Mitt Romney

Mr. ROMNEY

Mr. ROMNEY. Madam President, I rise today to talk about two problems that are related. These two problems have been spoken about for I think virtually decades here in this Chamber and across the political spectrum. One relates to preserving our extraordinary entitlement programs-- Social Security, Medicare, our highway trust fund, and the like. These programs are very much under threat because within 13 years, each of these trust funds, each of these programs will face insolvency. The other problem I want to talk about is the massive overspending, the deficit and the debt we have. That is something which Republicans and Democrats have been speaking about for a long time, although speaking about it less frequently as of late. These two problems are related because two-thirds of our spending at the Federal level is automatic. It is associated with our entitlement programs. So let me start with the debt. When I was running for President and when I had the chance also to run for the Senate, the No. 1 issue among the people in my State was the issue of whether we would stop spending more money than we take in. We took in about $3 trillion last year in tax revenue, but we spent about $4 trillion. There are some people who have decided to stop thinking about the deficit, to stop worrying about the debt, but as the debt reaches almost $23 trillion, it is beginning to be a real issue. I don't think we are about to face a failed auction where people won't be willing to buy our debt. We are, after all, the reserve currency of the world, and people want to have American dollars. But I am concerned that the interest is beginning to have an enormous impact on our capacity to meet our priorities. Last year we spent almost $300 billion on interest on the Federal debt, and over time, this debt, as we add to it year after year after year, is going to mean that the burden of interest payments on the American people will get larger and larger. There is a small group of people who say: Well, this isn't a problem because interest rates are so low. Well, it is not a problem until it becomes a problem, because if interest rates start creeping up at some point, it can become an extraordinary burden on the American people. If we are sending hundreds of billions of dollars to people like the Chinese, when they use those dollars to confront our military, we have a real problem leading the free world. The issue is, how come we can't deal with the debt and the deficits, and why haven't we been able to do so? There has been effort to talk about that, even though more recently it has been kind of quiet. It relates, of course, to what I started to speak about, which are our trust funds, with Medicare, with Social Security, our retirement programs. Social Security, the disability program, as well as the highway trust funds--these are scheduled to run out of money within 13 years. To deal with this issue, Senator Joe Manchin, Senator Todd Young, Senator Doug Jones, Senator Kyrsten Sinema, and I have proposed something called the TRUST Act. It is designed to save the trust funds associated with these major programs. It is designed to make sure we have a process for finally getting balance in Social Security--both trust funds in Social Security, as well as Medicare, as well as the highway trust fund. This is an effort that has been undertaken in the past unsuccessfully, and a lot of people say that it can't be done now. But it has to be done now. If it is not done now, the burden that will fall on our seniors eventually will become extraordinary. And the burden that will fall on the next generation, as they don't know whether Social Security and Medicare be can be depended upon, is unthinkable. The approach that Senator Manchin and these other Senators and I have taken is pretty straightforward. We are not laying out a specific plan to change these programs. Instead, we have laid out a process for modernizing these programs. For each one of these trust funds, our bill proposes that the leaders--Republicans and Democrats--in both Chambers, House and Senate, put together a rescue committee. For each trust fund, there will be a rescue committee that goes to work to see if, on a bipartisan, bicameral basis, we can come up with a solution to get these trust funds on a solvent basis for at least 75 years. That is an effort that will be successful only if both parties agree. If we do get that agreement in any one or each one of these different rescue committees, on a privileged basis, their recommendation, their proposal, their bill will be brought to the floor of the House and Senate and voted upon. On that basis, we have a process for actually resolving the insolvency issue that faces Social Security, Medicare, and the highway trust fund. We also have a pathway to finally get our budget balanced and end the extraordinary growth in our debt and the burden the interest payments are having on the American people today and in the future. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I hope we get great support from people who are willing to sponsor this effort to be part of these rescue committees, to go to work to resolve the impending challenges that we have in these trust funds and in our overall financial status. I mentioned the names of the Senators I have been working with to put together this TRUST Act. I also want to mention a number of Congresspeople who are helping out and our cosponsors, original cosponsors: Mike Gallagher, Ed Case, and Ben McAdams. Again, Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate--together, I think we can finally save these essential programs. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROMNEY

