[Pages S6878-S6883]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session 
to consider Calendar No. 452.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
  The bill clerk read the nomination of Aurelia Skipwith, of Indiana, 
to be Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of Aurelia Skipwith, of Indiana, to be Director of the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service.
         Mitch McConnell, Thom Tillis, Richard Burr, Pat Roberts, 
           John Cornyn, John Hoeven, Cindy Hyde-Smith, Roger F. 
           Wicker, Marco Rubio, John Boozman, James E. Risch, John 
           Barrasso, John Thune, Roy Blunt, Lamar Alexander, Mike 
           Braun, Shelley Moore Capito.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator for Louisiana.


                                   5G

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last week, of course, was Thanksgiving, a 
day that we all set aside in America to count our blessings. As we do 
that, we always say to ourselves: Gee, we really ought to be thankful 
every day of the year for the many blessings that have been bestowed 
upon us.
  I know I say that to myself. So I thought today, for a few minutes, I 
would mention two things that I am especially thankful for, even though 
this isn't Thanksgiving, but it is another day that the Lord has 
blessed us with.
  The first thing--and there are many things that I am thankful for, 
but the first thing I am thankful for that I want to mention today is 
the many public servants who care for and protect American taxpayer 
money.
  I want to highlight one in particular: the Chairman of our FCC, Mr. 
Ajit Pai. Let me explain why I am thankful for this public servant--one 
among many who get up every day and work hard to protect taxpayer 
money. About 2 weeks ago, the Chairman of the FCC, over many obstacles, 
announced that he was going to hold a public auction for the C-band.
  Why is that important?
  We all have a cell phone now, and many of us have iPads and 
computers. The internet has changed our world and changed our lives. It 
has made it more complicated, of course, but on balance, I think the 
internet has been good for our lives.
  We are about to move into a new phase of telecommunications called 
5G. It stands for fifth generation. It is really an extraordinarily 
fast internet. It can carry huge amounts of data. The ingenuity of the 
American people takes my breath away.
  I am pretty impressed with 4G, and 5G is going to be 100 times 
faster. It is going to make things possible like telemedicine, where a 
specialist in a field of surgery through robotics and now an incredibly 
fast internet can operate on a sick patient 1,000 miles away and save 
his or her life, thanks to 5G. We will be able to hook up all of our 
devices through 5G, saving time. It will give us more precious time to 
spend with our family. There will be driverless cars. Maybe I will not 
see them in my lifetime, but our assistants and our pages in the Senate 
will see them in their lifetime.
  I could go on, but the point is, to make 5G possible, a lot of people 
have to work together. So 5G is made possible through the airwaves. 
When internet devices talk to each other, data in the form of radio 
waves--the scientists call them electromagnetic radiation--these radio 
waves go through the airwaves from one device to another.
  We have all sorts of different airwaves. It is called spectrum. We 
have airwaves for radios and TVs. Well, 5G can be used in a number of 
different airwaves or different parts of the spectrum. But one part of 
the spectrum, one part of the airwaves, is just perfect for 5G. It is 
called the C-band. That part of the airwaves is able to carry these 5G 
radio waves in a manner that can cover a huge geographical area but 
also carry lots of data.
  It is called the C-band, and it is perfect for 5G. It is perfect. It 
is not too hot, not too cold. It is just right.
  Some swamp creatures, both in government and out, came that close--
that close--to getting control of the C-band, which is owned by the 
American people. Led by three foreign satellite companies, they had 
almost convinced the powers that be to give them the C-band--just give 
it to them--and let them decide who is going to get to use that C-band 
for 5G.
  Oh, and, by the way, in picking the telecommunication companies that 
would get to use the C-band that was going to be given to them for free 
by the powers that be, these foreign companies were going to get to 
keep the money--about $60 billion. That is just the upfront money--$60 
billion. That would build 7,000 miles of interstate in this country.
  Not only would the companies get the $60 billion, they would get to 
decide who could use the C-band, and they were that close. But the 
Chairman of the FCC stopped it. He is going to recommend next week--and 
I hope the rest of the FCC goes along with it. I am going to be there 
to watch. He recommended and is going to recommend that we have a 
public auction.
  Doing a public auction is nothing new for the FCC. The FCC auctions 
off different airwaves all the time. In fact, the FCC in the last 25 
years has held right around 100--I think it is 93--public auctions 
where anybody who wants to, any company that wants to--competition, 
moral good--can come in and bid on that part of the airwaves.
  The good people at the FCC have brought in to the American taxpayer 
about $123 billion in the last 25 years by auctioning off these 
airwaves and giving everybody a fair chance in a fully transparent way 
in front of God and country. That is the way it ought to be.
  But a lot of swamp creatures were pushing hard for this private sale. 
The American taxpayer not only would have lost $60 billion, they would 
have lost control of the C-band, which, according to the Communications 
Act, doesn't belong to me, doesn't belong to the businesses; it belongs 
to the American people.
  We can't let our guard down. I have learned in my short 3 years here 
that those swamp creatures--if they can't get in the front door, they 
are going to try the side door, and if they can't make it through the 
side door, they are going to try the back door. We have a lot of money 
at stake here, so we have to remain vigilant.
  I want to thank Ajit Pai for standing up. He made the right people 
mad.

