We are in the middle of one of the greatest peacetime economic recoveries this land has ever seen. So if not us, then who? And if not now, then when? Why is it that we now have to suspend our debt ceiling in order to essentially transfer to younger Americans, to subsequent generations the responsibility of financing the government that we have today? One can easily defend those things when talking about the survival of a nation or about a world war or about a war in which our Nation's survival is at stake. We are not involved in any such effort right now. We are involved in some conflicts around the world, but those are not really what is driving this. What is driving this is that we have a government that is too big and too expensive. This means a lot of things to a lot of people. It is something that should weigh on every American seriously. I believe it weighs especially heavily on younger Americans, not just younger Americans themselves, but people who have children and grandchildren. I represent a State with the lowest median age in the entire country, the State of Utah. We are also the State with the largest percentage of people under the age of 18. I would like to speak to some of those people right now--those people under the age of 18, especially in my State where they are disproportionately represented. Young Americans, those who have not yet attained the age of 18, have had all this debt accumulate--some $22 trillion now by the Federal Government--that they are going to be responsible for, notwithstanding the fact that all of that debt has been accumulated at periods in their life either before they were born or before they were old enough to vote. It amounts to, in a sense, a really pernicious form of taxation without representation. We fought a war over that principle, and we won that war. We shouldn't be doing this defiantly without a plan for turning it around, without a reason to have to do that--a reason that has to do with our very survival--without some sort of plan for getting out of it. But instead of getting out it, we are accelerating into it, and that is troubling. Some might argue, and, in fact, some within this body and in the House of Representatives have argued that so-called discretionary spending is not worth worrying about. Discretionary spending, for those of you not familiar with the term, refers to that part of the government that Congress decides on each and every year that isn't predecided the way our entitlement programs are. In other words, mandatory or entitlement spending, spending on things like Social Security and Medicare that are already set aside--those are things we don't have discretion over. They are already called for by law. We already have to spend money on them. There are those in Congress who will maintain that we shouldn't worry about discretionary spending, which is the primary focus of this measure, of this budget caps deal, and of this debt ceiling deal, because, really, the bigger picture, the bigger concern, and the bigger threat is, in fact, about mandatory spending. It is the entitlement programs, they will say, that really are driving the looming debt crisis. But it is important to point out that we are not reforming those either. We couldn't even stick to the budget caps that both parties in both Houses and the White House agreed to just a few years ago. It defies logic and reason, in my mind, for people to say: Well, we shouldn't worry about discretionary spending because mandatory spending is really where the problem is. No one would ever advise someone struggling with alcohol consumption that they shouldn't worry about consuming too much alcohol if they are also addicted to something else--meth or heroin or some other terribly addictive substance that might also be harmful to them. The fact that you are dealing with one problem doesn't mean that you don't also have to face the other problem. That is the concern I have with this deal. That is the reason I plan to vote against it. I know and I will be the first to admit that there are no easy solutions here. There are no solutions that anyone would look to and say: Yes, that sounds like a lot of fun. I don't want to do that. It reminds me of a time when my sister, Stephanie, was enrolled in a new school shortly after my family moved back to Utah. Stephanie was in kindergarten. Stephanie was asked by the teacher, as they were testing her to try to figure out which class she should be in, to take out her favorite color of crayon and write down her name. My mom watched from a distance as the teacher administered this test. She knew that Stephanie knew full well how to write her name. She watched in a certain degree of agony as Stephanie sat there and didn't pick up a single crayon. After the test was complete and the teacher concluded, mistakenly, that Stephanie didn't know how to write her name, my mom asked her: Why didn't you write your name? She said: The lady asked me to pick out my favorite color of crayon, and they didn't have pink. So I didn't write my name. Sometimes I wonder whether Congress is in the same position as my sister Stephanie when she was at that young age being tested. We don't see our favorite color of crayon. We don't see our favorite option. We don't see any easy options there. In fact, we see a whole lot of options that would involve putting a dent in this problem--this growing, building problem that I have pointed out in the graph--and we see criticism that would likely ensue from any one of those options. Now, I understand that. It doesn't mean that the laws of mathematics will not eventually catch up to us. Winston Churchill is known to have said of the American people that the American people will always make the right choice after they have exhausted every other alternative. Now, I don't know whether he, in fact, said that. If he did, in fact, say it, I don't think he meant it as a compliment to the American people, but I take it as such. It is a compliment. It is what differentiates us from other countries. We do, in fact, make the right choice. We are great not because of who we are but because of what we do, and, generally, at least after we have exhausted other alternatives, we do make the right choice--a choice that reflects the principles of liberty that really have always defined us as a nation. Those principles cannot coexist with an effort that suggests to us that our government is so big and has to be so big that there is nothing we can do about the fact that Americans are required to work weeks or months out of every year just to pay their Federal taxes and then be told that we are $22 trillion in debt. By the time the 2 years contemplated under this deal have passed, we may well be at $23 trillion, $24 trillion, or, perhaps, approaching $25 trillion in debt. Is it going to be any easier then to deal with the problem than it is now? I think not. If not us, who? If not now, when? The way we start making steps in the right direction is to vote against a bill--a bill that, like this one, does not meaningfully address the problem. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to deliver my remarks and delay the onset of the votes until after my remarks have been completed.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, for many years, the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund has compensated the brave men and women who responded to the horrific events of 9/11. It has been a worthy use of money. Of the $7.4 billion authorized for the fund since 2011, however, $25.4 billion has already been paid out. Since February of this year, money has gotten tight and claimants' benefits have had to be reduced. I believe it is only right for Congress to authorize and replenish the fund so that we can make those beneficiaries whole. But the bill before us today has a peculiar feature, one that I believe requires our attention. The bill authorizes the program for 72 years and does not specify a dollar amount. If you look to page 2 of the bill, lines 8 through 10, it makes clear that this program is funded through 2092 and funded to the tune of ``such sums as may be necessary.'' In other words, without any finite authorization, it offers no way to ensure that the money actually gets to its intended beneficiaries and is not lost in government bureaucracy or misuse. That is, in fact, how we make sure that government programs get to where they need to go, by specifying not only the purpose of the fund but also identifying how much it is that we are spending. In 2011, the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund has always had finite authorizations, and it has always had an absolutely excellent, outstanding record of avoiding waste, fraud, and abuse. The 9/11 survivors and responders deserve no less going forward. That is why I am offering a simple amendment to this bill, one that would authorize $10.2 billion in additional funding for the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund over the next 10 years. To be clear, that is the full amount that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated is necessary for covering all claims through 2029. My amendment wouldn't end there. It would go further to authorize an additional $10 billion to be paid out in subsequent decades. It will not block or delay this bill's consideration, let alone its passage, nor does it have as its intended effect any kind of downgrading of the benefits we would be paying. But it would make sure that the money gets to the victims and the first responders who need it most--to the intended beneficiaries--rather than remaining vulnerable to the kinds of waste, fraud, and abuse that come about whenever we authorize something until 2092 with ``such sums'' language. This isn't the way we normally do things. My distinguished colleague and friend from New York has made the comment that if this amendment were to pass, it would somehow make the victims of 9/11 come back again and again and go through this process over and over again. I don't see that. Those facts are not borne out by the record, which, again, indicates that the Congressional Budget Office itself has acknowledged that the amount of money I would be setting aside would be sufficient to fund this program. This is how we make government programs work: We fund things for a period of time and for an amount of money that we believe is sufficient. This would do that. For that reason, I am proposing this amendment. Amendment No. 928 I, therefore, call up my amendment No. 928 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the men and women who responded to the horrific events of September 11, 2001, are among the great heroes of American history. Whether fighting the deadly flames, rescuing people who were injured or dying, or removing the destructive debris from the 9/11 attack sites, the 9/11 volunteers and rescue workers displayed the courage and the sacrificial service that has earned them universal respect and admiration. Tragically, their heroism came at a cost. Their heroism, at exactly these same dangerous sites we are describing, earned them, in addition to great respect, also health challenges in the years since. In 2001, in response to those challenges, Congress established the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund to compensate both the survivors of the attacks and also the residents who lived near the site. It was authorized for 2 years, and it paid out about $7 billion in benefits and then closed. In 2011, Congress revived and expanded the program to cover a larger universe of victims and responders, and it authorized that fund to spend $2.7 billion over 5 years. In 2015, citing a growing need, Congress reauthorized the fund for another 5 years and an additional $4.6 billion. Of that $7.4 billion authorized since 2011, the fund has now paid out $5.2 billion. With money getting tight, in February of this year, the fund began temporarily reducing the claimants' benefits until Congress reauthorized and replenished it until such time as we can make those beneficiaries whole. I support that effort. I support it wholeheartedly. The bill before us today authorizes the program not for 2 years, as it was in 2001, or for 5 years, as we did in 2011 and 2015, no, it authorizes the program for an additional 72 years and does not specify a dollar amount. In Washington, this is a recipe for trouble. As we all know, finite authorizations are how Congress ensures that taxpayer money actually gets to its intended beneficiaries and not simply lost in government bureaucracy somewhere. It is how we make sure this is about protecting those who are supposed to benefit rather than government bureaucrats themselves. Since 2011, the 9/11 victims fund has always had finite authorizations, and, by all accounts, it has had an excellent record of avoiding waste and abuse. These two things are not coincidental. They go together, and 9/11 survivors and first responders deserve no less moving forward. They deserve no less than to make sure the program created in their honor for their benefit, in fact, benefits them. This is why I would like to offer a simple amendment to this bill that would authorize $10.2 billion in additional funding for the 9/11 victims fund over the next 10 years. That is the amount the Congressional Budget Office has estimated is necessary for covering all valid claims between now and 2029. My amendment would further authorize an additional $10 billion beyond that time. My amendment would not block or delay the bill's consideration, let alone its passage. This is something we could vote on in a matter of minutes, 15 minutes or so, and then move on to final passage. We could, in fact, accomplish this today before we adjourn for the weekend. This is, in fact, what I prefer. I think finishing our work on this bill to protect victims and first responders is worth 15, 20, 30 minutes of our time. That is what I prefer. I have had conversations with my colleagues, including colleagues across the aisle. In order to accommodate requests from some of my colleagues, I have agreed, with their mutual assent, to negotiate a different arrangement--one that would make sure we get to final passage on this bill and that we consider my amendment and that of Senator Paul's within the next few days.