Mr. ROMNEY. Mr. President, I rise today to address the current situation in Syria. First, I welcome the Vice President's announcement of a cease-fire, which will prevent further loss of life. I hope the agreement is honored. But at the heart of this matter is a central question of why these terms and assurances were not negotiated before the President consented to withdraw our troops. Let me briefly recount what has happened in the past 7 days since the United States announced our withdrawal. The Kurds, suffering loss of life and property, have allied with Assad, Russia has assumed control of our previous military positions, and the United States has been forced in many cases to bomb our own facilities to prevent their appropriation by Russia and Turkey. The announcement today is being portrayed as a victory. It is far from a victory. Serious questions remain about how the decision was reached precipitously to withdraw from Syria and why that decision was reached. Given the initial details of the cease-fire agreement, the administration must also explain what America's future role will be in the region, what happens now to the Kurds, and why Turkey will face no apparent consequences. Further, the cease-fire does not change the fact that America has abandoned an ally. Adding insult to dishonor, the administration speaks cavalierly, even flippantly, as our ally has suffered death and casualty. Their homes have been burned, and their families have been torn apart. We know the truth about our Kurd allies. They lost 11,000 combatants in our joint effort to defeat ISIS. We dropped bombs from the air and provided intelligence and logistics behind the lines. The Kurds lost thousands of lives, and 86 brave Americans also lost their lives so tragically. It is argued that the Kurds were fighting for themselves. Of course they were. That is the nature of an alliance. We fight together, each pursuing our own vital interests. America leaves no soldier behind, often at great cost in blood and treasure. We recover our dead and our wounded, and we free our men and women who are held captive. This is a matter of American honor and promise. So, too, is the principle that we stand by our allies, that we do not abandon our friends. The decision to abandon the Kurds violates one of our most sacred duties. It strikes at American honor. What we have done to the Kurds will stand as a blood stain in the annals of American history. There are broad strategic implications of our decision, as well. Iranian and Russian interests in the Middle East have been advanced by our decision at a time when we were applying maximum pressure on Iran. By giving them a stronger hand in Syria, we have actually weakened that pressure. Russia's objective to play a greater role in the Middle East has also been greatly enhanced. The Kurds, out of desperation, have now aligned with Assad. So America is diminished, and Russia, Iran, and Assad are strengthened. So I ask how and why this decision was reached. I serve on the Foreign Relations Committee, and given the Syria decision taken by the administration, I might be forgiven for wondering why our committee even exists. I say this because apparently the decision to leave Syria was made without consultation with the committee or even with the committee chairman and ranking member. Just 3 weeks ago, our subcommittee held hearings to receive an extensive analysis of the conditions and the way forward in Syria. It was presented to us by the Syria Study Group, a bipartisan, congressionally mandated commission tasked with providing an in-depth assessment of the conditions in Syria and to provide recommendations for American strategy going forward. So far as I am aware, the administration made no effort to contact those who attended that hearing or to speak with the Syria Study Group to be able to understand the content in their extensive published report. I ask whether it is the position of the administration that the Senate--a body of 100 people representing both political parties--is to be entirely absent from decisions of the magnitude just taken in Syria. Some argue that we should not have been in Syria in the first place because there was not a vote taken by the Senate to engage in war there. I disagree. Congress has given the President legal authority and funding to fight against terrorists in Syria. However, for purposes of argument, even if one believed that no authorization had been given, that is really irrelevant to the decision as to the withdrawal once we have allied with a people--the Kurds-- committed to defend them, and together defeated ISIS. Once you jump in the ocean to save a drowning soul, you don't turn around with the excuse that you didn't have to jump in in the first place. It is a matter of commitment. Others argue that we should just get out of a messy situation like this. Middle East, they say, has had wars going on forever; just let them have at it. There is, of course, a certain logic to that position, as well, but again, it applies only to the original decision as to whether we should have gone into Syria. Once we have engaged and made the commitments we made, honor, as well as self-interest, demands that we not abandon our allies. It has been suggested that Turkey may have called America's bluff-- telling the President they were coming no matter what we did. If that is so, we should know it, for it would tell us a great deal about how we should deal with Turkey now and in the future. Some have argued that Syria is simply a mess, with warring groups, subgroups, friends and allies shifting from one side to the other, and thus we had to exit because there was no reasonable path for us to go forward. Are we incapable of understanding and shaping complex situations? Russia seems to have figured it out. Are we less adept than they, and are our principles to be jettisoned when we find things get messy? The administration claims that none of these reasons are accurate. Instead, the President has said that we left to fulfill a commitment to stop endless wars, to bring troops home, to get them out of harm's way, and perhaps to save money. I find these reasons hard to square. Why? Well, we withdraw 1,500 troops in Syria, but we are adding 2,000 troops in Saudi Arabia. All totaled, we have some 60,000 troops in the Middle East. Assuming for the sake of understanding that getting out of endless wars was the logic for the decision, why would we take action so precipitously? Why would we not warn our ally, the Kurds, of what we were about to do? Why would we not give them time to also withdraw or perhaps to dig in to defend themselves? Clearly, the Turks had a heads- up because they were able to start bombing within mere hours. I simply don't understand why the administration did not explain in advance to Erdogan that it is unacceptable for Turkey to attack an American ally. Could we not insist that together we develop a transition plan that protects the Kurds, secures the ISIS prisoners, and meets the legitimate concerns of Turkey, as well? Was there no chance for diplomacy? Are we so weak and so inept diplomatically that Turkey forced the hand of the United States of America--Turkey? I believe it is imperative that public hearings be held to answer these questions, and I hope the Senate will be able to conduct those hearings next week. I note in closing that I also hope the cease-fire agreement is honored and that Turkey ends its brutal killing, but I note that lives are already lost and American honor has already been tarnished. We once abandoned a redline; now we abandon an ally. We need answers. What has happened in Syria should not happen again. And we, the Senate, must take action to make sure that it does not. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROMNEY

Mr. ROMNEY. Madam President, I wish to congratulate Mr. Russ Cowley, a man of remarkable achievement and character, on a career dedicated to public service for the great State of Utah. After three decades with the Six County Association of Governments, including 22 years of service as its executive director, Russ is passing the torch of leadership. He leaves behind a distinguished legacy and big boots to fill. The Six County Association of Governments is instrumental in facilitating economic and community development in Juab, Millard, Piute, Sanpete, Sevier, and Wayne Counties. Six County AOG brings local voices to the table to oversee State and Federal programs as well as a wide range of services in an efficient and impactful manner for rural Utah. As executive director, Russ has demonstrated an extraordinary ability to bring together the right people and resources to achieve results for the Six County region. His commitment to fostering development is evident in his hiring of staff who are dedicated to accessing resources for local governments. Russ has advocated on behalf of rural Utahns by bringing together important stakeholders and decisionmakers. He pioneered an annual leadership summit, which focuses on rural Utah's economic growth, and the Natural Resource Summer Meeting, which highlights critical public lands and natural resource issues for the region. Additionally, the congressional briefing highlights specific pressing topics for Members of Congress and their staffs, and the Six County Legislative Day connects local elected officials and State legislators to set legislative goals on these critical issues. The legacy of Russ Cowley will shape rural Utah for generations to come. Our great State owes him a debt of gratitude for three decades of selfless public service. We wish the cowboy from Venice the best in his next chapter. Thank you, Russ, for your service to our State.

Mr. ROMNEY

Mr. ROMNEY. Mr. President, I rise today regarding the Emery County Public Land Management Act, that was included in S. 47, the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act. This became Public Law 116-9 on March 12th, 2019. Throughout 2018 and early 2019, Senator Hatch, Congressman Curtis, and I engaged with the Emery County Commissioners and Emery County Public Lands Council on this important piece of legislation. After Senator Hatch's retirement, I was honored to help carry the ball across the finish line. This law is the result of over 25 years of deliberation, and I find it important to highlight some areas of congressional intent to maintain the integrity of the process. While congressional intent should be evident in the legislative text and corresponding map, the historical context of how we arrived at some of these decisions may be of benefit to the Department of the Interior, future members of the Utah delegation, and those in Utah. The residents of Emery County, the Utah delegation, and I look forward to the implementation of this new law. Fundamental to this process was the effort to avoid any action that would end a current ongoing use. For example, it was important to not close a road, trail, airstrip, or prohibit other existing use in the legislative text or corresponding map with a wilderness designation. Further, to avoid applying more restrictive designations, such as wilderness, to areas it would limit ongoing activity, such as grazing or recreation. Designation boundaries were drawn along geographic and physical features or just outside cherry-stemmed roads to ensure management made sense for the area. Any designation boundary that does not follow this approach, particularly any designation that puts at risk an existing use due to a poorly drawn boundary, was a clerical error and should be resolved under the authority clearly provided in Sec. 1221. Given the scale of this bill and legislative map, this authority is a vital tool to resolve such errors. I would also highlight the clear intent within Sec. 1232, section (e), which clearly states that non-wilderness activities or uses that can be seen or heard from areas within wilderness are to be left uninterrupted by this legislation. The clear intention of the bill was to avoid any type of a buffer zone management plan. On the topic of roads, stakeholders worked closely with BLM to ensure all roads in the 2008 Resource Management Plan were ``cherry-stemmed,'' meaning they were not included in a wilderness designation. Our intent was to maintain these roads and for those designated as ``open'' to stay open. These cherry-stems are of various sizes and were intended to ensure an adequate corridor exists to facilitate necessary maintenance. In the Recreation Area, Sec. 1222 includes language to ensure the necessary maintenance to existing routes may continue and allow rerouting of roads or trails to protect the resources of the Recreation Area. The driving force for this compromise bill was the desire for countywide land use certainty and thus preventing the designation of a national monument under the authority granted to the President under the Antiquities Act. As so many know, in my home State of Utah national monument designations under the Antiquities Act have been the source of extreme controversy and deep division in our communities. In my own view, land management is most effective when it is driven by local voices and well-reasoned planning. Sweeping designations via Presidential proclamation are often politically motivated, lead to poor management of the lands they intend to protect, and erode trust between the Federal Government and local residents. With the passage of the Emery County legislation, the need for a national monument is obsolete because a clear plan has been laid out for the long-term management of the San Rafael Swell. To be clear, this is a view that was shared by the many parties, including locally elected officials, conservationists, recreationists, and others that were intimately involved in the forging of this compromise legislation. Any advocacy of a future national monument designation under the Antiquities Act or other large-scale land use designation in Emery County would be a violation of the good-faith agreement that was shared among those that negotiated during this bill's process. I believe this bill is a victory for all stakeholders, and I look forward to watching this quarter-century journey for Emery County finally come to fruition.