[[Page S6879]]

That is easy to talk about, but it is hard to do. It takes courage, and 
he did it, and I wanted to single him out.
  The second thing I want to say I am thankful for, among so many 
things, is this: I am so thankful for our neighbors to the North--
Canada. I have visited Canada so many times. I am so proud to call them 
friends. There are 37 million people in Canada, some of the finest 
people that God ever put breath in.
  We have fought together in wars. We have fought for freedom that we 
all take for granted. We trade with each other. I mean, the country is 
just a wonderful country with extraordinarily friendly, decent, and 
God-fearing people.
  Our leaders squabble sometimes. That is just the way life is. 
Sometimes good friends have disagreements. We are having a few little 
disagreements right now. But on this beautiful Thursday, I just wanted 
to come and say how thankful I am that Canada is our friend and how 
honored I am to call them friends and how grateful I am for all 37 
million of the fine men, women, and children in that great country.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               World Bank

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to 
discuss two issues: one dealing with the World Bank and another one 
dealing with the Department of Defense's inability to get clean audits.
  Today the World Bank is releasing its country partnership framework 
with China. Reportedly, this includes $1 billion to $1.5 billion of 
loans to China per year and $800 million to $1 billion in private 
sector investment.
  Keep in mind that the World Bank was created to help economic 
development in the world's poorest countries. China is now the world's 
second largest economy after the United States. Also, the United States 
is the World Bank's largest contributor. I think many Americans would 
question why so many American tax dollars are going to support low-
interest loans in China.
  In China, there is a large and growing body of evidence of human 
rights abuses in Xinxiang, including mass internment camps. Reports 
indicate that these camps are centers for social control and political 
indoctrination. Chinese authorities reportedly mistreat or even torture 
detainees, while requiring them to engage in forced labor and to 
renounce their religion and their culture. Yet the World Bank has 
supported a program called Technical and Vocational Education and 
Training Project in Xinxiang Province.
  This is wording very close to what the Chinese Communist Party 
euphemistically calls its internment camps. Plus, one reporter has 
uncovered documents that these schools purchased barbwire, tear gas, 
and body armor using other funds--and, of course, funds are fungible.
  Institutions like the World Bank have a great responsibility to 
further assess critical human rights risk and religious freedom, such 
as those exhibited in Xinxiang in any region where it lends money.
  The World Bank's own social framework standards state that when 
assessing social risk and impacts, the Bank must assess threats to 
human security and impacts on the health, safety, and well-being of 
workers and project-affected communities. The Bank and other such 
institutions cannot adequately assess a project's full impact without 
monitoring and examining reports of widespread human rights abuses in 
any local area.
  On November 16, the New York Times published leaked Chinese records 
indicating a coordinated effort going back years, directed by General 
Secretary Xi, to detain hundreds of thousands of Uighurs, Kazakhs, and 
other Muslims in internment camps and to unleash the tools of 
``dictatorship'' on the Xinxiang Muslim population. Given these 
repeated reports about repression in Xinxiang that date back even 
years, it is hard to see how any project in that region could meet the 
Bank's social framework standards. There needs to be a periodic 
internal review of risk assessment mechanisms to ensure that they are 
appropriately calibrated to capture changing risk profiles.
  I question whether the Bank's oversight processes are adequate, given 
its own assessments saw no issue with these intern camps that go by the 
professional name of Technical and Vocational Education and Training 
Project--and I am referring particularly to those in Xinxiang Province.
  In a statement on August 29, the World Bank stated that it had 
conducted supervision missions twice a year since the project started 
and that these missions included a review of social safeguards and a 
monitoring and evaluation review. The World Bank found ``no evidence 
from subsequent reviews that funds were diverted, misused, or used for 
activities not in line with project objectives or World Bank policies 
and procedures.''
  However, just last month, the Bank raised the environmental and 
social risk ratings from moderate--the second lowest level--to 
