The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“Afghanistan (Executive Session)” mentioning Roy Blunt was published in the Senate section on pages S3387-S3390 on May 25.
Of the 100 senators in 117th Congress, 24 percent were women, and 76 percent were men, according to the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.
Senators' salaries are historically higher than the median US income.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
Afghanistan
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, when I listened to the speech by Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, about Afghanistan, it transported me back in history to October of 2002, when I was a U.S. Senator representing the State of Illinois, just days away from a reelection campaign, and we faced a historic vote here in the U.S. Senate. The vote was whether or not we would invade Iraq; whether the United States would give the President the authority to send American forces to Iraq. There were 23 votes against that invasion. I was 1 of them, 22 Democrats and 1 Republican.
I can remember that night so well. It was late, past midnight, when the vote was finally taken. But we had previously taken another vote, and although I had voted against the invasion of Iraq, I saw the invasion of Afghanistan as a different story. We believed that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, responsible for 9/11, were in Afghanistan. And the story was--the story line, and I bought it completely--if we don't tell people like Osama bin Laden that there is a price to pay for attacking America and killing 3,000 innocent people, who are we, and who will be the next attacker?
So I voted. I voted for the invasion of Afghanistan and believed that was the right thing to do at that moment in history. That vote passed unanimously here in the Senate. There was only one dissenting vote in the House of Representatives, Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California. Virtually everyone else--everyone else, both political parties--voted for the invasion of Afghanistan.
I will tell you, there was not a single Senator or Congressman who would have stood up that evening on that vote and announced ``I am prepared to vote for the longest war in American history,'' because that is what we ended up voting for.
It was our belief that if we came into Afghanistan, we could stop using this country as a haven for terrorism and we could help escort them into the 21st century.
Well, after 20 years, after thousands of Americans gave their lives and thousands more were critically injured, after the spending of trillions of dollars in Afghanistan, we learned a bitter lesson. Our willingness was not enough. The people in Afghanistan have to be prepared to embrace change for it to happen.
We had to create an army in Afghanistan, a security force. It virtually didn't exist. The warlords had their military, and they were for sale, usually, to the highest bidder. And we were trying to create a national security force. We were trying to create a nation, which was quite a challenge.
I am not going to dwell on what happened, the bitter disappointments. But when I hear Senators come to the floor saying, ``Isn't it a shame that we are leaving Afghanistan? They are going to descend into chaos and many, many problems,'' my question to them is: So what would you have us do? Continue with the troops risking their lives in Afghanistan for another 20 years, for another trillion dollars?
Not me. I believe we have reached a point where we have to do everything we can to help Afghanistan really progress into the 21st century. Yes, I feel a personal obligation to the men and women who risked their lives for our troops.
For those who are opposed to or unaccepting of the notion of refugees coming to the United States, for goodness' sake, let us have the character to stand behind those Afghan men and women who risked their lives for our soldiers and who are now probably marked by the Taliban for death themselves. Yes, I would open our doors to them. They gave their lives for our men and women, and we should never forget it. I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle who have strong feelings about immigration would at least realize that these individuals are critically important to our role in history and our message to the rest of the world when we seek their assistance.
S. 1260
Mr. President, this week we are going to consider a critically important bill that will help secure America's role as a global leader in science and technology. The investments that the United States Innovation and Competition Act of 2021 makes in innovation will help ensure our prosperity and national security. It supports American research and development and will help to grow America's industrial and manufacturing base by investing in clean energy, cyber security, and biotechnology.
I thought a few years ago, reflected on the fact that I served in the House and Senate, there have been moments, particularly important moments that didn't receive the recognition they deserved, and one of them was a bipartisan decision by several legislators: John Porter, who was a Republican Congressman from Illinois; Senator Arlen Specter, a Republican Senator from Pennsylvania; and Senator Tom Harkin, a Democratic Senator from Iowa. Back in the day, they made a decision to try to double the research budget for the National Institutes of Health--quite an undertaking. I have seen a lot of things come and go with the Congress, and that I thought was as ambitious as it gets.
They did it. They ended up doubling the NIH budget and received some recognition for it, but far less than what they deserved.
So I went back out to the National Institutes of Health and spoke to Dr. Francis Collins, whom we are lucky as Americans to have in that position leading that great Agency. I said: Dr. Collins, I remember those days with Specter and Harkin and Porter. What can we do now, our generation, to help you at the National Institutes of Health? I don't think I can double the budget. I wish I could. But what can I do?