Mr. ROMNEY

Mr. ROMNEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the nomination of Mr. John Rakolta to become the Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates. Mr. Rakolta is the owner of a construction company that builds major projects like factories, churches, hospitals, and airports. His firm guides the work of thousands of workers here in the United States and in countries around the globe. With revenues of approximately $1.7 billion annually, he has built one of the largest and most successful general contractors in the Nation. I presume this success has made him a prosperous person, but he is also a person who is actively engaged in his community. He has served on the boards of numerous organizations, several of which have focused on the rejuvenation of his city of Detroit and its less advantaged citizens. He has also received so many awards that it would be impractical to list them all here today, but I note that he has been honored by such groups as United Way, the Michigan Black Chamber of Commerce, the Urban League of Detroit, the Boy Scouts of America, and New Detroit. Of course, my friends on the other side of the aisle are dutiful in their examination of any possible flaw. I am convinced that the concerns they may have raised are not well-founded, and he is, in fact, entirely qualified and appropriately nominated to this important position. I note that I am biased in favor of Mr. Rakolta because I have known him personally for more than 30 years. He and his family have spent dozens of evenings in the home of my parents, studying the teachings of their faith. He is a man who makes commitments only after a great deal of thought, and when they are made, he is fully loyal to them in his business, in his community, in his Nation, in his faith, and in his marriage and family of 4 children and 11 grandchildren. I know John Rakolta as a man of honor and integrity, and I am convinced that he will serve the country well. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROMNEY. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROMNEY

Mr. ROMNEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks before the vote.

Mr. ROMNEY. Mr. President, I thank my esteemed friend and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee for his kind words in support of my amendment. As we debate the Defense Authorization Act today, one of our most pressing concerns is how we deter Iran from further escalating its attacks. The decisions we make on this bill will have a direct bearing on the options the President and the military have available to keep our military, our citizens, and our friends and allies safe. The Senate is poised to vote soon on my amendment, No. 861. It would reaffirm what has long been American policy. Our military is authorized to defend itself and to protect our citizens. Enacting this amendment makes it clear to our military, as well as to any potential adversary, that America does not shrink in the face of attack. This is not an authorization to use military force against Iran or anyone else; it is a statement of continued commitment to our national defense. Under the Constitution, only Congress may declare war, but also under the Constitution, the President can defend against attacks and can respond in an appropriate manner to an attack that has been made. As we all know, my esteemed colleague from New Mexico, Senator Udall, has proposed an amendment on a related topic which I wish to briefly address. We do not need the Udall amendment to tell us what the Constitution already demands--that Congress alone can declare war. His amendment is clearly intended to limit the President in some other ways that he has not yet explained to this body. As it is written, the Udall amendment would dramatically limit the existing authority that the Constitution provides to the President to respond to Iran. It would prevent the President from defending U.S. citizens, U.S. interests, and our allies. This is not only my opinion; it is the carefully considered conclusion of the U.S. Department of Defense. In its letter on June 26 to Chairman Inhofe, it states this, referring to the Udall amendment: ``The Department strongly opposes this amendment . . . At a time when Iran is engaging in escalating military provocation . . . this amendment could embolden Iran to further provocations.'' Tying the President's hands in some undefined way in the midst of the current crisis is misguided, dangerous, and surely sends the wrong message to both Iran and to our allies. Last week, the Iranians continued their provocative escalation in the Middle East. After weeks of buildup in which Iran attacked six commercial ships, and its proxies bombed an oil pipeline and launched a rocket into a commercial Saudi Arabian airport, Iran shot down an American drone over international waters. The Udall amendment raises serious questions about how the military could respond to these attacks after the fact. Could we fire on the missile launcher that downed our drone? Could we sink one of their small, outboard motor vessels that attached the mines to the ships that were attacked? Imagine for a moment that in the future, another American aircraft, perhaps one that is manned by an American pilot, were to be shot down by an Iranian rocket. It is possible that the Udall amendment would limit our military's options to subsequently respond to such an outrage. I don't pretend to know whether Iran will continue its pattern of aggression, but I do know that when bad actors think they can escape consequence for malevolent acts, such acts are more likely to occur in the future. I am glad that Senator Udall's revised amendment concedes the broad point that our military has the inherent right of self-defense. But in the case of a rocket hitting one of our planes, the President should not have his hands tied in responding after such an attack in an appropriate manner. Note also that while the Udall amendment provides for the military to defend itself from attack, it does not provide for the defense of our citizens. Iran could take this as an invitation to attack Americans abroad. Further, it would prohibit our military from defending or responding to an attack by Iran on our Iraqi partners so long as it didn't directly hit American troops. Passing the Udall amendment would effectively give a green light to Iranian forces to carry out attacks in Iraq so long as they don't attack U.S. forces. If Iran were to attack Israel, one of our NATO allies, the Udall amendment would not allow the President to respond. Finally, by carving out Iranian territory, the Udall amendment would potentially prevent us from pursuing and taking out terrorists who seek refuge in Iran. I oppose the Udall amendment not because I want to go to war with Iran or rush to respond without carefully evaluating our long-term strategy to counter Iranian aggression. I know no one who wants to go to war with Iran. I fully concur with my many Senate colleagues who desire to reassert the constitutional role of Congress in declaring war. But to engage in this effort now, and in an undefined way, and then to attach that to Iran when Iran has just shot down an American aircraft would send a terrible message to the Ayatollahs and to the world. I mean, think about it. Iran shoots down an American aircraft, and what does the U.S. Senate rush to do? It rushes to vote in some undefined way to restrict military consequence. That is simply unthinkable. My amendment is not about Iran. It does not even mention Iran. My amendment is about affirming the constitutional authorities that any President must have to properly protect and defend this Nation. As the Department of Defense maintains, the President of the United States must always have the option of responding to attacks by Iran or anyone else at a time and place of our choosing--today and in the future. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. ROMNEY

Mr. ROMNEY. Mr. President, I will reassert the same thing I just heard from the minority leader. I appreciate his words. This amendment would reaffirm a basic principle. The United States has the right to defend itself and our citizens when attacked. It asserts what has always been a bedrock constitutional principle. This is not an AUMF. It is not an authorization for the use of military force. Passing my amendment today would send a strong signal to our adversaries that we will defend ourselves if our interests, our people, our military, our allies are threatened and attacked. My amendment is something that I believe everyone in this body can and should support.