substantial and then to high--the highest level. It is very 
disappointing that very little happened in upgrading the risk 
assessments on this project until after congressional attention, even 
with an internal whistleblower raising the matter. This seems like a 
failed process to me when routine audits and a whistleblower complaint 
do not catch anything, despite increasingly concerning reports in the 
media about mistreatment and abuse.
  I have written a letter to the Bank President, Malpass, asking 
questions about these systemic concerns. Moreover, I questioned why a 
country like China, whose economy has far surpassed the threshold at 
which it is supposed to graduate from rural bank funding, is now and 
forever still taking loans.
  The World Bank was created for a very worthwhile purpose--to help 
poor countries that cannot, on their own efforts, assess capital 
markets.
  Both China and Russia today have well surpassed the World Bank's 
graduation threshold and have access to capital markets. Yet American 
taxpayers are called on to do more. Yet China then continues to borrow, 
on average, $2 billion a year from the World Bank, making it one of the 
Bank's top borrowers--the second largest economy in the world and one 
of the Bank's top borrowers.
  Countries like China or Russia that have seen the most economic 
progress should not seek to maintain access to the Bank's preferential 
lending rates and technical support. Moreover, these are our two major 
geopolitical foes.
  I have previously highlighted China's intellectual property theft and 
foreign influence activities at American universities as just an 
example of other things I looked at in the case of China.
  Russia's illegal occupation of territory in Georgia and Ukraine and 
its ``active measures'' against democracies, including the U.S. 
democracy, make it effectively an outlawed state. Meanwhile, China does 
substantial foreign lending of its own, which it uses as a tool of 
geopolitical influence over other countries.
  Now, just think, through the World Bank, they get U.S. taxpayer 
dollars, and then the country is still so rich that they can lend to 
many other nations around the world to increase the geopolitical 
influence of China, and that country's lending does not follow 
international development finance standards, nor does China disclose 
the amounts or terms for loans that it offers.
  Through the Belt and Road Initiative in China--this initiative is a 
process where they invest in other countries to have Chinese influence 
in these other countries--this Belt and Road Initiative in China has 
raised concerns about debt sustainability in recipient countries. They 
can invest money in these countries, and then they have an agreement 
that if the loan isn't paid, then China takes over, enhancing their 
influence--a lot of it for military purposes.
  A March 2018 report from the Center for Global Development assessed 
the current debt vulnerabilities of the countries I just referred to, 
identified as potential Belt and Road Initiative borrowers. Out of the 
23 countries determined to be vulnerable to debt distress, the center 
identified 8 countries ``where Belt and Road Initiative appears to 
create the potential for debt

[[Page S6880]]

sustainability problems, and where China is a dominant creditor in the 
key position to address these problems.''
  The World Bank, again using American tax dollars, should not be 
lending to wealthy countries that violate the human rights of their 
citizens and attempt to dominate weaker countries through their loans, 
whether it is done for military reasons or for economic reasons.
  The State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill contains funding and 
authorization for a large capital increase for the World Bank. In other 
words, what I just said--the Senate is going to be facing this issue. I 
have developed an amendment to this bill that would insert language 
requiring the U.S. representative to the World Bank to work to defeat 
any project in a country that has reached the World Bank's own 
``graduation threshold'' and, secondly, that is designated by the State 
Department as a ``country of particular concern for religious freedom'' 
or is on the watch list for such designation. Both of those would 
include China and Russia at this point. Countries with broadly 
documented violations of international norms, human rights, and 
religious freedoms should not be given the privilege of accessing 
preferential loans that then limit access to other countries in need.
  In other words, the second largest economy in the world--China--by 
getting loans from the World Bank at the same time they violate the 
human rights of their people--developing countries that need the loans 
and resources are not getting them because they are going to the 
wealthy nations.