He said: Senator, if you could persuade Congress to give us 5 percent real growth every year--real growth over inflation--we will light up the scoreboard. These researchers will stay on the job. They won't worry about whether next year there is going to be funding. And you are going to see some remarkable things occur.
I said I will set out to do that. I knew at the time that I needed help. So I turned to Patty Murray on the Democratic side, who has been our leader at the HELP Committee and on the Appropriations Committee. And we then turned to Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, Republican leader of the subcommittee, as well as Lamar Alexander, our retired friend from the State of Tennessee.
So the four of us came together, and in a span of 5 or 6 years, we took the NIH budget from $30 billion to $40 billion, just at the right moment. We didn't anticipate COVID-19, but here it came, challenging us: Are we ready? Can we develop a vaccine in a timely fashion?
And, thank goodness we could, because of the investment that we had made as a Congress and the American people in this Agency. It paid off. Not only did we save lives in the United States; we saved lives around the world, and we will continue to because of that good work.
I came to believe that that was critically important and went to the Department of Energy, sitting down with the Secretary, 5 or 6 years ago, and told him the story about our commitment to NIH. And I said: You know, I guess it is conceivable that we will do research that will lead to some treatment of Alzheimer's and dementia. We know that it is picking up speed, unfortunately, because people are living longer.
He said: Do you have any idea what Agency of government is responsible for creating electronic means of monitoring this sort of change in our brains, the change that leads to Alzheimer's?
I said: No, I don't.
He said: Well, it is the Office of Science in the Department of Energy.
And I thought to myself: Durbin, you should have known better. It isn't just the NIH. There are Agencies all around our Federal Government that are doing research that complement one another. So I came up with the notion to take that NIH model of 5 percent real growth and start applying it to all the other research and innovation Agencies of our Federal Government.
This bill we are considering this week, this United States Innovation and Competition Act, acknowledges that and makes the investment in research. I will tell you, I can't think of anything we can do that is more bipartisan and will be accepted by the American people than the knowledge that we are going to continue to encourage and subsidize, if you will, scientists and researchers to move us forward in innovation and technology.
This bill increases funding for the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy. That is going to spur research. It is going to help at universities around my State and all around the Nation, and it has been a priority, as I mentioned, for years.
But one important way we can compete economically in the world is by boosting support for domestic manufacturing and strengthening our domestic supply chain. The legislation that we are considering this week does that exactly: $52 billion to boost our semi-conductor manufacturing capabilities. This includes $10.5 billion for semiconductor research and development; $2 billion for legacy chip production to support the auto industry; $2 billion for research, testing, and workforce development for semiconductor needs at the Department of Defense; $500 million for coordination with foreign government partners to support international semiconductor supply chains. And importantly, this bill also ensures the payment of prevailing wages on construction projects that are supported by this funding.
Many semiconductor manufacturing jobs already pay more than typical manufacturing jobs, and they should, but the workers who will help build the facilities won't necessarily benefit from that unless we ensure the same standards that we apply to other federally funded construction projects apply here.
Research shows us that providing prevailing wage boosts worker productivity and provides good value to taxpayers Several studies have found that construction costs are not affected by prevailing wage rates. It is our goal to compete with China and other nations, and China, unfortunately, has morally abhorrent labor practices. Let's do better. Let's show them and the world that we can do better.
In 1990, the United States produced 37 percent of the world's semiconductors. That was 30 years ago--30 years ago, 37 percent. It is 12 percent today. What a dramatic decline. We want to turn that around.
Now there are some who question us, who question whether the United States should invest in this kind of technology on semiconductors. I call them the second-place finishers. They decided that the United States can have a solid second-place finish from this point forward. I couldn't disagree more.
This Nation can lead by example and investment, and that is what this bill does. And those who are against it have to explain why giving dominance in this critical industry to another country, whether it is China or any other nation, is in the best interest of the growth of the United States and in the best interest of the next generation of American workers.
We are already facing a global shortage in microchips that led to layoffs in my State and in many other places. Illinois has been a leader in auto manufacturing, and I believe it will be in the future, as well, thanks to dedicated workers like those at the Stellantis plant in Belvidere, IL, who assemble the car known as the Jeep Cherokee.
Unfortunately, that plant had to shut down just a few weeks ago. Why? A global shortage of semiconductors. Earlier this month, Stellantis announced as many as 1,640 employees of the plant will be laid off in July because of the shortage. A similar story at Ford's Chicago assembly plant that has 5,800 workers--this plant was idled through April, with shutdowns extending into May.