Mr. ROMNEY

Mr. ROMNEY. Will the Senator from New Mexico yield for a question?

Mr. ROMNEY. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the perspective and sincere thoughts and ideas coming from my good friend from New Mexico. The Senator indicated that those who oppose this are trying to create excuses for why we should ignore the Constitution. I would note that in my remarks this morning I noted specifically that this is not an authorization to use military force against Iran or anyone else. It is a statement of continued commitment to our national defense, and, precisely, it is saying that under the Constitution only Congress may declare war. That is something I said specifically. But the Senator goes on to note--he says that only the Congress-- specifically, his words are ``ignore the Constitution, open the door to war with Iran without a vote.'' President Trump has said he was 10 minutes away from doing just that. Is the Senator saying that if the President were to do what he was contemplating, and that is to take out missile batteries with the potential of the loss of life of as many of 150, but also it could be with a prewarning, with no loss of life, but taking out missile batteries that have fired upon an American aircraft--unmanned American aircraft--if he were to have done that in response to their shooting down an aircraft in international airspace, that constitutes going to war and would have required a vote of Congress to authorize shooting down or attacking missile batteries that have fired rockets at an American airship? I am referring to the Senator's comments precisely, and I will read the entire point. The Senator said: ``They are trying to create excuses for why we should ignore the Constitution and open the door to war with Iran without a vote.'' President Trump has said that he was 10 minutes away from doing just that. So in the Senator's view, is responding in a very limited manner, as he was contemplating, taking out missile batteries potentially-- would that have constituted going to war and required the vote of Congress? That is my question, because I believe that is not the case. I believe the President has the constitutional authority and duty to respond, if necessary, in an appropriate way to return fire on the very batteries that have shot down an American aircraft. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROMNEY

Mr. ROMNEY. Mr. President, I have been a Member of this body for several months now, and I would like to offer a few observations about the experience. I had been told that I might not like it here. Having previously been a Governor, some friends thought I might find the pace a little too slow and decision making too diffuse and cumbersome, but that has not been the case. My committee assignments are interesting and the work is important, and while few bills actually become law, the fact that both political parties must reach consensus for a bill to pass reinforces the ties that bind our Republic. Given the public passion of our politics these days, I had also presumed that the atmosphere here would vary between prickly and hostile, but the truth is that Senators on both sides of the aisle are remarkably friendly and collegial once the cameras are off. I have now met privately with 68 of my fellow Senators. Like them, I came here in part because I believe my life experience could help us confront our national challenges. I also believe that the values and policies practiced in Utah can inform national debates. Our State has the fastest job growth in the country. It balances its budget every year. It has the country's most highly educated workforce. It is a great privilege to represent the people of Utah in the Senate. I am humbled by the history that has been made here, by the character of the patriots whose sculptures adorn our halls, and, of course, by the great sacrifice made to construct the Capitol of the greatest Nation on Earth. To serve here is to be reminded daily of the history and greatness of this blessed country. The American character has been distinct from our very beginning. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that Americans had fashioned a culture different from any other he had encountered. Just a few weeks ago, I attended the 150th anniversary of the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad at Promontory Summit in Utah. In his keynote address, historian Jon Meacham observed that, in a number of ways, that endeavor revealed some of the distinct elements of the national character. President Abraham Lincoln signed the project's enabling legislation on the eve of the Civil War. The country was divided as never before or since, and the President was preoccupied with preserving the Union. But despite the gathering storm, he had both the foresight to see the impact of a transcontinental railroad and the confidence to believe it actually could be constructed. We Americans are drawn to visionary endeavors, and we rarely lack the confidence needed to undertake them. It is difficult from today's vantage point to appreciate the extent of the project's engineering and construction challenges. Some have even called it the greatest engineering triumph of the 19th century. Tunnels were blasted through the Rocky Mountains and the Sierra Nevada, at first only with black powder. There were no hotels or restaurants along the way, no local sources of energy or power tools. On some days, the progress through Granite Mountain was measured in inches. The cost was prohibitive, particularly for a country preparing for a war, so Congress made it a public-private partnership. Two companies-- one from the West, another from the East--were each granted tracks of land commensurate with the amount of track they laid. Fierce competition ensued, each company wanting to obtain the most land possible. There were many who opposed the idea of granting public land to private companies that stood to make fortunes on the lands they received. There were others who thought the project was the height of folly--too expensive, too dangerous, and unnecessary. After all, it was already possible to go from New York to California in just 6 weeks by land and 2 by sea. But having studied and debated the matter, Lincoln and Congress defied public criticism and did what they believed was in the best interest of the country. The construction crews numbered in the thousands. Fifteen thousand Chinese immigrants worked for the Central Railroad that began in Sacramento, and roughly 7,000 Irish immigrants labored for the Union Pacific Railroad coming from the East. In time, veterans of the Civil War joined the crews, as did several thousand Mormons from Utah. The work conditions were brutal. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 to 1,000 men died. The achievement was also marred by failures of character. The promoters were oblivious to the rights and needs of Native Americans and to the plight of the immigrant workers. When the railroad was completed, Chinese laborers were denied citizenship. There can be a blindness in the human mind that is clouded by ambition. Despite these unfavorable and unpardonable failings, the Transcontinental Railroad was a grand achievement. It joined two great oceans and overcame the challenge of a nation spread across vast distances and foreboding lands. Intrinsic in the American mind is the conviction that we can overcome any challenge. In the years since then, we have achieved greater marvels and overcome greater challenges. Seventy-five years ago, brave Americans landed on the beaches in Normandy and began the process of liberating a continent. Americans turned the tide of two world wars, overcame a global depression, conquered deadly, debilitating disease, and walked on the surface of the Moon. We who have inherited this incomparably accomplished Nation might wonder if we will face challenges as daunting and opportunities as transformational as theirs. The decisions each generation of Americans makes affect the course of history and profoundly impact our prosperity and our freedom. We face such decisions today. Eight years ago, I argued that Russia was our No. 1 geopolitical adversary. Today, China is poised to assume that distinction. Russia continues its malign effort, of course--violating treaties, invading sovereign nations, pursuing nuclear superiority, interfering in elections, spreading lies and hate, protecting the world's worse actors from justice, and promoting authoritarianism--but Russia is on a declining path. Its population is shrinking, and its industrial base is lagging. John McCain famously opined that Russia is a gas station parading as a country. As it falls further behind, we must expect Russia's inevitable desperation to lead to further and more aberrant conduct. Unlike Russia, China is on a rising path. When it was admitted to the World Trade Organization, the expectation was that China would embrace the rules of the global order, including eventually respect for human rights. It has done the opposite--imprisoning millions in reeducation camps, brutally repressing dissent, censoring the media and internet, seizing land and sea that don't belong to it, and flouting the global rules of free and fair competition. Like Russia, China promotes authoritarianism and protects brutal dictators like Kim Jong Un and Nicolas Maduro. Today, we mark the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. That day, cries for freedom were brutally crushed. Since then, China has pursued a relentless course to smother the kinds of hopes and dreams that filled that square 30 years ago. It is possible that China might someday experience a discontinuity or another uprising that will change its course. But barring that, because China's population is almost four times our size, its economy should eventually dwarf ours, and because economic advantage enables military advantage, China's military could even pass by ours as well. It is possible that freedom itself would be in jeopardy. If we fail to act now, that possibility may become reality. I believe we have two imperatives: First, strengthen ourselves and, second, stop China's predation. In the long run, for a country like ours, with a relatively small population, to rival a country like China, with its much larger population, we must join our economic and military might with that of other free nations. Alliances are absolutely essential to America's security, to our future. I can't state that more plainly. Our alliances are invaluable to us and to the cause of freedom. We should strengthen our alliances, not dismiss or begrudge them. We should enhance our trade with allies, not disrupt them, and coordinate all the more closely our security and our defense with them. It is in the most vital interest of the United States to see a strong NATO, a strong Europe, stronger ties with the free nations of Asia, the Pacific, the subcontinent, and with every free country. We need to hold our friends closer, not neglect them or drive them away. These alliances are a key advantage we have over China. America has many friends; China has very few. We have another advantage: innovation. The country that leads in innovation will lead in prosperity. China knows that as well as we do. After all, China began its economic rise by stealing our technologies. But today, China has become an impressive innovator all by itself. Last year, China received almost as many global patents as did the United States. It is far ahead of us in 5G. It is on track to surpass us in artificial intelligence, and artificial intelligence is a general purpose technology that will have systemic impact on the world. It is critical that we protect our technology and propel the innovation we need in the future. Well resourced and guided, our great research universities, combined with the productivity inherent in free enterprise, are capable of reasserting America's innovation leadership. One dimension of American innovation is often underestimated, however. America is a magnet for the world's best and brightest. They want to come here, not China. Over half of the 25 most valuable high- tech companies in America were founded by immigrants or by their children. It is very much in our national interest to keep attracting the world's best minds to America. We also need to tame our national debt and deficit if we are to remain strong. The Federal Government took in about $3 trillion last year and spent about $4 trillion. Adding a trillion dollars every year to the debt means that in 10 years, we would be spending almost as much on interest as we do on our military. America won't be strong enough to defend its interests and leadership if it strains under the burden of crippling financial debt. In addition to strengthening America, we must also confront China's aggression. China has focused its ambition most acutely on trade. Flouting global rules and conventions, China has corrupted the free market. China views companies in countries that play by the rules as the proverbial fish in a barrel. Too often, we just ignore China's aggression, genuflecting before the throne of free markets. But you don't have a free market if the biggest player is allowed to cheat. China's cheating takes many forms. For many years, it held down the value of its currency to make its products artificially inexpensive, intending to drive competitors from other countries out of business. More recently, China has debased its currency to partially compensate for tariffs imposed on its goods. Today, so-called industrial policy is China's primary weapon of choice. China subsidizes a company by loaning it funds at submarket rates, by forgiving loans, by providing free research and development, or simply by allowing it to use intellectual property stolen from other nations. Subsidy is even easier to hide when the company is owned by the government itself. There are 140,000 state-owned enterprises in China, accounting for 40 percent of its industrial assets. Profitability, return on capital, and repayment of debt are mostly irrelevant in such state-owned enterprises. They can employ predatory pricing--entering a foreign market by pricing a product well below its cost, driving domestic competitors out of business. When an American company does that, it is prosecuted under antitrust laws, but proving a Chinese product is priced below cost is extremely difficult given the lack of reliable cost data. China's industrial policies are killing and debilitating businesses throughout the world. Look, I am a free market, free trade guy, but free markets require rules to enforce honest competition. Slavishly accepting China's cheating as a dynamic of a free market, competitive workplace makes no sense at all. The President is right to use tariffs to crack down on China's theft of intellectual property, but when it comes to China's predatory industrial policy, the cheating will not end. We need to counter it directly. Classically, a country has several tools to counter a predatory competitor. It can ban all or certain of its products. We did this with the Soviets during the Cold War. It can employ counterbalancing subsidies. It can require high levels of local content. And, of course, it can align with other nations to establish strict rules of conduct, which it then vigorously and swiftly enforces. All or some mix of these is needed. As we confront China's aggression, we must also endeavor to convince it to turn back from the road of economic, military, and geopolitical conflict upon which it has embarked. Joining the other nations of the world in genuinely fair and free trade and in respect for the sovereignty of its trading partners and neighbors is very much in China's, America's, and the world's interest. China is not yet a geopolitical foe, but its actions over the last several years have brought it right up to that line. What I have said today won't come as a surprise to leaders here in Washington. The forms of China's aggression are widely understood by members of the administration, Members of Congress, and foreign affairs experts on both sides of the aisle. But, to date, our national response has largely been ad hoc or short-term or piecemeal. It is past time for us to conduct and construct a comprehensive strategy to meet the challenge of an ambitious and increasingly hostile China. I said at the outset of my remarks that there are two dimensions needed in a strategy to preserve American leadership: First, strengthen America, and second, confront China's predation. There is a third dimension. We must alert the American people to the threat we face and unite them to the greatest extent possible in our response. In the past, an act of war or blustering threats by hostile actors have united us. But don't expect to see the Chinese President pound his shoe on the counter or shout that he is going to bury us, as Nikita Khrushchev did long ago. No, China intends to overcome us just like the cook who kills the frog in a pot of boiling water, smiling and cajoling as it slowly turns up the military and economic heat. The disappearance of traditional media and the emergence of social media have made it more difficult to unite the country. Conspiring voices online prey on the human tendency to diminish the dignity and worth of people of different views, of different races, religions, or colors. Contempt rather than empathy is a growing feature in our politics and media. Each of us must make an effort to shut out the voices of hate and fear, to ignore divisive and alarming conspiracies, and to be more respectful, more empathetic of our fellow Americans. And when it comes to cooling the rhetoric and encouraging unity, there is no more powerful medium than the bully pulpit of the President of the United States. Bringing a nation of 330 million people together in a shared effort is a greater challenge these days than bringing 2 coasts together with a railroad. But now, as then, national unity demands that the voices of leaders draw upon the better angels of our nature. They must call upon the distinctive qualities of our national character evidenced time and again in American history. We must reaffirm the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Jon Meacham said it well: The greatest words ever originally written in English may be these: ``All Men are created equal.'' That founding conviction propelled America to become the greatest Nation on Earth. No people have done more to assuage poverty, to combat tyranny, or to advance the God-given right of every woman and man to be free. That is still our common cause, our enduring legacy, and our promise to generations unborn. Only America can lead that endeavor, but only with honor, with integrity, and with the combined strength of the friends of freedom will we succeed. America remains the best hope of Earth and the champion of freedom. May God bless us with the courage and wisdom to keep that sacred trust. I yield the floor. (The remarks of Ms. Cantwell pertaining to the introduction of S. 1703 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. ROMNEY