                         Defense Appropriations

  Mr. President, now to my second and last issue of the day, I want to 
report on the Pentagon's most recent audit. Unfortunately, I don't come 
with tidings of comfort and joy. Instead, I come with tidings of bad 
news. The Department of Defense has flunked another test of fiscal 
fitness yet again.
  Last year, Congress authorized more than $700 billion for the 
Department of Defense. That is a heck of a lot of money. That is why it 
is a big deal that the Pentagon is unable to account for the hundreds 
of billions of taxpayer dollars it spends from one year to the next 
year.
  Every dollar that Congress approves for the Defense Department is 
crucial for our national security. We must ensure that America's sons 
and daughters in uniform are well paid and well equipped to defend our 
great country. That is why I work tirelessly to hold the Pentagon 
accountable.
  The good news is, I am Iowa-stubborn. As a taxpayer watchdog, I won't 
let go of this bone until I see results.
  There is always bad news after you announce good news, so the bad 
news is that the Pentagon's books are a big fiscal mess. In fact, the 
Defense Department is the very last Federal agency to comply with a 
Federal law--decades old--requiring an annual audit.
  It took 28 years after Congress enacted a law requiring every Federal 
agency to conduct an annual audit for the Pentagon to get its ducks in 
a row. Unfortunately, the results are not what they are quacked up to 
be.
  As required by the 1990 Chief Financial Officers Act, the bean 
counters at the Department of Defense disclosed their financial 
assessments for fiscal year 2019 to the Office of Inspector General, 
and then the IG deployed 1,400 auditors to 600 sites around the world. 
These 1,400 auditors at 600 different sites surveyed $2.9 trillion in 
assets and tallied $2.8 trillion in liabilities. After spending $1 
billion to conduct this audit, the Department of Defense inspector 
general was unable to issue a clean opinion, and that is the goal we 
seek.
  Just like other Departments can get clean opinions, why can't the 
Defense Department do so? The case is that year after year, the 
Pentagon is unable to account for tax dollars coming in and tax dollars 
going out.
  Let me clarify for everyone listening just what happens when big 
spenders aren't held accountable. Tax dollars are ripe for wrongdoers 
to harvest, and in the sprawling bureaucracy that we call the Defense 
Department, with bases and contractors stationed around the globe, 
Pentagon spending is vulnerable to waste, fraud, and abuse.
  As a Pentagon watchdog, I have approached this podium nearly 50 times 
over my years of service here in the Senate to continually call 
attention to this wasteful spending by the Department of Defense. At 
the same time, I haven't avoided calling attention to wasteful spending 
in any agency of the Federal Government, but the Department of Defense 
has gotten the majority of my attention. During this period of time, I 
have written countless oversight letters and launched scores of 
investigations. I have encouraged my colleagues to ramp up their 
oversight work so we can work together to fix what is broken.
  The top dogs at the Pentagon have undertaken countless reform 
efforts, so I am not saying they don't recognize it and try to do 
something about it, but after all these decades, they have not 
succeeded.
  At the same time, besides undertaking countless reform efforts, they 
have issued endless promises. They have testified that real solutions 
are underway. Yet the results of the fiscal 2019 audit leaves this Iowa 
Senator underwhelmed. Tax dollars are still leaking through the 
Pentagon ledgers like a sieve. The plumbing is broken. When the fiscal 
faucets are cranked wide open, at full throttle, with no internal 
controls welded in place to prevent leaking, tax dollars are flushed 
down the drain.
  Over many years of oversight, dozens of top dogs at the Defense 
Department and the top brass of U.S. military have come to my office to 
offer explanations for wasteful spending, particularly after the 
Pentagon is on the receiving end of unflattering headlines. They have 
polished their skills when it comes to dodging tough questions posed by 
my oversight letters. They are also well prepared to rationalize 
hundreds of billions of dollars for their budget.
  It is entirely reasonable and the responsibility of each of our 
lawmakers, including this one, to expect that they also have the 
ability to show us where the money goes. I have approached dialogue 
with our Nation's military leaders in good faith, but time and again, I 
have been disappointed. The Defense Department's inability or 
unwillingness to make necessary and overdue changes is quite 
unacceptable. The buck stops here, of course. As representatives of the 
American people, we owe it to our constituents.
  The Defense Department is the largest Federal agency. Over time, 
bureaucrats get wrapped up in a culture of go along to get along. Some 
insiders take the brave step to blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and 
abuse; however, many are afraid to follow suit. That is why it is so 
important to inject a dose of reality into that swamp.
  What is really needed is a massive transfusion to change the mindset. 
We have a lot of history, so let me remind my colleagues, Washington is 
an island surrounded by reality, and when it comes to fiscal 
responsibility, the Pentagon operates on its own special fantasy 
island. That is why Congress can't rubberstamp the Defense Department's 
budget with no accountability for how the money is spent.
  Every time a new defense authorization funding bill is due in 
Congress, military leaders speak to the ever-changing threats facing 
our country. Those same military leaders plead for additional funding 
to defend our Nation, fight our enemies, and protect our interests 
abroad. Those military leaders discuss the growing threat of cyber 
attacks, aging and obsolete equipment, and say that cuts to their 
budget would hurt our men and women in uniform.
  National defense, as we all know, is the No. 1 priority of the 
Federal Government under the Constitution, so Congress is 
understandably reluctant to deny money that military leaders say they 
need. That, in turn, is the reason earning a clean audit is shoved to 
the back burner at the Defense Department.
  Congress and the Pentagon need to reach an understanding. Fiscal 
accountability and military readiness are not mutually exclusive. It is 
not an either/or scenario. Earning a clean bill of fiscal health would 
strengthen military readiness and boost support for necessary increases 
to defense spending in Congress and among the American people.
  Money somehow seems to simply get lost at the Defense Department. It 
is unreasonable to concede that it is OK for military inventory to 
vanish into thin air. It boils down to sloppy bookkeeping and 
antiquated accounting