We are not seeing this only in Illinois. It has been estimated as many as 3.9 million fewer vehicles will be produced this year because of the semiconductor shortage. Last month, in the State of Kentucky--
Kentucky--Ford announced the temporary shutdown of its Louisville plant, impacting more than 8,000 of its employees. And Ford's Louisville Assembly Plant, which employs nearly 4,000 workers, is expected to close through mid-July.
GM halted production lines in Tennessee and Kansas and at several other facilities this spring.
The news of these layoffs and plant closures underscores the urgent need for Congress, on a bipartisan basis, to address this microchip shortage. And the good news is that we have a real opportunity to pass legislation that will offer help to these workers and families. These investments in the CHIPS Act will not only address our immediate market needs but help to ensure that manufacturers don't face shortages in the future.
This funding will help support jobs through the entire supply chain--
from construction of new facilities to manufacturing and development of chips, to workers in the auto industry who depend on this supply.
This bill makes a strategic investment that will help to counter the growing threat caused by the rapid development of China's economy. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting these important provisions to boost our domestic supply chain and support American jobs. Or we can defeat this measure. We can decide it is too much money, spending it at the wrong time. That is part of the second-place finish club, which you might find in the U.S. Senate. I don't want to be a part of it. I believe in the brains and the brawn of American workers. I believe they are productive people and that our researchers can lead the world, as they have over and over again, if we trust them and we invest in them.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican whip is recognized.
H.R. 1
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, H.R. 1, the Democrats' supposed election integrity bill, is filled with bad ideas: making the Federal Election Commission into a partisan body; effectively banning voter ID and gutting other safeguards against voter fraud; providing for taxpayer funding of political campaigns.
Nowhere is that more true than when it comes to the bill's truly terrible provisions on the IRS.
Everyone remembers the IRS scandal during the Obama administration. Around 2013, it emerged that the Obama IRS had been unfairly singling out conservative organizations applying for tax-exempt status, slow-
walking their applications and subjecting them to burdensome extra scrutiny. This had been going on for more than 2 years, and top IRS officials compounded the Agency's misdeeds by providing misleading information to Congress.
Well, Americans should brace themselves, because if H.R. 1 is ever enacted, it would allow for the same kind of targeting that went on under the Obama administration, if not worse. To start with, H.R. 1 repeals a Treasury Department rule finalized last year that was designed to help prevent the kind of abuse that went on under the Obama IRS.
Under the rule, many tax-exempt organizations are no longer required to turn over to the IRS the names and addresses of individuals who have made substantial donations. This is not information the IRS needs to know for tax purposes, and there is no reason the Agency should have information beyond what it needs to do its job.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of Leader McConnell and Senator Braun's bill which would permanently codify the Treasury rule and its protections against unnecessary disclosure. Providing the IRS with additional extraneous information opens up opportunities for the kind of abuses we saw during the Obama administration.
But stopping IRS abuse doesn't seem to be a big priority for the Democrat Party. Indeed, there is reason to believe at least some Democrats would like the IRS to take a more aggressive role in Americans' lives. And so H.R. 1 explicitly repeals the Treasury Department rule, but that is not all.
As if Democrats were determined to prove that they intend to weaponize the IRS, H.R. 1 and S. 1, which is the Senate version of the House bill, would allow the IRS to consider organizations' views when deciding whether or not to grant them tax-exempt status. Let me repeat that. H.R. 1 and S. 1 would allow the IRS to consider an organization's views when deciding whether or not to grant that organization tax-
exempt status.
It is difficult to think of a more outrageous and dangerous provision. This rule would allow any administration of either party to use the IRS to censor and suppress groups whose ideas the party in power opposes. If the administration in power doesn't like the positions that your organization champions, say goodbye to your hopes for tax-exempt status. The Obama IRS scandals could look tame compared to the kind of political weaponization of the IRS that could occur under H.R. 1.
This provision could have real political implications. Selectively granting tax-exempt status could be a means of weakening political opposition. A group that can't get tax-exempt status may be a group that never gets off the ground for financial reasons and, thus, a group that never becomes a significant voice in opposition to policies of the reigning party.
Do you think this is a worst case scenario? Well, let's remember that something like this already happened under the Obama administration. The IRS was weaponized once, and it can be weaponized again, especially if Democrats succeed in their efforts to eliminate safeguards against such abuse.