Mr. ROMNEY. Mr. President, it is my honor today to pay tribute to five native Utahns who are brothers and veterans of World War II and Korea: William, Gail, George, Jack, and Bert Alexander. These five brothers answered the call to defend our freedom and the freedoms of others from foreign invaders. Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the North Koreans believed it their right to attack and forcefully restrict the freedoms of their neighbors, but these brothers recognized that our freedom as American citizens is inextricably linked to the freedom of our friends and allies. Remaining safely protected in Northern Utah was not an option for the Alexander brothers; they answered the call to take up arms and defend freedom's cause. One brother, SGT Gail Alexander, was killed in action exactly 75 years ago tomorrow, May 24, 1944, during the Anzio campaign to retake Rome, Italy. The Anzio campaign and then Operation Neptune--or D-day, as it came to be known--marked an important turning point in World War II, with the Allies beginning to liberate and retake German-occupied Europe, restoring freedom to the French and Italians and subsequently to the rest of Europe. Prior to his death, Gail received a Purple Heart and Silver Star citation for Gallantry when on February 4, 1944, after sustaining a gunshot injury to his hand, he singlehandedly took out a German machine gun position that had held up his entire company. Alone and the his company under fire, Gail gradually ran 130 yards across the battlefield, machine guns kicking up dirt on both sides of him and artillery shells falling all around. He made it to the machine gun position, knocking it out with grenades, allowing his company to come out from under cover. In the official military report of the incident, Gail's commanding officer said, ``Sergeant Alexander's fearless action under direct machine gun fire for twenty minutes, enabled our company to obtain the objective . . . and prevented any further casualties to our own men.'' Gail's brothers William, George, and Jack all returned home after serving in various capacities more than 2 years each all throughout the European theater. The youngest brother, Bert Alexander, who just passed away on April 2 of this year at the age of 87, was too young to serve in World War II but still answered the call to defend liberty when he embarked for service in Korea. So today I, along with the entire U.S. Senate, honor these five brothers, their Gold Star mother, and their families, both living and deceased. We remember their tremendous service and sacrifice, and we express our profound gratitude for their sacrifice in defending freedom for us and for America's allies.