Mr. LEE

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

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I am grateful to the Democratic leader and to both Senators from New York for working with me on this and for getting this, along with my amendment and Senator Paul's amendment, set up for a vote. To be very clear--I want there to be no ambiguity--I would be willing to vote on this right now. There is no reason we should have to delay that. I am taking into account scheduling requests that were made by other Members of this body. As far as I am concerned and, as far as I am aware, as far as Senator Paul is concerned, we would be happy to vote on these immediately. There is no additional reason for delay. This is how the Senate is supposed to work. Each Member is supposed to have the opportunity to bring forward amendments to offer up improvements to legislation, to make sure that they happen and that they happen right. I respectfully but strongly disagree with my colleagues on the merits of some of the issues we have been discussing. We will debate those more in the coming days. I would reiterate that it is not unreasonable to suggest that a program that takes the unprecedented step of authorizing funding for something until 2092--that, coupled with language authorizing the expenditure of such sums as may be necessary, creates problems. It is one of the reasons we opt to vote on this amendment and one of the reasons I believe in this amendment. In any event, this is the kind of thing that ought not to be difficult. When any Member of any political background sees a potential weakness or defect in a piece of legislation, the rules of our body are such that we are supposed to be able to offer that up and cast an amendment. In this circumstance, I am pleased that it worked out the way it did, and we will be able to get votes on these amendments.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I approach with great sadness and disappointment the response just brought about by my distinguished colleague, my friend, the junior Senator from Kentucky. I have a great deal of respect for him. The fact that he and I have worked on so many issues side by side together in order to improve government makes this not easier but makes it more difficult. The reforms to which my distinguished colleague, the junior Senator from Kentucky, refers are themselves born of a genuine desire to improve our immigration system. But, alas, the reforms he has proposed are not, in my view, compatible with the scope of this bill, nor are they compatible with something that can reasonably pass through this body. That is one of the reasons I have introduced the legislation as I have. I worked on this nearly the entirety of the 8\1/2\ half years I have had the opportunity and great privilege to serve the people of Utah in the Senate. This is by far the closest we have ever come to having a deal, and we achieved that deal by keeping this bill focused on the very things this legislation deals with. The suggestions that Senator Paul has made, while born of great concern for our country and a noble degree of commitment to serving the people of his State, are not themselves compatible with the scope of this legislation, nor are they compatible with what would likely be passed by this body. We have an opportunity right now to pass this. This could pass this body right now. I find it greatly disappointing that my colleague and my friend has chosen not to allow this to pass this body today. This is something that could and should and otherwise would pass this body today without that objection. I would respectfully but with all the urgency I am capable of communicating implore my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, to reconsider his objection and allow this to pass. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act, an important and bipartisan piece of legislation on which I have been a proud sponsor and on which I have been proud to work with Senator Harris to bring this bill to fruition. It has been many years in the making, and I am pleased to stand behind this legislation and to push it forward. There is no question that immigration is one of the most important and also politically fraught and politically charged issues in front of Congress right now. More often than not, we can't even seem to agree on what the problems in our immigration system are, let alone come to an agreement about how best to solve them. That makes it all the more important for us at least to come together to get something done in those areas where we can find common ground and do so across party lines on issues that are neither Republican or Democratic, neither liberal or conservative, but that are simply American issues that are central to who we are. We are great as a country not because of who we are but because of what we do, because of the fact that we choose freedom, we choose to be welcoming, and we choose to be that shining city on the hill, where anyone can come into this country, be born or immigrate into this country as a poor person, and hope and have the reasonable expectation that one day, if they work hard and play by the rules, they might have the opportunity to retire comfortably, in some cases wealthy. We have to find common ground in these areas. The Fairness for High- Skilled Immigrants Act is an important point of common ground. Employment-based immigration visas--the one significant area of our immigration system based on skills and based on merit--are currently issued in accordance with rigid, arbitrary, antiquated, and outdated per-country quotas. This means that in a given year, immigrants from any one given country cannot, in most cases, be given more than 7 percent of the total number of visas allocated. As a result of this, immigrants from nations with large populations have significantly longer wait times to get a green card than do immigrants from smaller countries. In some cases, they could be stuck in a backlog of green card petitions for decades. This makes no sense. This is arbitrary. It is capricious. It is unfair. It is un-American. It is not what we do. This is one of the many features of our Buddy Holly/Elvis Presley-era immigration code that are outdated and that need to be cast into the dustbin of history. These per-country visa caps cause serious problems for good people, for American businesses and American workers alike, and they cause unfair, undue, and immense hardship for the immigrants who happen to be unfortunate enough to be stuck in that very backlog. While employment-based green cards are supposed to go to immigrants with high skills who will help grow the American economy, the per- country caps distort this system by causing some immigrants to wait years before receiving a green card for a reason that may be totally unrelated and generally is completely detached from their qualifications. This undermines our ability to bring the best and the brightest individuals to our country. It is to our harm, and it is to our own shame. Further, the per-country caps force the immigrants that are stuck in this backlog--95 percent of whom are already inside the United States-- to make the difficult choice between, on the one hand, staying in America and waiting decades for a green card, or on the other hand, leaving and taking their talents to a country that provides a fairer process for allocating legal immigrant status as a worker. Worse still, because individuals in the green card backlog can only sponsor temporary visas for their children while these children are younger than 21, the per-country caps force families to choose between separating and sending their children back to their country of origin as they age out of their visas while their parents keep waiting in the United States for their own opportunity to receive a green card or giving up entirely on their dreams of becoming lawful permanent residents within the United States of America. In many cases, these are children who legally immigrated with their parents and did so at an early age and who have come to call America their home, adopting our customs, our language, our ways of life, having been educated here and socialized here. Because immigrants in the backlog are also severely limited in their ability to change jobs, the per-country caps often force them to work under conditions that other employees would justifiably and understandably find completely unacceptable. This exposes these immigrants to harassment, exploitation, and abuse, without any option of switching employers. What is more, because these employees can't switch jobs, they have less power to negotiate fair salaries, which depresses wages not only for these immigrant workers themselves but also for their colleagues, whether or not they are American citizens. Fortunately, the solution to these problems is not only straightforward but agreed upon by a broad, bipartisan coalition of lawmakers. We must eliminate the per-country caps to ensure a fair and reasonable allocation of employment-based green cards. That is exactly what the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act would accomplish, and that is exactly what this bill is all about. Without the per-country caps, our skills-based green card system would operate on a first-come, first-serve basis, ensuring that immigrants are admitted into the United States purely based on merit rather than on the arbitrary, outdated, unreasonable basis of their country of origin. This, after all, is what the American dream has often been about. It is about who we are as a people rather than where our parents came from, who they were, what they looked like, and what language they might have spoken. This reform would also ensure that the hardships caused by decades- long wait times would be eliminated. Importantly, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act also contains critical safeguards to ensure that the transition from the per-country cap system to a first-come, first-served system would occur smoothly and without unduly disrupting existing immigration flows. Specifically, this bill includes a 3-year set-aside of green cards for immigrants who are not in the backlog to ensure that they can continue to enter the country as we process backlog petitions. In addition, the bill contains an important ``do no harm'' provision to make certain that green card applicants who are at the front of the line now will stay at the front of the line and not be faced with new delays as we work through the backlog during this transition process. These provisions will ensure that we are truly treating all immigrants in the employment-based system fairly. For many years, this critical legislation was stalled because of the concerns of some Members that any reform to the employment-based visa system should be accompanied by new protections against fraud and abuse in the H-1B program. To address those concerns this Congress, I negotiated an amendment to the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act with Senator Grassley to include new protections for American workers in how we process applications for H-1B visas. This amendment negotiated with Senator Grassley does three things: First, the Grassley amendment would strengthen the Department of Labor's ability to investigate and enforce labor condition application requirements. In addition, it would reform the labor condition application process to ensure complete and adequate disclosure of information regarding the employer's H-1B hiring practices. Finally, it would close loopholes by which employers could otherwise circumvent the annual cap on H-1B workers. Importantly, the Grassley amendment--like the underlying bill itself--consists of provisions that have long enjoyed support from Members of this body on both sides of the aisle and from every point along the ideological spectrum. They are drawn from an H-1B reform bill that has been championed both by Senator Grassley and by Senator Durbin. I am grateful that Senator Grassley was willing to come to the table and work in good faith on achieving a reasonable compromise on this bill. I believe the deal we have struck is a fair and evenhanded way to address longstanding concerns about our H-1B system while eliminating country-of-origin discrimination in how we allocate skills-based green cards. The reason the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act enjoys such broad, solemn, deep, and unwavering bipartisan support is because it does not include any of the typical partisan poison pills and other controversial provisions that so often undermine and in many cases doom other immigration reform efforts. This is a narrow, surgical reform-- one that is necessary, one that is palatable, and one that is long overdue. I would like to conclude by thanking Senator Harris, who has been an indefatigable partner with me on this bill. I have been proud to work side by side with her to eliminate the country-of-origin discrimination and bring about a system of fairness in how we allocate employment- based green cards. This is an important and, indeed, essential reform to our immigration laws and one that has been a long time coming. Mr. President, I therefore ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 386 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the Grassley amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. LEE

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