[[Page S6881]]

systems that can't generate reliable transaction data.
  The problem starts at the top and filters down throughout the five 
quarters of the Pentagon. Let's consider the recent debacle with the 
TransDigm Group. In February, the Defense Department's Office of 
Inspector General released a report on spare parts that the Pentagon 
purchased from TransDigm. The result of that report exposed the rinse-
and-repeat fiscal shenanigans corroding the accounting systems at the 
Pentagon. In the report, the IG analyzed 113 contracts between January 
2015 and January 2017. It reviewed 47 spare parts the Defense 
Department purchased from TransDigm. In that window of time of only 2 
years, TransDigm overcharged the Defense Department by more than $16 
million.
  I will go out on a limb and suggest that Americans would rather spend 
$16 million for the Defense Department on our men and women in uniform 
rather than overpaying for spare parts rip-offs to a defense 
contractor.
  Congress can't sign blank checks to the Defense Department. We must 
work to ensure every dollar is present and accounted for. The Nation's 
strongest military in the world is managed by a Defense Department 
where taxpayer dollars seem to vanish without explanation, without 
receipts, and without accountability. Over the years, I have collected 
a laundry list of Pentagon waste, fraud, and abuse from $436 hammers to 
$640 toilet seats, $117 soap dish covers, and $999 pliers. Most 
recently, I have exposed $1,200 reheatable coffee cups and $14,000 
toilet seat lids. The dirty laundry just keeps piling up, and at the 
same time it is piling up, it is soaking the taxpayer.
  These wasteful expenditures represent just the tip of an iceberg. The 
simple truth is the Defense Department can't keep track of or doesn't 
seem to care where tax dollars are spent. Internal controls are weak 
and, in some cases, nonexistent. That has been reinforced by this 
second audit for which the Department of Defense inspector general 
can't give a clean audit.
  For a second time, I would suggest that what the law of 28 years ago 
tries to accomplish is that every Department get a clean audit--a clean 
opinion on their audit. Let me repeat for a second time that the 
Defense Department is the only agency of the Federal Government that 
can't do that. The Defense Department, repeating again, is the only 
agency that hasn't been able to deliver a clean audit, despite spending 
billions of dollars to modernize its accounting system. All of that 
investment hasn't produced better systems.
  No one except me and a few others ever talk about this, but it needs 
to be talked about and talked about a lot more, and it needs to be 
talked about in a deliberate way and very often. Congress can't allow 
the Defense Department to sweep this issue under the rug year after 
year.
  The TransDigm fiasco is just one very small example, even though it 
cost the taxpayers a lot of wasted dollars. Price gouging has been 
going on for years at the expense of the taxpayer and military 
readiness. Top-level managers know all about what I am talking about, 
but they aren't doing a doggone thing to fix it. People must be held 
accountable for missing receipts, for lost financial information, for 
wasteful spending approvals, for questionable contracting agreements, 
and every other abuse of power that leads to more taxpayer dollars 
being squandered.
  American households across the country scrutinize their spending and 
keep tabs on their bills. The Defense Department should approach 
spending no differently. That is why I pushed for an amendment to the 
latest Defense authorization bill that would have required the Pentagon 
to keep better track of its contracts and to make sure they do make 
reports to the Congress. While this amendment was ultimately not 
included in the bill, I want my colleagues to know that I am going to 
continue to push for more accountability.
  Throughout my years of oversight, the Pentagon officials have claimed 
they want to reverse the cycle of cost overruns; they want to clean up 
their books; and they want to hold people responsible. Yet it never 
seems to happen. Although I am encouraged by the conversations I have 