And, of course, if the President has his way, the IRS may soon be swimming in money that would substantially increase its reach. President Biden wants to provide the IRS with--get this--an additional
$80 billion over 10 years. That would give the IRS a larger budget than the Department of Labor, the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other significant government Agencies. It would allow the IRS to hire nearly 87,000 new employees--87,000. All told, the Biden plan would double the number of IRS employees over the next decade.
Now, the reason President Biden gives for this massive increase in IRS funding is increased enforcement efforts in order to close the tax gap--that gap that exists between taxes owed and what Americans end up actually paying. But there is little reason to believe that the IRS will come anywhere close to recovering the amount of money the President claims it can recover, even with a massive infusion of cash. And there is reason to be seriously concerned about what that massive infusion of cash, plus new reporting requirements on Americans' bank and Venmo accounts, could mean for IRS intrusion into Americans' lives.
President Biden, of course, also claims that any increased enforcement will be targeted against wealthy Americans. In what is becoming a typical Democrat class-warfare rhetoric, the President states that ordinary Americans pay their taxes while some wealthy Americans dodge them. Of course, according to the IRS, our Nation has a relatively high and stable voluntary tax compliance rate, and tax compliance levels remain largely unchanged since at least the 1980s. And, in fact, failure to pay tax owed occurs among all kinds of taxpayers in every place along the income spectrum. But the White House isn't letting those facts interfere with its class-warfare rhetoric.
What is more, what guarantees will we have other than Democrats' say-
so at this point that this infusion of money will be restricted to combating tax evasion? As far as I can tell, there is nothing to prevent the new agents the IRS will hire from being retasked at some point to other priorities, like investigating the views of conservative organizations before deciding whether or not to grant them tax-exempt status.
Closing the tax gap is a serious goal that deserves serious discussion, and it is possible that a targeted IRS funding increase for that purpose would be worth considering. But $80 billion is a ridiculous number. In the words of one of President Obama's IRS chiefs:
``I'm not sure you'd be able to efficiently use that much money.''
And any plus-up in funding for the IRS should be accompanied by serious reforms, as well as many protections--not fewer protections--
against IRS politicization.
While the Obama IRS scandal represents one of the more egregious abuses of the Agency's power, the IRS is well known for serial mismanagement, like Americans' inability to actually get through to the IRS with their questions
The Washington Post reported in April that if you were calling the IRS this tax season, you had a 1-in-50--1-in-50--chance of actually getting to speak to a human being.
In May, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration released a report on the 2021 filing season, which noted the IRS struggled to get new hires squared away on the job partially because it is--and here, I am going to have to quote from this report--``difficult to find working copiers . . . to be able to prepare training packages for new hires.'' That is right. And I wish those were the only Agency printer or copier problems, but they are not.
Let me quote from the inspector general's report again.
Audit teams continue to perform onsite walkthroughs at the Ogden, Utah, and Kansas City, Missouri, Tax Processing Centers to meet with staff to discuss challenges they are facing as it relates to addressing the ongoing backlogs of inventory. A major concern that surfaced during these walkthroughs was a lack of working printers and copiers. IRS management estimated that, as of March 30, 2021, 69 [or] (42 percent) of 164 devices used by the Submission Processing functions are unusable and others are broken but still functioning. IRS employees stated that the only reason they could not use many of these devices is because they are out of ink or because the waste cartridge container is full.
That is from the inspector general's report. I wish this were a joke, but that is straight out of the IG's report.
Hearing that, you might think that we don't need to worry about the weaponization of the IRS because the Agency isn't capable of work that sophisticated. But, as we know, that isn't true. The IRS was successfully weaponized for political purposes during the Obama administration, and the same thing could happen again, especially if Democrats succeed in removing protections against IRS abuse.
As our Nation's revenue-collecting Agency, the IRS is an Agency with immense power, and it is not a voluntary government program. Americans don't get to choose whether or not they interact with the IRS. For that reason, it is vital that there be as many safeguards in place as possible to prevent the IRS from abusing its power or being used for political purposes.
We have seen plenty of evidence that the IRS often doesn't use the money or resources that it currently has in a responsible way. And any increase in money for the IRS--which it certainly should not be anywhere close to $80 billion--should be matched with significant reforms and increased accountability.
And H.R. 1, with its multitude of unwise and unconstitutional provisions even beyond the alarming provisions I have discussed today, must be stopped. Otherwise, the Biden legacy may be the weaponization of the IRS.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Padilla). The Senator from New Jersey.
Alerts Sign-up