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is one of Congress's main duties-- arguably, its single most important duty--to provide for the common defense of our great country. That sometimes means and necessarily entails providing additional funds for unforeseen costs and emergencies in times of war. Troops might run out of equipment or munitions or might need to be transported through war zones, and it is of the utmost importance that they have what they need and that they can get where they need to go to fight for our country and to protect us against our most pressing and dangerous threats. In the past, Congress provided emergency supplemental funding to take care of precisely these costs. If it didn't appropriate enough to begin with or if some of these unforeseen costs arose, perhaps in excess of what Congress had already planned for, Congress would fill the gap and would make adjustments to the following year's base budget to account for them. In other words, Congress was doing its job, and it was doing its job in a thoughtful manner--one that was fiscally responsible and one that acknowledged Congress's constitutional role as a lawmaking body and the body responsible for funding war operations and declaring war. But after the September 11 attacks, something seemed to change. In 2001, the Bush administration created a fund called the Global War on Terrorism account, sometimes known operatively as GWOT, separate from the base budget. From then on, what was once emergency spending for warfighting gaps became a general fund that Congress has used for military spending and primarily for operations in the Middle East. Year after year, Congress has anticipated this very type of spending, and year after year it has failed to integrate that anticipated spending into the baseline budget. When the Obama administration took over, it changed the name from GWOT to Overseas Contingency Operations, or OCO. This is an account that was newly created in that administration, but the Obama administration left the fundamental practice of GWOT in place. This was GWOT by a different name. When the Budget Control Act was passed in 2011, President Obama requested OCO to be exempted from its defense spending limits. That practice has continued to this day, such that these funds are still exempt from those limits. What has been the result of this trajectory? Well, OCO has morphed into an unaccountable slush fund for the Pentagon, insulated from scrutiny and certainly unchecked by budget spending caps. It is no longer funds that are provided for unforeseen expenses, and no one here really pretends otherwise. Instead, administrations from both parties have continued to ask for billions of these dollars each year, completely outside the budget process, for what really are predictable, ongoing activities in the Middle East and elsewhere. And Congress has continually enabled them, perpetuating this broken, unaccountable system of budgeting and spending. Since 2001, Congress has appropriated about $2 trillion in total for these funds, accounting for 17 percent of defense spending during that time period, with each dollar adding to our rising and, indeed, staggering debt of $22 trillion. This is not responsible budgeting, oversight, or governance, and it must not continue. In addition to mending this broken, irresponsible method of financing, it is far past time that we reassess the operations toward which this money is going. We have now been in Afghanistan for 18 years, and we have now been in Iraq for 16 years. We have deposed Saddam Hussein, and we have killed Osama bin Laden. We have accomplished much of what we set out to do, but we have also been pulled into nation building in countries thousands of miles away, causing serious harm to those countries and our own credibility in the process. Yet these wars drag on and on, with no end in sight. Unfortunately, the bill before us, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2020, maintains the broken status quo for OCO, authorizing yet another $75 billion--a $7 billion increase from last year. It perpetuates the misguided strategy we have been undertaking in the Middle East since the beginning of the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq. It continues funding--in dollars and weapons and with people-- missions that have no clear end goal for problems that were never ours in the first place. For example, it authorizes almost $5 billion for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, and it calls for a stabilization strategy in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya. But in addition to these dubious nation-building investments that lack an overall strategy--at least an overall strategy communicated to the American people that tells them how these operations will make them safer--there is still a deeper problem. Congress never authorized military engagement in four out of six of these countries to begin with. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution unequivocally states that Congress shall have the power to declare war--Congress, not the President, not the Pentagon, and not someone else in the executive branch, but Congress. Regardless of whether engagement in a particular country may or may not be a worthy foreign policy goal, we cannot escape this point. The Founders could not have been clearer. The executive branch must have authorization from Congress to go to war. This was understood at the time of the founding. It was written into Federalist 69, in which Alexander Hamilton explained that this is one of the distinguishing characteristics between our system and the system from which we broke away--from London-based national government headed by a King, a King who had the authority to start a war on his own without consulting his Parliament. Our system was to be different, so they put the power to declare war in Congress. Why? Well, because it is the branch of government most accountable to the people at the most regular intervals through elections. They did it this way and designed it this way precisely because they understood what is at stake when we go to war. It is not only our precious financial resources on the line but our most precious human resources-- the brave men and women who are willing to lay down their lives when we go to war. So they intended these decisions to be debated and discussed and considered with utmost deliberation and consideration in front of the American people by their elected, accountable representatives. For these same reasons, it is as much Congress's duty to take an active role in prudently overseeing the operations that it has authorized and denying funds to those it has not. Unfortunately, this National Defense Authorization Act largely falls short here too. First, instead of perpetuating these seemingly indefinite wars, it ought to actively prepare a strategy to phase out our engagement in the Middle East, particularly for authorizations of force that have lasted for almost 20 years. Second, for any remaining authorizations, it ought to aim for using our resources and our personnel in a way that is far more efficient than the status quo. Meanwhile, the world has not been static since we began the war on terror. Our country is facing new threats. The national defense strategy laid out by President Trump and the administration does refocus our efforts on stemming the threats posed by Russia and China, and this NDAA does reflect some of that strategy by addressing some of our most immediate needs to counter them. For instance, it reaffirms defense commitments in the Indo-Pacific and in the Baltic States, as well as information gathering on technical and nuclear capabilities that can be found in both countries. It also prioritizes the Arctic region, which both Russia and China are seeking to leverage. But there are other threats this NDAA fails to address; namely, our threats in the Western Hemisphere. In fact, it lacks a comprehensive defense strategy or plan for the Western Hemisphere entirely. It is by no means prudent to ignore our neighbors to the south, especially given the rampant instability throughout the region, including that caused by the Maduro regime in Venezuela. Indeed, if we fail to secure our borders from the immediate threats we face in the Western Hemisphere, it could become impossible to truly provide for our Nation's common defense. We ought to reject the status quo and reject the failures evident in this bill and the process that brings it to us. What we should be doing is drawing down our OCO account and integrating this spending into the $642.5 billion baseline defense budget. We should be having a real debate on whether we should continue to be entrenched in the Middle East, and we should be adjusting our defense strategy and the dollars behind that defense strategy to address the most pressing threats we face today. These matters are some of the most important decisions we will ever be called upon to make in this body as Senators, as officers within the legislative branch of government who are sworn to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. We should take the time to get these things right. They merit debate over the course of months, not simply days or weeks, and they merit not just the participation of the Armed Services Committee members but the active participation and the utmost care and diligence of all 535 Members of Congress, who themselves have taken an oath to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. It is about time that Congress exercise its most solemn duty of prudently budgeting and strategizing to protect the American people. Providing for the common defense requires nothing less. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, President Trump was famous for many things even before he was elected. One of those things was the catch-phrase ``You're fired,'' which he popularized on his reality TV show ``The Apprentice.'' This is a relatively commonplace phrase. It is something that most persons are familiar with, but it is not surprising that the phrase would have so much appeal for a television audience. I think the reason has something to do with the fact that it carries a certain power and resonance with it because the person who has the authority to use it within any organization is, generally speaking, a person who gets to call the shots. It is emblematic of executive control and, therefore, the ability to get things done within an organization. That is not to say that good leaders get their way solely or even primarily by threatening to fire people who work for them. Effective leadership, more often than not, requires what are sometimes called soft leadership skills. But the fact, nonetheless, remains that the head of an organization must always have hanging in reserve, sort of like an employer Damoclean sword--the absolute right to terminate a subordinate. It is the ultimate and essential backstop that enforces and reifies an executive's power to make decisions. This is true for pretty much any leader, whether that leader happens to be the CEO of a corporation, the coach of a sports team, or a general out on the field of battle. Yet, remarkably, under our laws, the President of the United States lacks authority over many high-ranking officers within the executive branch. Despite its elemental association with Executive power, Congress and the courts have time and again deprived the President of the ability to remove his subordinates at will. These restrictions often take the form of statutory for-cause removal protections, such as the provision of the Federal Trade Commission Act that provides that Commissioners may be removed only ``for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.'' In enacting laws like this, Congress has cast aside the original meaning of the Constitution and thereby eroded a critical safeguard of American freedom. As anyone who has studied the Constitution or constitutional law, for that matter, can guess, my reference to the FTC's for-cause protection is not accidental. That statute formed the basis of the lawsuit that culminated in the 1935 decision by the Supreme Court in a case called Humphrey's Executor, in which the Supreme Court held for the first time that Congress may impose restrictions on the President's removal power. In so holding, the Supreme Court overruled its earlier precedent in Myers v. United States, which had held that Congress may not limit the President's ability to remove principal officers within the Federal Government, but Humphrey's Executor didn't simply overrule Myers. Rather, as Justice Scalia later wrote, ``it gutt[ed], in six quick pages devoid of textual or historical precedent. . . . a carefully researched and reasoned 70-page opinion.'' That juxtaposition alone tells you what you need to know about these decisions. One had constitutional text and original understanding and historical precedent behind it. The other was constitutional law by judicial fiat. Article II of the Constitution unquestionably establishes a unitary executive. The vesting clause provides that ``the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.'' As Alexander Hamilton explained it in Federalist No. 70, placing the totality of the Executive power in a single individual was no happenstance. It was no mistake. It wasn't just sort of some fluke. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention recognized that a unified executive was essential to ensure energy and accountability in the execution of the laws, and the Constitution was drafted accordingly, consistent with this understanding. Without the authority to supervise and direct, and, yes, ultimately fire his subordinates, it is impossible for the President to fulfill his duty imposed by article II to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' The Founders also understood that the President's removal power was the bedrock of his authority to oversee the executive branch. In a famous debate during the First Congress, James Madison argued that ``if any power whatsoever is in its nature Executive, it is the power of appointing, overseeing, and controlling those who execute the laws.'' He went on to note that ``if the President should possess alone the power of removal from office, those who are employed in the execution of the law will be in their proper situation, and the chain of dependence be preserved; [they] will depend, as they ought, on the President, and the President on the community.'' Madison's argument prevailed, and the First Congress declined, on constitutional grounds, for the reasons articulated by James Madison himself, to create for-cause removal protections for the heads of the newly established executive branch departments. They considered it; Madison raised, very persuasively, this constitutional argument against it; and then they voted it down. That was the original understanding of the removal power, and it predominated for nearly 150 years after the Founding. Since Humphrey's Executor and its radical departure from the original understanding in 1935, for-cause removal protections, both statutory and otherwise, have, sadly, proliferated, giving rise to a vast, headless, out-of-control branch of government, a fourth branch of government, if you will, that exists beyond the control of the President and is therefore unaccountable to the people. In fact, by some estimations, there are over 80 so-called independent agencies within the executive branch. These executive branch agencies that we refer to somehow as independent are entrusted with regulating immense swaths of American life--from competition policy and workplace safety regulations to labor relations and even securities laws. They make rules; they adjudicate rights; and they enforce laws. The potential for abuse is tremendous; the inconsistency with the republican principles this country was founded on, obvious. Now, there are a lot of people here who like the sound of the term ``independent agency,'' and they might suppose, incorrectly, that an agency that is independent, that is beyond the control of the President of the United States to oversee, that that is somehow a good thing. On closer inspection, we discover that quite the opposite is true. When we insulate someone from Presidential oversight, what we are doing is taking the American people out of the picture. There is a reason why we have elections every 4 years, and those elections focus on the election of a President. It is so there is some chain of accountability between the people and the executive branch of government. That has become more important, not less, over the last few decades as we have created more and more executive branch agencies and we have entrusted those agencies with more and more power. It has never been more important than it is today to make sure the people are connected. If you disconnect the American people by insulating them from the political process, then you have a whole group of people who these days are charged not just with administrating the laws but, in some cases, with effectively making it and interpreting it, and you are taking them beyond the supervision that would otherwise be appropriate by the President of the United States within the executive branch of government. In their fight against British tyranny, the Patriots of the American Revolution rallied behind the principle of ``no taxation without representation.'' Today we are faced with a somewhat different threat to freedom, as Chief Justice Roberts wrote in a case just a few years ago. ``The growth of the Executive Branch, which now wields vast power and touches almost every aspect of daily life, heightens the concern that it may slip from the Executive's control, and thus from that of the people.'' In other words, as Chief Justice Roberts explained, when you take this power away from the President, you are taking it away from the people. The people lose their input on and their control over these very important functions of what is appropriately described as the people's government. The concern is further compounded by the existence of independent agencies that are, by law, divorced from any Presidential control. As a result, in this new fight against tyranny, our watchword perhaps must be ``no regulation without representation.'' That is why I have spearheaded the Article I Project and why I supported legislation such as the REINS Act and the Separation of Powers Restoration Act that would bring the Federal regulatory apparatus, as we know it, to heel. Of course, more is needed. We need to not only reform Congress's relationship with the administrative state but the President's as well. To that end, I am introducing new legislation called the Take Care Act. The bill would restore the unitary executive envisioned by the Founders and, in fact, required by the Constitution by stripping away all existing for-cause removal protections from the so-called independent agencies. It would also limit Congress's ability to create for-cause protections by implication in the future and take other critical steps to fortify the President's directive authority. Simply put, the Take Care Act would eliminate the headless fourth branch of government, empower the President to ensure faithful execution of the law, and make the bureaucracy accountable to the people again. Importantly, the Take Care Act would not cause the work of administrative agencies to become subject to the unmitigated whims and caprices of a President. There is still very real, very meaningful political constraints, including the Senate's advise and consent role, that would ensure, as they do now, in areas outside of these so-called independent agencies, that the executive officers can fulfill their congressionally assigned duties without undue interference. In other words, although there are some so-called independent agencies as to which the President has no removal power, there are a whole lot that are not. The President's Cabinet and many other positions within the Federal Government involve people who are appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and who serve at the pleasure of the President who can be fired at any moment for any reason the President might deem appropriate. Nevertheless, that does not mean that Presidents go around just firing people arbitrarily because Presidents understand that there is a political cost to doing that. We have seen in recent years, and we have seen earlier in American history, how Presidents, even when they have disagreements with members of their Cabinet or other people who serve at the pleasure of the President--Presidents are still reluctant to fire people because there are political costs attached to that, and especially where Congress perceives there might be a partisan political motive in mind, Congress may well take action. In the case of the Senate, it almost inevitably will at least threaten, if not carry out the threat, to hold up future confirmations of Presidential appointees if Presidents abuse this power. So it simply isn't true to say that this would open the floodgates and cause all Presidents to just fire people arbitrarily without hesitation in the future. What it would mean is that our elected President would have the power to represent the people and to oversee the executive branch of the Federal Government just as article II already requires. So all this bill would do would be to rescind and limit unconstitutional restrictions on the President's removal power, and while it may be more convenient to limit this power by statute, convenience and efficiency are not the primary objectives or the hallmarks of a democratic government, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly reminded us. Another famous catchphrase popularized by an American President is ``the buck stops here,'' which President Truman, of course, displayed on a placard on his desk in the Oval Office at the White House during his Presidency. What it means is, the President is the final decision maker within the executive branch, and, therefore, bears the sole and ultimate responsibility for executing the laws. In order to fulfill that very special, sacred, important responsibility, the President must have plenary power to direct the President's subordinates in how they carry out their assigned tasks and, if necessary, fire them. That is what the Constitution and, indeed, common sense require. By restoring the original understanding and restoring the removal power to the Presidency, the Take Care Act would give the President this authority. By taking this step, we would reempower the American people with that which is rightfully theirs to begin with.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, President Trump was famous for many things even before he was elected. One of those things was the catch-phrase ``You're fired,'' which he popularized on his reality TV show ``The Apprentice.'' This is a relatively commonplace phrase. It is something that most persons are familiar with, but it is not surprising that the phrase would have so much appeal for a television audience. I think the reason has something to do with the fact that it carries a certain power and resonance with it because the person who has the authority to use it within any organization is, generally speaking, a person who gets to call the shots. It is emblematic of executive control and, therefore, the ability to get things done within an organization. That is not to say that good leaders get their way solely or even primarily by threatening to fire people who work for them. Effective leadership, more often than not, requires what are sometimes called soft leadership skills. But the fact, nonetheless, remains that the head of an organization must always have hanging in reserve, sort of like an employer Damoclean sword--the absolute right to terminate a subordinate. It is the ultimate and essential backstop that enforces and reifies an executive's power to make decisions. This is true for pretty much any leader, whether that leader happens to be the CEO of a corporation, the coach of a sports team, or a general out on the field of battle. Yet, remarkably, under our laws, the President of the United States lacks authority over many high-ranking officers within the executive branch. Despite its elemental association with Executive power, Congress and the courts have time and again deprived the President of the ability to remove his subordinates at will. These restrictions often take the form of statutory for-cause removal protections, such as the provision of the Federal Trade Commission Act that provides that Commissioners may be removed only ``for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.'' In enacting laws like this, Congress has cast aside the original meaning of the Constitution and thereby eroded a critical safeguard of American freedom. As anyone who has studied the Constitution or constitutional law, for that matter, can guess, my reference to the FTC's for-cause protection is not accidental. That statute formed the basis of the lawsuit that culminated in the 1935 decision by the Supreme Court in a case called Humphrey's Executor, in which the Supreme Court held for the first time that Congress may impose restrictions on the President's removal power. In so holding, the Supreme Court overruled its earlier precedent in Myers v. United States, which had held that Congress may not limit the President's ability to remove principal officers within the Federal Government, but Humphrey's Executor didn't simply overrule Myers. Rather, as Justice Scalia later wrote, ``it gutt[ed], in six quick pages devoid of textual or historical precedent. . . . a carefully researched and reasoned 70-page opinion.'' That juxtaposition alone tells you what you need to know about these decisions. One had constitutional text and original understanding and historical precedent behind it. The other was constitutional law by judicial fiat. Article II of the Constitution unquestionably establishes a unitary executive. The vesting clause provides that ``the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.'' As Alexander Hamilton explained it in Federalist No. 70, placing the totality of the Executive power in a single individual was no happenstance. It was no mistake. It wasn't just sort of some fluke. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention recognized that a unified executive was essential to ensure energy and accountability in the execution of the laws, and the Constitution was drafted accordingly, consistent with this understanding. Without the authority to supervise and direct, and, yes, ultimately fire his subordinates, it is impossible for the President to fulfill his duty imposed by article II to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' The Founders also understood that the President's removal power was the bedrock of his authority to oversee the executive branch. In a famous debate during the First Congress, James Madison argued that ``if any power whatsoever is in its nature Executive, it is the power of appointing, overseeing, and controlling those who execute the laws.'' He went on to note that ``if the President should possess alone the power of removal from office, those who are employed in the execution of the law will be in their proper situation, and the chain of dependence be preserved; [they] will depend, as they ought, on the President, and the President on the community.'' Madison's argument prevailed, and the First Congress declined, on constitutional grounds, for the reasons articulated by James Madison himself, to create for-cause removal protections for the heads of the newly established executive branch departments. They considered it; Madison raised, very persuasively, this constitutional argument against it; and then they voted it down. That was the original understanding of the removal power, and it predominated for nearly 150 years after the Founding. Since Humphrey's Executor and its radical departure from the original understanding in 1935, for-cause removal protections, both statutory and otherwise, have, sadly, proliferated, giving rise to a vast, headless, out-of-control branch of government, a fourth branch of government, if you will, that exists beyond the control of the President and is therefore unaccountable to the people. In fact, by some estimations, there are over 80 so-called independent agencies within the executive branch. These executive branch agencies that we refer to somehow as independent are entrusted with regulating immense swaths of American life--from competition policy and workplace safety regulations to labor relations and even securities laws. They make rules; they adjudicate rights; and they enforce laws. The potential for abuse is tremendous; the inconsistency with the republican principles this country was founded on, obvious. Now, there are a lot of people here who like the sound of the term ``independent agency,'' and they might suppose, incorrectly, that an agency that is independent, that is beyond the control of the President of the United States to oversee, that that is somehow a good thing. On closer inspection, we discover that quite the opposite is true. When we insulate someone from Presidential oversight, what we are doing is taking the American people out of the picture. There is a reason why we have elections every 4 years, and those elections focus on the election of a President. It is so there is some chain of accountability between the people and the executive branch of government. That has become more important, not less, over the last few decades as we have created more and more executive branch agencies and we have entrusted those agencies with more and more power. It has never been more important than it is today to make sure the people are connected. If you disconnect the American people by insulating them from the political process, then you have a whole group of people who these days are charged not just with administrating the laws but, in some cases, with effectively making it and interpreting it, and you are taking them beyond the supervision that would otherwise be appropriate by the President of the United States within the executive branch of government. In their fight against British tyranny, the Patriots of the American Revolution rallied behind the principle of ``no taxation without representation.'' Today we are faced with a somewhat different threat to freedom, as Chief Justice Roberts wrote in a case just a few years ago. ``The growth of the Executive Branch, which now wields vast power and touches almost every aspect of daily life, heightens the concern that it may slip from the Executive's control, and thus from that of the people.'' In other words, as Chief Justice Roberts explained, when you take this power away from the President, you are taking it away from the people. The people lose their input on and their control over these very important functions of what is appropriately described as the people's government. The concern is further compounded by the existence of independent agencies that are, by law, divorced from any Presidential control. As a result, in this new fight against tyranny, our watchword perhaps must be ``no regulation without representation.'' That is why I have spearheaded the Article I Project and why I supported legislation such as the REINS Act and the Separation of Powers Restoration Act that would bring the Federal regulatory apparatus, as we know it, to heel. Of course, more is needed. We need to not only reform Congress's relationship with the administrative state but the President's as well. To that end, I am introducing new legislation called the Take Care Act. The bill would restore the unitary executive envisioned by the Founders and, in fact, required by the Constitution by stripping away all existing for-cause removal protections from the so-called independent agencies. It would also limit Congress's ability to create for-cause protections by implication in the future and take other critical steps to fortify the President's directive authority. Simply put, the Take Care Act would eliminate the headless fourth branch of government, empower the President to ensure faithful execution of the law, and make the bureaucracy accountable to the people again. Importantly, the Take Care Act would not cause the work of administrative agencies to become subject to the unmitigated whims and caprices of a President. There is still very real, very meaningful political constraints, including the Senate's advise and consent role, that would ensure, as they do now, in areas outside of these so-called independent agencies, that the executive officers can fulfill their congressionally assigned duties without undue interference. In other words, although there are some so-called independent agencies as to which the President has no removal power, there are a whole lot that are not. The President's Cabinet and many other positions within the Federal Government involve people who are appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and who serve at the pleasure of the President who can be fired at any moment for any reason the President might deem appropriate. Nevertheless, that does not mean that Presidents go around just firing people arbitrarily because Presidents understand that there is a political cost to doing that. We have seen in recent years, and we have seen earlier in American history, how Presidents, even when they have disagreements with members of their Cabinet or other people who serve at the pleasure of the President--Presidents are still reluctant to fire people because there are political costs attached to that, and especially where Congress perceives there might be a partisan political motive in mind, Congress may well take action. In the case of the Senate, it almost inevitably will at least threaten, if not carry out the threat, to hold up future confirmations of Presidential appointees if Presidents abuse this power. So it simply isn't true to say that this would open the floodgates and cause all Presidents to just fire people arbitrarily without hesitation in the future. What it would mean is that our elected President would have the power to represent the people and to oversee the executive branch of the Federal Government just as article II already requires. So all this bill would do would be to rescind and limit unconstitutional restrictions on the President's removal power, and while it may be more convenient to limit this power by statute, convenience and efficiency are not the primary objectives or the hallmarks of a democratic government, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly reminded us. Another famous catchphrase popularized by an American President is ``the buck stops here,'' which President Truman, of course, displayed on a placard on his desk in the Oval Office at the White House during his Presidency. What it means is, the President is the final decision maker within the executive branch, and, therefore, bears the sole and ultimate responsibility for executing the laws. In order to fulfill that very special, sacred, important responsibility, the President must have plenary power to direct the President's subordinates in how they carry out their assigned tasks and, if necessary, fire them. That is what the Constitution and, indeed, common sense require. By restoring the original understanding and restoring the removal power to the Presidency, the Take Care Act would give the President this authority. By taking this step, we would reempower the American people with that which is rightfully theirs to begin with.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is that time of year where I am privileged to recognize exceptional young men and women from the great State of Utah who have answered the call to serve by applying to the U.S. Air Force Academy, the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, the U.S. Military Academy, and the U.S. Naval Academy. It is one of my greatest honors to recognize these fine Utahns in the U.S. Senate. Under title 10 of the U.S. Code, each year, Members of Congress are authorized to nominate a number of young men and women from their district or State to attend the country's service academies. Each of these students is of sound mind and body. This will serve them well in Colorado Springs, Kings Point, West Point, and Annapolis, but to succeed, they will need more than this. The journey on which these young men and women will soon embark requires more than mental and physical aptitude. It also demands strong moral character: leadership, courage, honesty, prudence, and self- discipline. It calls for a commitment to service and a love of country. Ultimately, it provides a chance for some of Utah's finest to stand up for our country. Today, I would like to congratulate each of these impressive students, all of whom embody, in their own unique way, the standards of excellence upon which America's service academies are built. Carson James Angeroth will be attending the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy after graduating from Cottonwood High School, where he was part of the State champion baseball team. He served as a church camp counselor for 3 years and served his neighbors by helping them clean and renovate their homes. As a leader in the youth organization through his church, he is as an example for his peers. He is often found outdoors hiking, biking, and skiing. Jackson Thomas DuPaix accepted an appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy. He earned his diploma a year early from Rockbridge County High School and has been attending Southern Virginia University. An Eagle Scout from Riverton, UT, he was part of his high school's drone club and lacrosse team. He served as president of his church youth group and stayed active in his community by helping with home renovations, city landscaping projects, and putting together Christmas boxes of food and toys. Cassidy Ann Eiting is following in her father's footsteps and attending the U.S. Air Force Academy. After graduating from South Summit High School, she attended the Northwestern Preparatory School. She was a leader in high school as the student body vice president, captain of both her swimming and soccer teams, and a member of the two- time State champion softball team. Inspired by her mother, a commissioned Air Force officer, she stayed active in her school and community as a member of the MiteE Team, Interact Club, and National Honor Society. Jacob Joseph Frederick, the student body president of Skyline High School, will follow his father to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He attended Boys State and earned his Eagle Scout Award, while being active on the basketball and lacrosse teams. Building his leadership skills, Jacob served as first chair trumpet for the concert band and jazz band, coach of a youth basketball team, and as a summer camp counselor. He worked on projects benefiting veterans at the Fisher House in Salt Lake City. Christina Gillespie accepted an appointment to the U.S. Air Force Academy, joining a long family tradition of Air Force service. She graduated from Clearfield High School where she maintained a 4.0 GPA and captained the swimming team, earning the MVP title twice. She served as president of her church youth group and as the student body officer over service, where her school raised $50,000 for local charities. A member of the school choir, Christina is also a member of the Oratorio Society of Utah, a nondenominational choral organization. Enoch Austin Horning, a member of the Utah Army National Guard, will be continuing his service at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point after having attended the Military Academy's preparatory school. He served as the student body president of the Utah Military Academy, where he was captain of the Ranger Team. Enoch was awarded the JROTC Cadet of the Year Award, earned his Eagle Scout Award, and attended Boys State. He served in the Civil Air Patrol, as president of the Strategic Gaming Club, and as a member of the Cyber Patriots. Camryn Lynlee Karras, from Weber High School, accepted an appointment to the U.S. Air Force Academy. An outstanding soccer player, Camryn captained both her high school team and her national league club team. She is a member of the National Honor Society, the Robotics Club, and Health Occupations Students