had so far with new Defense Secretary Esper, the proof is in the 
pudding. From one administration to the next, it has been the same 
story. Business goes on as usual.
  From the top of the chain of command to the rank and file, there is a 
pervasive mindset that assumes no one is watching over them and that no 
one cares. For four decades, this Senator has been watching, and this 
Senator cares. I am disgusted each time I discover another example of 
wasteful spending.
  So I am here this very day, as I have been dozens of times before in 
my service in the Senate, to ask my colleagues in both the Senate and 
House of Representatives to join me in a crusade to stop wasteful 
spending at the Defense Department. There is a saying that goes 
something like this: no guts, no glory. Well, wasteful spending is 
gutting our military readiness and goring the taxpayers. There is no 
glory in that, and people might wonder then, why does this Senator 
bother?
  I have fought fiscal mismanagement at the Defense Department for 
these many decades. I have launched investigation after investigation 
and come to the floor of the Senate to talk until I am blue in the 
face. Billions of dollars have been poured into a decades-long effort 
to right the fiscal ship at the Defense Department. The Pentagon has 
shelled out billions for several hundred partial orders, two complete 
audits, and endless technology updates to modernize its IT and 
accounting systems. Yet no one can tell us when, if ever, a clean audit 
might be possible. How can that be? After nearly 30 years of effort, 
there is no solution.
  The Department of Defense can develop the most advanced weapons 
systems in the world, but it can't seem to deploy something as simple 
and common as an accounting system that is capable of capturing payment 
transactions and generating reliable fiscal and financial data. That is 
why it is a cakewalk for crooks to rip into the Pentagon's money sack 
from both ends and use a front end loader to freeload their way through 
this money pit.
  Without a clean audit on the foreseeable horizon, there is no 
evidence to catch anyone's hands in the Pentagon cookie jar. The only 
way we will root out fraud and wasteful spending is by knowing where 
the money is being spent.
  That brings me back to square one as I finish. We need a clean audit 
and a reliable accounting system. As I mentioned earlier, I am Iowa 
stubborn, and, by God, I am willing to work with my colleagues and go 
toe-to-toe with any administration, Republican or Democrat. I will work 
as long as it takes for us to see eye to eye to hold the Defense 
Department accountable once and for all.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Braun). The Senator from Maryland.


         United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise to commemorate the United Nations 
Framework Convention on Climate Change 25th Conference of the Parties, 
or COP25, which is taking place in Madrid until December 12 this year. 
I do so despite the cloud cast by President Trump's announcement of his 
intention to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement.
  The Paris Agreement is a landmark effort to reduce global greenhouse 
gas emissions in an effort to limit the global temperature increase in 
this century to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels while 
pursuing means to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees.
  The COP meetings now routinely represent the largest multilateral 
diplomatic events in the world. This year's conference is designed to 
take the next critical steps in the U.N. climate change process. 
Following agreements on the implementation guidelines of the Paris 
Agreement COP24 in Poland last year, a key objective is to complete 
several matters with respect to the full operationalization of the 
Paris climate change agreement.
  Article 28 of the Paris Agreement specifies that after joining, no 
country can withdraw for 3 years, after which a 1-year waiting period 
must occur before withdrawal takes effect. The Trump administration 
recklessly filed withdrawal documents on November 4, 2019, making 
November 4, 2020, the earliest possible date the United States can be 
out of the agreement.