Mr. ROMNEY

Mr. ROMNEY. Mr. President, the Transcontinental Railroad is a testament to the enduring American spirit of industry and national unity. On the precipice of the American Civil War, Utah's delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives, William Henry Hooper, recognized that ``A great band of Union throughout the family of man is a common interest.'' Hooper petitioned Congress in his belief that ``a Central Road would unite that interest as with a chain of iron, and would effectually hold together our Federal union with an imperishable identity of mutual interest.'' William Henry Hooper's letter to Congress would take several months to reach Washington, DC, as any westward travel beyond the Mississippi River required wagon, stagecoach, or horseback. The U.S. Congress would, however, approve such an undertaking, and soon, a National Central Railroad began to manifest from the worn hands of laborers to execute a vision of national unity, a feat that would propel American power and change the course of our history. These hands belonged to men of differing national origins and creeds, who labored together under one banner, often fleeing significant hardship in pursuit of economic opportunity in the American West. Roughly 15,000 Chinese immigrants, 10,000 Irish immigrants, and 4,000 Latter-day Saints joined the national effort to complete the most remarkable and ambitious engineering project of the 19th century. On May 10, 1869, the Union Pacific and Central Pacific railroads formally met at Promontory Summit, UT, and the 17.6-carat golden spike officially linked the East and West Coasts, marking a watershed moment for American trade, commerce, and population. A 6-month journey across the continent was reduced to 1 week. Within a decade of the railroad's completion, Salt Lake City's population more than doubled, further boosting Utah's significance in the national economy. Brigham Young recognized the enormous opportunities that global trade would bring to Utah and the country and the abundant and yet untapped resources of iron, coal, stone, and timber. In pursuit of a national railroad project, Brigham Young recognized that ``mineral resources of California, and these mountains, will never be fully developed to the benefit of the people of the United States, without the construction of such a road, and upon its completion, the entire trade of China and the East Indies will pass through the heart of the Union; thereby giving our Citizens the almost entire controls of the Asiatic and Pacific trade.'' Indeed, the Transcontinental Railroad would transform the American economy in profound ways. This achievement revolutionized communications, global trade routes, and allowed for the movement of people across the country at an unprecedented scale. On the sesquicentennial of the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad at Promontory Summit, let us remember the sacrifice of those laborers who would not live to see to its conclusion, but whose contributions helped transform the Nation and the world. The 150th anniversary of the Golden Spike is also a celebration of the limitless American imagination, spirit of ingenuity, and industry that made this incredible project a success. Let us not forget the example these pioneers set for us as we go forward in a new era of challenges and opportunities.

Mr. ROMNEY

Mr. ROMNEY. Mr. President, it is my honor to pay tribute to Captain John ``Jack'' Frederick Wilson, who celebrated his 100th birthday this past Tuesday, April 2. Born on April 2, 1919, and raised in Park City, UT, Jack is one of only a small handful of pilots trained at Brigham Young University. He joined the Army Air Corps on December 11, 1941, just 4 days after the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. After training in the B-24 Liberator bomber, he was made a pilot in the 90th Bombing Group in the Fifth Air Force of the Army Air Corps and was deployed to New Guinea. He and his crew were eventually assigned to reconnaissance missions in the North China Sea tracking the Japanese fleet, and his B-24 was stripped of all bombs, machineguns, and defensive measures to be replaced with extra fuel tanks. Jack said of that time, ``My career as a B-24 pilot basically consisted of long periods of boredom punctuated with moments of terror.'' He was a member of the Jolly Rogers and has carried his membership card his entire life, which says, ``Having been assigned to the best damned heavy bomb group, and having paid his dues, Captain Jack F. Wilson is hereby considered a member in good standing of the Jolly Rogers.'' As a typhoon threatened the island airstrip where he was stationed, locals from Okinawa showed him a cave that he and his B-24 crew sheltered in, saving their lives. Despite popular opinion at the time, Jack never demonized the Japanese people. He believed ``there are good people everywhere'' and taught his children and grandchildren the same. After the war, Jack used his flying skills to help locate wildfires and pioneered the ``interagency'' concept, establishing the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, ID. The main headquarters building bears his name. In honor of a native Utahn and one of the last remaining B-24 pilots from World War II, the U.S. Congress extends warm greetings to Mr. Wilson on April 2, 2019, his 100th birthday. We commend him for his life of service and his valor in defense of his country.