of America--HOSA. Each year at Christmastime, she looks forward to providing gifts and breakfast to the Boys and Girls Club in her community. Spencer Burnett Knudsen will be joining a family history of Army service when he attends the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He is already building his leadership credentials as the student body president of Monticello High School, captain of the basketball team, and head lifeguard for the city of Monticello. Spencer is a member of the National Honor Society, the Future Business Leaders of America-- FBLA--and serves his community as a volunteer EMT with San Juan County. Karsten Korb Matosich will be attending the U.S. Military Academy at West Point after graduating from Bingham High School. An Eagle Scout, Karsten serves his community as an organist for his church and at local retirement homes, winterizing homes on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, and coordinating the assembly and donation of hundreds of oral hygiene kits. He served as cocaptain of his debate team and played in the Bingham Symphony. Levi Daniel Montoya will be attending the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. As a graduate of Juan Diego Catholic High School, Levi stayed busy as the team captain of both his high school and club lacrosse teams. A member of the National Honor Society, he also was a member of the Key Club, Pre-med Club, and the Boy Scouts. Levi was inspired to attend West Point by his father and grandfather, both Army soldiers, who told the stories of his great-grandfather, Army Medic Albert Montoya, who served valiantly on the beaches of Normandy on June 6, 1944. Samuel Austin Nafus, who was offered multiple academy appointments, has chosen to follow his brother to the U.S. Naval Academy. A member of the State champion academic olympiad team for Bountiful High School, Sam also participated in DECA, debate, and Model UN. He maintained a 4.0 GPA while being active in his community as a lector for Saint Olaf Catholic Church, attending Boys State, and earning his Eagle Scout Award. Sam received varsity letters for both football and track. Jaxon Jefferson Porter will be attending the U.S. Military Academy at West Point after having served for 2 years as a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Armenia. Jaxon graduated from Weber High School in 2016, where he challenged himself by taking a difficult course load of AP classes. He served his community through projects with the Boy Scouts and with the Bates Elementary School library. Jaxon has been recognized as being goal oriented, which will serve him well as he enters the academy. Alma Helaman Redd comes from a military family. His father and all of his brothers have served in the military, including an Air Force Academy graduate and a graduate of West Point. Alma is following their examples and attending the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He graduated from the American Heritage School and is currently attending Utah Valley University after service as missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He is an Eagle Scout and a fan of ultimate frisbee. He attended Boys State and was a member of the yearbook staff, National Honor Society, and the honors band and honors choir. Gabriel Rosa, a graduate of Skyline High School, has accepted an appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy. A leader in the making, Gabriel served as a captain and squadron commander in the Civil Air Patrol and as the chairman of the Utah Wing Cadet Advisory Council. He captained his ice hockey team, served as president of the Future Business Leaders of America--FBLA--and as the State party chairman at Boys State. Gabriel is a nationally qualified fencer in men's saber. Ethan James Schofield will be entering the U.S. Air Force Academy after having served as a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Indonesia. A graduate of Lone Peak High School, Ethan stayed active in sports and served as the captain of the football team and as a member of the lacrosse and track and field teams. He earned his Eagle Scout Award with a project for the city of American Fork, where his team ran a tree inventory. He is an avid mountain biker and downhill skier. Matthew Walker Schvaneveldt will again join the cadets of the U.S. Military Academy after having served in the Japan Sapporo Mission with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Matthew graduated from the Northern Utah Academy for Math, Engineering & Science, NUAMES, where he was president of the National Honor Society. He earned his Eagle Scout Award, attended Boys State, and was honored with the Volunteer of the Year Award from McKay-Dee Hospital in Ogden, UT. Trevor Dean Smiley is returning to the U.S. Air Force Academy following 2 years of missionary service for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Australia Brisbane Mission. Trevor played varsity baseball and football for Corner Canyon High School. He earned his Eagle Scout Award and spent time in Taiwan with the TIYEA leadership camp where he taught English to children. David Sperry White is returning to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point after serving 2 years speaking Korean as a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Korea Seoul Mission. A proud graduate and former student body president of Uintah High School in Vernal, UT, David is an Eagle Scout and published author. He attended Boys State and was president of the service club, Vernal Youth in Action. Michael Ammon Wintercorn has been attending Brigham Young University while preparing himself to attend the U.S. Naval Academy. He graduated from Jordan High School, where he ran for both the cross-country and track and field teams. Michael, an Eagle Scout, served on the Sandy Youth City Council and as president of his church youth group. He spent 2 years speaking Japanese as a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Fukuoka Japan Mission. A member of the National Honor Society, Michael also played trumpet for the symphonic band and for a local elderly care center. Miles Stanley Zembruski is following in the footsteps of the many NASA astronauts he has long admired and accepted an appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy. A graduate of West High School, where he participated in the Navy JROTC and the Civil Air Patrol, Miles was a member of the Model Rocketry Club, the National Honor Society, and the cross-country team. He founded an independent philosophy/literature publication and a volunteer community service organization, all while maintaining a rigorous academic schedule of AP and IB classes. It has been inspiring to nominate each of these exemplary young men and women. Doing so has given me an unshakeable confidence in the future of this great Nation and future of our Armed Services. To these 20 students and to all their future classmates from around the country, do not forget: This is but the beginning of your journey. You would not have arrived at this point were it not for your hard work and sacrifice and for the service and example your parents, family, teachers, coaches, and mentors. What matters most now is not your past accomplishments, but what you will achieve in the future. Thank you.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, on May 10, 1869, a golden spike was driven into the last link joining the rails of the first transcontinental railroad at Promontory Summit, UT. Made of 17-carat gold and driven into a predrilled hole in the very last ceremonial tie, it bore the inscription: ``May God continue the unity of our country as this railroad unites the two great oceans of the world.'' Indeed, it did, with the joining of the Union Pacific Railroad, stretching from the Missouri River near the Iowa-Nebraska border, and the Central Pacific Railroad, stretching from Sacramento, CA--east met west. The United States became truly united. As the spike was struck, a telegraph was sent around the Nation, and bells rang out from coast to coast. This moment, you see, gave lots of people throughout the United States and lots of people in my State of Utah in particular access to what they needed to grow, to thrive, to prosper, to feed their families; that is, access to other people. Throughout the history of humanity, people have needed access to other people. That is why great civilizations have sprung up along great rivers and in areas where they had access to an ocean port. It is one of the reasons why, throughout much of history, people in land- locked regions of any country, including our own, very often have a hard time making a living. The introduction of the railroad started to help to change that. Tomorrow marks the 150th anniversary of this pivotal moment, and so it is only right that we pause for just a minute to recognize it, for this was a moment that changed the course of history in Utah and in our Nation and ultimately the entire world. With the driving of that golden spike, the arduous 6-month journey that used to be required to cross the country--costing $1,000--had become a mere 10-day trip costing only $150. Thousands of miles of tracks were laid across the country, allowing people to migrate west and to establish new settlements far more quickly, safely, and easily. It transformed the economy across Utah and throughout the Nation. Goods became efficiently transported across much farther distances. Settlers found new markets, and buyers on the frontier and in rural areas were able to purchase items that had previously been completely unavailable to them in some cases or at least very difficult to obtain. It spurred a boon in communications, commerce, agriculture, construction, and mining. It started a significant new chapter in our relationship with Asia and the Pacific region, and it served as a model of innovation and prosperity for the rest of the world. All of this came about, it is important to note, from the perseverance and efforts of many different people from different walks of life working together. It required a clear-eyed vision from President Lincoln and the Federal Government and a fruitful private- public partnership that allowed the engineers, railroad companies, and local communities the freedom to do their jobs and to do them well and without undo interference. It would not have been possible without the work of the Chinese, Irish, Mormons, Civil War veterans, Native Americans, and countless other laborers who toiled so long and so hard with such a clear devotion to build these railroads. Most of this is, of course, in the history books, as well it ought to be. Most of us have a sense of the enormous achievement this moment represented some 150 years ago tomorrow, of the great impact it had on our Nation and the legacy it has left behind for us and for our posterity. But what we often do not know are some of the stories of the ordinary men and women behind these achievements and the ones who have worked so hard to preserve this great legacy. There are, in fact, hidden heroes who make history and unseen efforts of people who worked so hard to keep that history alive. The doors of history sometimes turn on small and often unseen hinges, and so I would like to take a moment to honor a few of those people today who helped move history forward. Some of us might know the name of Theodore Judah--a railroad and civil engineer who was key to the original idea and design of connecting these railroads and who advocated for the so-called Central Route for the first transcontinental railroad, the Central Route marked in red in this picture. But less familiar is the name of Theodore's wife, Anna Judah. While many routes were surveyed as possible paths for the railroad, Theodore Judah had an often-scoffed-at dream of laying rails through the mountains of the Sierra Nevada, from California going eastward. Anna Judah shared Theodore's dream of connecting the first transcontinental railroad. When Theodore hiked and surveyed the Sierra Nevadas, Anna hiked and worked right alongside of him. She sketched and did water colors and even oil paintings of the terrain, plants, and the foliage. She gathered and labeled the various fossils and minerals. She took copious notes all the while, taking into account different things she and her husband observed as they were traveling. After their time in the Sierra Nevadas, Theodore and Anna, like Brigham Young, knew: This is the place. Together they fell in love with the idea of the railroad taking the Central Route across the Sierra Nevadas, believing that it would provide the perfect path for what they wanted to accomplish. So they began traveling back and forth from California, dedicating their efforts to lobbying for their dream in Washington. Anna was sharp, charming, tenacious, and undoubtedly she was Theodore's biggest booster. She had the idea to display an exhibit right here in the Capitol showcasing her notes and her clippings from their travels in the area, her drawings and her paintings, samples of mineral and ore she had collected, and charts and graphs that she was able to present in a way that made them understandable to laymen, that helped other people understand why this area was so important and the significant role it could play in our Nation's development. Literally hundreds of Senators, Congressmen, lobbyists, and government clerks visited her display, which helped convince the eastern legislators of the beauty of the western mountains--which