[[Page S6882]]

  Withdrawal could not come at a costlier time. In an analysis I 
requested to review the Federal approach to prioritizing and funding 
climate resilience projects that address the Nation's most significant 
climate risks, the Government Accountability Office notes that there 
were at least 14 disasters whose costs exceeded $1 billion each in 2018 
alone.
  GAO, an independent, nonpartisan agency that examines how taxpayer 
dollars are spent and is known as the congressional watchdog, reported 
that the total estimated costs reached at least $91 billion in damage 
to public and private property.
  ``The cost of recent weather disasters has illustrated the need to 
plan for climate change risks and invest in climate resilience,'' the 
report says. ``Investing in climate resilience can reduce the need for 
far more costly steps in the decades to come.''
  The Paris Agreement establishes a global goal on adaptation that 
consists of, one, enhancing adaptation capacity; two, strengthening 
resilience; and three, reducing vulnerability to climate change in the 
context of the temperature goal of the agreement. It aims at 
strengthening the national adaptation efforts, including through 
support and international cooperation. It recognizes that adaptation is 
a global challenge faced by all, including the United States.
  Because U.S. withdrawal will not formally take effect until November 
4, 2020, the U.S. team's posture at COP25 remains largely unchanged. A 
group of dedicated career civil servants will be on the ground.
  Moreover, 2 years ago, numerous U.S. States, cities, Tribal nations, 
businesses, faith groups, universities, and others enhanced their 
presence at major international events, including COP meetings, to 
maintain and encourage American progress toward its national climate 
goals.
  I am proud that nearly 100 Maryland pledgers ``Are Still In.'' They 
comprise dozens of businesses--many small. We have over 10 cities, 6 
counties, cultural institutions, faith and healthcare organizations, 20 
universities, including my alma mater, the University of Maryland 
School of Law in Baltimore, and investors, such as the State treasurer 
of Maryland. They are all still in.
  Members of the Senate ``Are Still In.'' I am proud to be leading 38 
of my colleagues in S. Res. 404. This bipartisan resolution expresses 
the sense of the Senate that the United States should be working in 
cooperation with the international community in continuing to exercise 
global leadership to address the causes and effects of climate change.
  Prior to that, I led a congressional delegation of 10 Senators to 
COP21 that produced the Paris Agreement in 2015. Then the United States 
committed to lowering its contribution of greenhouse gas emissions 26 
to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.
  Business and labor ``are still in.'' In a recent letter, 75 major 
CEOs and organized labor that are represented by the AFL-CIO stressed 
the importance of the Paris Agreement and the need for the United 
States to remain in it. This represents one of the most powerful 
recognitions ever from the private sector of the economic risks and 
opportunities that climate change presents to the United States and the 
world. The December 2, 2019, Joint Labor Union and CEO Statement on the 
Paris Agreement comprises a group of CEOs who employ more than 2 
million people in the United States and union leaders who represent 
more than 12.5 million workers.
  In 2009, at the Copenhagen COP 15, the U.S. helped to drive the 
creation of goals for developed nations to mobilize $100 billion in 
public and private climate finance in 2020. The result was the Green 
Climate Fund, which helps to fund climate finance investment in low 
emissions, climate-resilient development.
  The Paris Agreement affirmed and extended that $100 billion goal. 
Although President Trump has stymied its funding, the fiscal year 2020 
State Department and Foreign Operations bill the Senate Committee on 
Appropriations reported is the most favorable, forward-leaning on 
multilateral climate assistance in years, funding renewable energy 
programs at $179 million and resiliency programs at $177 million. In 
addition, the bill commits $140 million to the Global Environmental 
Facility and $10 million to the U.N. climate convention.
  We must not forget the cooperation President Trump would have us 
forget. On a bipartisan basis, the U.S. Congress has uniformly rejected 
the President's repeated calls to zero out climate assistance funding. 
This rebuke represents the true, cooperative spirit of our country, 
once a global leader on climate issues.
  I urge President Trump to reassert our Nation's strong leadership in 
implementing the Paris Agreement before the next Conference of the 
Parties. In the meantime, I applaud the courage of the general public, 
universities, faith-based groups, nonprofits, labor organizations, 
private sector companies, and State and local governments that have 
helped to step into the void President Trump created by his withdrawal 
from this agreement.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                 United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement

  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the need to pass the 
United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.
  It is frustrating that we have to continue to speak about this issue. 
We have been so close for a long time now, but the lack of action on 
the part of the House leadership continues to unnecessarily delay its 
ratification.
  Our neighbors to the north and south are our natural allies and 
trading partners; yet our trade policy with them has not been updated 
in 25 years. The President and his team have worked very hard to get 
Canada and Mexico to the negotiating table to modernize our trade 
agreement in a mutually beneficial manner. That hard work has paid off 
in the form of the USMCA. It is ready for ratification, and the Senate 
is eager to get that done.
  Unfortunately, we are at the mercy of the House, which must act 
first. The House leadership's refusal to move this trade deal is 
preventing additional job creation in our country, and it is sending 
the wrong signal to our trading partners across the globe. We ought to 
be spurring economic activity by striking fair trade agreements 
globally, not sitting on our hands and refusing to approve an agreement 
between two of our top trading partners.
  A fair and mutually beneficial trade agreement with our neighbors to 
the north and south is very important to my home State of Arkansas. 
Canada and Mexico are No. 1 and No. 2 on the list of the top 10 
destinations for Arkansas' exports. Arkansas is one of a handful of 
States that in recent years has consistently exported more than what it 
has imported from Canada and Mexico.
  The World Trade Center Arkansas, which has played a valuable role in 
connecting businesses in my State with international partners for over 
a decade, recently released a report that summarizes trade and jobs 
data for the Natural State.
  The center's report underscores the value trade brings to my State's 
economy and reinforces the fact that the path to a more prosperous, 
long-term outlook for Arkansas is through opening additional markets 
for our farmers, manufacturers, and small businesses. The report notes 
that, as of September 2019, trade in Arkansas supported nearly 350,000 
jobs. This represents approximately 26 percent of the State's total 
employed labor force. It points to a direct correlation between job 
numbers and trade, documenting that trade-related jobs in the State 
have grown six times faster than total employment over the past few 
years.
  More importantly, for our purposes here today, the report underscores 
just how crucial Canada and Mexico are for Arkansas' economy. The 
Natural State's exports to Canada amounted to $1.2 billion last year. 
Our exports to Mexico totaled $870 million in that same time span. 
Combined, these two countries account for a third of Arkansas' total 
exports. Nearly 69,000 jobs in my State are dependent on trade with 
Canada, and another 41,000 are tied to trade with Mexico.
  Melvin Torres, the center's director of Western Hemisphere and 
European Trade, praised Arkansas' effective partnership with both 
countries for creating this ``symbiotic and successful relationship.'' 
That relationship will only grow with the ratification of the USMCA.

[[Page S6883]]

  Canada and Mexico aren't just important markets for my State. Each of 
our States stands to gain with the ratification of the USMCA. This 
landmark trade deal will create over 175,000 jobs, which will help to 
strengthen our economy and America's middle class. This overdue 
modernization of NAFTA will benefit workers in a wide array of 
industries. Manufacturing, tech, and more stand to gain from the USMCA. 
It will add much needed certainty for farmers and ranchers, who 
currently need every market they can get. Rural America is struggling 
right now, and approving this agreement will provide a shot in the arm 
for the rural economy.
  The ratification of the USMCA, along with the recent deals that have 
been struck with South Korea and Japan, will show the rest of the world 
that the U.S. is open for business. Proving that the U.S. is 
negotiating in good faith to reach mutually beneficial outcomes for all 
parties that are involved could really move the needle in other ongoing 
trade standoffs.
  The House leadership needs to get on the stick. The USMCA is too 
important for our Nation's economic future for it to be sitting in 
limbo while House Democrats focus on partisan goals.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). The majority leader.

                          ____________________