many of them had never seen or at least not experienced anything like the way she had--and turned their hearts to the possibility of building a railroad over them and through them to unite a country. Ultimately, Congress was persuaded--to everyone's benefit--to choose Judah's proposal for the Central Route and did so in large part because of Anna Judah's efforts. Tragically, Anna's husband Theodore contracted yellow fever. As a result, he died before seeing the railroad completed and, in fact, even before the project was started in earnest. But Anna lived to see their dream to fruition. In fact, the driving of the last spike took place on what would have been the couple's 22nd wedding anniversary. On the date of the ceremony, Anna visited her husband's grave, and she wrote that there her husband's spirit--so long dedicated to the railroad--felt somehow near to her once again. Years later, another young woman fell in love with the history of the Golden Spike and the beginning of the first transcontinental railroad. Bernice Gibbs Anderson, known to some as the Mother of the Golden Spike, was born in Colorado in 1900 and lived the majority of her life in Corinne, UT. As a little girl, Bernice helped trail cattle near Promontory Summit and grew up hearing cowboy stories around the campfire, including stories about the Golden Spike, and, as her granddaughter put it, ``She just plain fell in love with it.'' From the time she was 19 up until the moment of her death, she tirelessly dedicated her life to recognizing and preserving the history surrounding Golden Spike. Bernice conceived the idea that the area around Promontory Summit ought to be set aside to commemorate the completion of the transcontinental railroad. For years, she campaigned to make Promontory Summit a national historic monument. She visited countless legislators, Governors, commissioners, and railroad officers to raise support and raise funds for a monument at Promontory Summit. A mother of six children, she also worked as a correspondent and as a staff writer for the Salt Lake Tribune, where she wrote historic articles and poetry about the Golden Spike. She sent letters and invitations to Members of Congress, U.S. Presidents, and Park Service officials--all in hopes that they might come to recognize the importance of the site. As President of the Golden Spike Association, she coordinated reenactment ceremonies and anniversary programs, encouraging local communities to participate in those celebrations every year. While some viewed her mission as somewhat unimportant--or, at least, less important than other things--and, therefore, dismissed her efforts, she never gave up. Thankfully, Bernice lived to see the fruits of her labors. After years of devoting her life to this case, Promontory Summit was declared a national historic site on July 30, 1965. Just this past March, it was redesignated as a national historic park--the first in Utah--allowing even more of the railroad and the surrounding area to be preserved for history going forward. Fast forward to 2019. We now reached the 150th anniversary of the Golden Spike. Today, another dedicated woman has been behind its sesquicentennial celebration, Spike 150. Aimee McConkie, carrying the banner previously carried by Anna Judah and Bernice Gibbs Anderson, has been a driving force in our State and in her community. A BYU graduate, a wife, and mother of four daughters, Aimee has worked for 15 years in professional association management. In 2005 she founded Utah Venture Outdoors, a summer festival series in Millcreek, UT. For 14 years, she volunteered her time and her resources to this event, seeking to bring the community together through recreational opportunities. In 2017 she also launched LABELED, a 4-day film festival that seeks to break the stigma around mental health issues. Now she has once again brought her community together for an important cause--this time, to celebrate and commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Golden Spike. Under her leadership as director of Spike 150, there are events taking place not only around Promontory Summit but also around the entire State of Utah--events to highlight the history and legacy of the Golden Spike, events for children and families, and events for music, art, and train enthusiasts. It has taken tremendous amounts of organization, coordination, and perseverance, and it would no doubt make Bernice Gibbs Anderson proud. At the 1957 celebration of the Golden Spike, she said: This is sacred soil, dedicated to the sacrifices of the thousands who labored in the great race to build the first transcontinental railway in the shortest possible time. . . . The destiny of this nation rode triumphant upon the rails that met at Promontory Station! The future of this site depends on you, my friends. Will it take its rightful place in the heritage and traditions of America . . . or will it remain desolate and forgotten to sink into oblivion[?] Thanks to the work of people like Aimee McConkie, we know that the Golden Spike will not sink into oblivion but will indeed take its rightful place in history. Anna Judah, Bernice Gibbs Anderson, and Aimee McConkie might have lived at different times, but there is a common thread that runs throughout their stories: the triumph of ordinary people, of the hidden heroes behind so many of our great achievements in history. Without the work of these ordinary Americans and Utahns, we never could have achieved one of the most transformative events in our Nation thus far: the driving of the Golden Spike and the completion of the first transcontinental railroad. And without the work of these hidden heroes, we could never reasonably hope and expect to be able to keep this legacy alive. It is our task now to take up the banner that these women have carried--the banner of innovation, perseverance, and unity--and to ensure that our remarkable heritage lives on. If we do, there is no telling what Utah and our great Nation can achieve together. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, many Americans might be surprised, shocked, and troubled to learn that some of their tax dollars are going directly to Chinese companies and that some of those dollars even go to corporations owned by the Chinese Government, like Chinese banks, Chinese development agencies, and Chinese microprocessor factories. In recent years, in fact, China received $50 million in loans and guarantees, all backed by American citizens. Taxpayers would be right to be puzzled and concerned about why their hard-earned money is subsidizing Chinese state-owned companies. To be clear, we are not talking about voluntary investment from American businesses; we are taking about the backing of the U.S. Government. They might ask: How is this the case? Why on Earth would we do this? Why is this happening? The answer has to do with the very institution to which we are going to be trying to confirm nominees today. The Export-Import Bank--or Ex-Im, as it is often described--was created during the height of the Great Depression to help U.S. exporters when they were desperate for customers and foreign markets lacked the capital to finance trade. It was conceived particularly to help small businesses to be able to compete, as many of its current proponents still claim, still insist, to this very day. But for decades, the institution that is the Export-Import Bank has unfortunately been used as a giant tool for corporate welfare. Ex-Im has operated to benefit the wealthiest and the most politically connected businesses in America, as well as their overseas clients and, believe it or not, foreign governments. Take Boeing, for instance. Look, it is no coincidence that Ex-Im has been nicknamed ``Boeing's bank.'' When Ex-Im financing was at its peak, Boeing received 70 percent of all Export-Import Bank loan guarantees and 40 percent of all Ex-Im dollars. Which other large corporations have benefited? Well, they include General Electric, John Deere, Caterpillar, and other industrial giants--hardly businesses that are unable to get financing elsewhere; hardly businesses that fit within the category of what the biggest proponents of Ex-Im claim need Ex-Im to exist in the first place. In fact, while Ex-Im claims that 90 percent of the businesses to which it provides support are ``small businesses,'' when you dive into those numbers, the numbers tell a somewhat different story. They show that small businesses received only about 25 percent of Ex-Im dollars. That doesn't even touch the fact that in 2014 Caterpillar and Boeing were the first and fourth largest recipients of so-called small business funds from Ex-Im. So if Boeing and Caterpillar--great U.S. companies that employ tens of thousands of hard-working Americans and make good products used by people all over the world--if they can be considered small businesses, it makes you question the vernacular used by Export-Import Bank proponents. Looking at the Bank's track record as a whole, only one-half of 1 percent of all small businesses in America actually benefit from Export-Import financing--a very small tip of a very large iceberg; a very small portion of all business enterprises in the United States. It makes one question, why, then, do we have one entity that is set up to provide such a large benefit to so few businesses? It is a similar story on the foreign side. Abroad, Ex-Im has largely benefited big companies that already collect massive subsidies as state-controlled entities and entities that can easily get private financing elsewhere. The No. 1 buyer of exports subsidized by Ex-Im between 2007 and 2013 was Pemex. For those not familiar with Pemex, it is the notoriously corrupt petroleum company owned by the Mexican Government. Pemex, which has a market cap of $416 billion, received more than $7 billion in loans backed by U.S. taxpayers. Why? During the same period, Ex-Im backed $3.4 billion in financing to Emirates Airlines--a company wholly owned by the Government of Dubai-- for Emirates' purchase of Boeing planes. Indeed, a large share of Ex-Im financing has historically gone to foreign airlines and to foreign energy companies--businesses that are, in fact, competing with American companies. Now, not that there is anything wrong with competition. It is great. Competition ought to exist. Competition improves quality, and it brings down prices. But why is it that we, as the U.S. Government, are in many instances financing the competitors of U.S. businesses--competitors that in many instances are owned by foreign governments? Moreover, we have been sending money to countries that in many cases have what we would describe as dubious records on human rights and high levels of corruption. In the last 5 years, Saudi Arabia and Mexico were the top foreign recipients of Export-Import Bank aid, and in the past, when Ex-Im had the authority to grant larger subsidies, the top foreign recipient was typically China. In 2014, China received $2.2 billion in U.S. taxpayer- backed loans and guarantees with most of it going to businesses owned by the Chinese Government. If it weren't so sad, this would be funny. If it weren't so strange, it would be interesting. To top it all off, Ex-Im has had poor accounting and has had rather significant problems with transparency. In 2013, Ex-Im was either unable or unwilling to provide any justification whatsoever for half of the financing deals in its portfolio. Here again, this is stunning. I find it troubling that we are seriously considering these nominees without first addressing why we have the Export-Import Bank in the first place and why there haven't been more reforms required before we confirm additional nominees to its governing body. There have already been 30 corruption and fraud investigations into Ex-Im's activity. Now, thankfully, Congress put a check on some of Export-Import Bank's power back in 2015 when we allowed the Board's quorum to expire, and thus, we capped its ability to make deals larger than $10 million. In the past few years, 66 percent of Ex-Im's loans have actually gone to small businesses instead of the Boeings and Caterpillars, compared to the 25 percent that went to them before. It turns out that the big businesses have been doing just fine, even since those limitations kicked in a few years ago. In fact, some of them--many of them--are doing even better than before. Last year was Boeing's best year yet, with exports making a particularly strong showing. As Boeing itself admitted, it had ``robust'' private sector financing. According to reports in 2017, there were unprecedented levels of competition among lenders and insurers to finance aircraft exports. It turns out that when the government leaves a profitable line of business, private business enterprises do in fact compete in the marketplace to take its place, and, as it turns out, private businesses make better business decisions than governments. That is the lesson we need to take from this. The sky did not fall when these limitations kicked in a few years ago, and they would not fall if we continued additional reforms, or even, I would dare say, if we phased out the Export-Import Bank altogether. Furthermore, with the decrease in Ex-Im's subsidies, U.S. exports have actually risen slightly. Between 2014 and 2018, exports rose from $1.7 trillion to $1.8 trillion. Yet today the swamp strikes back. The prospect of confirming three nominees to the Ex-Im Bank, thanks to the nuking of the Senate rules a few weeks back, suggests Boeing's bank will in fact rise from the grave to resume its long history of fraud, corruption, abusive power, and government manipulation of the marketplace. We do not need to further empower the rich and politically connected companies that are already flourishing. That only undermines trust in our government, which is supposed to protect taxpayers from corruption and from waste, and it unilaterally prevents us from having a more thriving, more competitive economy--one that would actually produce more jobs in America and one that would actually produce things in such a way that would benefit more consumers in America. We do not need to use this outdated, broken, corrupt Bank as a tool for countering foreign interests. We certainly don't need it as a tool for subsidizing foreign interests. The way to confront China's and other countries' expansionism is certainly not to subsidize their state-owned companies. No, we don't need Boeing's bank, and neither do we need Beijing's bank. Cronyism and policy privilege threaten exactly, precisely the principles upon which our Nation was founded and the principles that have fostered the development of the greatest civilization and of the strongest economy the world has ever known. They subvert the rule of law by codifying inequality and rob ordinary Americans--the moms and pops and small business owners--from having a level playing field in what is supposed to be the land of opportunity. People's access to opportunity shouldn't depend on their access to government. It shouldn't depend on their ability to employ an army of lobbyists and government consultants. No, it should depend on their ability to innovate. We are great as a country and we are strong as an economy not because of who we are but because of what we do. We have succeeded precisely because we have chosen free markets over central planning. We have chosen the rights of the individual in a free, open, robust marketplace rather than having business decisions made by a government bureaucrat in Washington, DC. The fact that this might have made sense to those sitting in this Chamber and the House of Representatives some eight or nine decades ago doesn't mean that it has to make sense now. It doesn't mean that we are stuck perpetually in this same path. It certainly shouldn't mean that the American people should be required to work days, weeks, and months out of every year to fund the Federal Government that includes this program, the Export-Import Bank, which ends up giving a whole lot of that money to big businesses in America and to state-owned businesses abroad to participate in what is supposed to be a free-market economy and, thereby, dilutes the power of that economy. If we are to move toward restoring fairness to our economy and our government, it would be in our best interest to get rid of this cronyist Bank altogether. At the very least, we ought not to empower it to its full capacity for abuse by confirming these nominees today. I will vote against them. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE

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

Mr. LEE. Madam President, over the past few months, the Members of this body and the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives resoundingly have voted in favor of S.J. Res. 7, which would remove U.S. Armed Forces from Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen. This unconstitutional, unjustified, and ultimately immoral war has repeatedly come up over the last year, and thankfully America's elected lawmakers in Washington have taken a stand against it. The President has vetoed our resolution, but today we have the opportunity--and I believe we have the absolute constitutional duty--to once again take a stand on this important matter. Today, we have the opportunity to override the veto in pursuit of justice, prudence, and upholding the constitutionally mandated separation of powers. This is one of the most important, fundamental features of our constitutional system. Congress and Congress alone may declare war. This is in direct contrast to the way our old national government--the one in London-- worked. Under that system, the chief executive could take the country to war, but not in America, not under our system, not in the U.S. Constitution. In fact, it is one of the distinguishing characteristics pointed out in Federalist 69. As we have already heard, the humanitarian crisis in Yemen is dire, and estimates show that the crisis is even worse than we had previously thought. The Yemen war has claimed the lives of tens of thousands of people, including a whole lot of innocent civilians in attacks that can only be described as horrific. It is believed that from 2016 to 2018, over 60,000 combatants and civilians were killed in direct violence attached to this war, but the full scale of suffering from starvation, poverty, and disease is even more staggering than the stark numbers that I have just quoted involving direct combat or direct violence. Over half of the population of Yemen is considered currently to be in the crisis stage of famine. An estimated 3.3 million children are malnourished, and over 84,000 children have died just between the start of the war in 2015 and October of 2018. Poor water and sanitation conditions have also led to the largest cholera outbreak in history, with more than 1.3 million suspected cases and over 2,600 related deaths since the April 2017 outbreak. Contrary to the claims of some of our critics, the United States has, in fact, been aiding and abetting the horrors of this war. Indeed, these critics claim that we have somehow not been involved in a war in Yemen. But in March of 2015, shortly after Saudi Arabia launched its war against the Houthi rebels, the Obama administration authorized U.S. military forces to provide ``logistical and intelligence support'' to the Saudi coalition. The Obama administration provided this authorization without any kind of approval from Congress. Since then, we have helped the Saudis with surveillance, reconnaissance and information, target selection assistance, and, until quite recently, with midair refueling, including midair refueling involving combat missions. In other words, we have been materially assisting a foreign power in its efforts to bomb its adversaries and sometimes helping that foreign power to bomb innocent civilians on the ground in the process. Other opponents of our resolution claim that our involvement in this undeclared, unconstitutional, immoral civil war half a world away in Yemen is somehow constitutional, is somehow statutorily authorized under the War Powers Act of 1973, which authorizes the executive branch to use Armed Forces in cases of emergencies and under certain limited time constraints. The conflict in Yemen--a conflict between a regional rebel group on the one hand and the Saudi-backed government on the other hand--by no means constitutes or in any way presents a threat to the safety of American citizens in the United States, and our involvement has far surpassed the allotment of any emergency time constraint contemplated under the war powers resolution. Still others say that we are not engaged in ``hostilities'' that constitute a conflict of war under the War Powers Act. But these critics, of course, are relying on an overly narrow and outdated definition from a 1976 memorandum--a memorandum, I would add, internal to the executive branch. In that respect, it is self-serving and one that does not include the indisputably high-tech activities of war today. The way we fight wars today often ends up involving cyber activity, reconnaissance, surveillance, and target selection--the precise activities we are engaged in in this war in Yemen. Even aside from that, under the War Powers Act, we ourselves do not have to be involved in hostilities. We don't have to establish that in order to trigger the War Powers Act--that we are involved in hostilities. The War Powers Act is triggered so long as we are sufficiently involved with the armed forces of another nation, when they--those armed forces of another nation--are themselves involved in hostilities. There can be no doubt in our minds--not in my mind, in your mind, not in the mind of any American--that the Saudis are engaged in hostilities in Yemen, and we are helping them. So it is immaterial; it is completely inconsequential if you accept this crab, self-serving, narrow, outdated definition of the word ``hostilities'' found in this 1976 Department of Defense memorandum. Finally, some opponents of this effort, of this resolution to call for our withdrawal from this undeclared, unconstitutional, immoral war in Yemen, are saying that removing U.S. forces would somehow hurt our efforts to combat terrorism in the region, specifically against al- Qaida and ISIS, and would endanger the lives of American citizens and soldiers. In the first place, these critics are dangerously conflating different geopolitical conflicts. The conflict in Yemen is a regional, civil war. It is not about al-Qaida. It is not about ISIS. Even if it were, our resolution, S.J. Res. 7, the one we are talking about today in the context of a veto override debate--that resolution explicitly states that it would not impede the military's ability to fight these terror groups. Furthermore, there is evidence that our involvement in Yemen might well have--in fact, probably has--further destabilized the region and that it has actually undermined the effort against al- Qaida's affiliates. A 2016 State Department report found that the conflict between the Saudi-led forces and the Houthi insurgents has actually helped al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, also known as AQAP, and ISIS's Yemen branch to ``deepen their inroads across much of the country.'' So, no, involvement in Yemen is far from being in the best interest of the United States--not in the slightest, not even by a shred. Every day it only becomes clearer and clearer that Saudi Arabia is not an ally that deserves our unwavering, unflinching, unquestioning support and military intervention, especially when our own security--the security of the American people on U.S. soil--is not on the line. Last October, there was of course the killing of Jamal Khashoggi. In February, a report came out suggesting that the United Arab Emirates have actually transferred American-made weapons to al-Qaida-linked fighters and other military groups. In other words, the Saudi-led coalition is possibly giving our own weapons, in violation of our own end user agreements with them, to the very terrorist groups we are trying to fight, the very terrorist groups that opponents of this resolution incorrectly suggest would benefit from the passage of this resolution. Just this past week, news surfaced that the Saudis ruthlessly beheaded 37 men who were mainly minority Shia Muslims, 5 of them gay men who were suspected to have been tortured into a confession. Perhaps we ought not be supporting that regime at all. Perhaps we ought not give unflinching, unwavering, unquestioning devotion to a regime that treats its own people that way and that has harmed others in its own region in the way that it has. At a bare minimum, we should not be fighting an unjust civil war on their behalf, half a world away, without congressional authorization. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution unequivocally states that Congress shall have the power to declare war--Congress, not the President, not the Pentagon, not someone else in the executive branch, not some expert anywhere in the executive branch of government, but Congress. They did so. They made it this way because they understood that the decision about whether to go to war is a decision fraught with immense moral peril. There is nothing pretty about war. It always, when we face such a decision, involves a decision to put American treasure and American blood on the line. Even if you think that with modern-day weaponry and/or the modern way in which we fight wars--if you think that American blood and treasure is not being put on the line, that simply isn't true. That is exactly why the Founding Fathers placed this power in the legislative branch where it can be exercised squarely in front of the American people by their elected Representatives. This power was always intended to be exercised only by the branch of government most accountable to the people at the most regular intervals because of the moral peril necessarily involved in any decision to go to war--moral peril involving the use of U.S. resources, the putting on the line of American blood, and also the moral peril that it creates wherever we are going to war. If you truly believe that our involvement in Yemen is crucial to the safety of American citizens and America's best interests generally, that is all the more reason to debate it and discuss it right here, right now. In fact, the Constitution demands it. It already is the law. We have to do this. If you are so confident that we should be involved in this war, let's debate it. Let's vote on it. Let's let the American people see what we are about. Let's let the American people have some say in the extent to which we put America's good name, its treasure, and its blood on the line. Today, we still have an opportunity to have a say, to take a stand over this most grave matter. I urge my colleagues to take it. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, we have no further debate on the nominee.