Category: Artificial Intelligence

Source: United States Senator for Maine Angus King

WASHINGTON, D.C.— U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME) today spoke on the Senate floor to speak on the Senate floor against the ‘Recissions Package’ currently being considered. This legislation aims to remove Congressionally-approved funding from critical public services including, but not limited to, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) which helps to fund Maine Public broadcasting and public interest newsgathering nationwide, as well as the World Health Organization (WHO) which leads global efforts to expand universal health coverage and directs and coordinates the world’s response to health emergencies before they can pose a threat to American lives.

More specifically, King made the point that this bill is a further abdication of congressional authority to fund national priorities, also known in the Constitution as “the power of the purse.”

The full transcript of Senator King’s floor speech from this morning is below.

+++

“Mr. President, I’d like to talk today about the rescission bill that will be coming before us in the next couple of days, and I want to really cover two points – what is being done in this bill, and how it’s being done. I think they are equally important. In fact, I think perhaps how it is being done is more significant in the long run. The rescission bill talks about essentially two areas, public broadcasting, and USAID. In my view, the rescission, the total rescission of those two agencies, by the way –it is a total rescission— it’s not selective cutting of certain programs or partially, it’s the whole thing, both in the corporation for public broadcasting and USAID, go from bad policy to downright dangerous, and I want to talk about that for a minute.

“Public broadcasting has a unique place in the United States and our media environment in that it is the only media form not driven by advertising and advertising dollars. It cannot be driven by ratings. It therefore is able to provide programming to the American people that they probably almost certainly would not have access to otherwise. It wouldn’t simply find a home on commercial broadcasting because the ratings wouldn’t be there, but that doesn’t mean the programming isn’t important. 

“My kids were raised on ‘Sesame Street.’ It made a huge difference in their readiness to go to school, in their understanding of language and numbers, and the whole basis of our education system. ‘Sesame Street’ is a program that wouldn’t find a home on commercial broadcasting. Likely, also with “Nova” with “Nature” and yes, the “PBS Newshour.”

“The [corporate] news business today has become more entertainment because it’s based upon advertising [and] attracting viewers and therefore is more inciteful. And I don’t mean – I mean that c-i-t-e not s-i-g-h-t. More inciting to people’s anger and unrest in order to keep them viewing. Whereas the PBS Newshour is pretty much straight news. It wouldn’t get ratings on MSNBC or Fox News, but it provides a source of news both in terms of nationally, but also in each state.

“The local national public radio “All Things Considered”, those kinds of programming are essential to providing information. Now, some people may think it’s biased. I don’t think anything done by a human is going to be free of any and all bias, but it is pretty much straight news. And it’s an asset to our communities, particularly our rural communities.

“And by the way, this isn’t where we have federal dollars that are supporting all of these initiatives. In fact, the majority of the support for public broadcasting, both television and radio, comes from the public, from contributions. So, in effect, our federal dollars are matched to a very high degree by the public making their own contributions. That’s an indication of how much the public values these wonderful assets to our information environment here in the country. And to cut off federal funding is just — it’s an essential piece of the funding. A lot of it goes to the local stations. We talk about the corporation for public broadcasting, we think of PBS and the national programs, but a lot of this funding ends up going to the local stations all over the country that provide essential sources of information to their public.

“By the way, the costs we’re talking about is ridiculously low. I did the calculation. The relationship between the cost of the public broadcasting to the federal budget is, let’s see, it’s seven cents to $10,000. That’s the ratio. Seven cents out of $10,000. That’s what we’re talking about here, an almost immeasurable part of the federal budget, but the return on investment is enormous. It’s enormous. If this were a gigantic $100 billion program, we’d be having a different kind of discussion, but this is a relatively small program in the context of the federal budget, with a very high return on investment to the American people. 

“Now let’s talk about USAID and the [majority] whip was just talking about that. He listed a number of projects that I think are questionable, that I don’t necessarily support, but USAID is an essential part of our foreign policy to help to stabilize unstable parts of the world, to extend America’s soft power, to build America’s brand, and yes, to do some very essential projects. For example, in PEPFAR, which is an initiative of the George W. Bush administration, involving AIDS, the estimate is that that initiative since its beginning in 2005 has saved 25 million lives. 25 million lives were saved by that program that will be destroyed by this bill. You can’t tell me that having that level of benefit to the people of the world does not [result in] the benefit of the United States, the sponsor of the initiative.

“Same thing with malaria. The estimates are that the malaria program, which goes back to I believe it was the Obama Administration, has prevented 1.5 billion cases of malaria, which is a real plague in many parts of the world, and saved 11 million lives. Just those two programs together, those two USAID projects, have saved 36 million lives, and we’re talking about cutting them off. That’s not only bad policy, it’s cruel. It’s cruel, and it undermines the credibility of this country.

“Now, of course, foreign aid has a lot of benefits aside from the ones that I’ve just outlined. By the way, if the Congress and the Administration wants to cull the programs and say we don’t think this one is necessary, this is not a good expenditure of the people’s money, that’s fine. But that’s not what this bill does. This bill throws out the beneficial baby with the questionable bathwater. It is a total abdication of America’s engagement with the world.

“Vaccination campaigns, food security, nutrition programs, disaster response, refugee support. This aligns with our American values. As I say, it’s a relatively small part of the budget. It helps to stabilize fragile states. It cuts the risk of extremism and terrorism and conflict. And James Mattis put it best. General James Mattis, one of the most distinguished military officers of our time, said, ‘If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then you’re going to have to buy me more bullets.’

“That puts it most succinctly, you’re going to have to buy me more bullets, because the programs of USAID tend to stabilize the world and mitigate the tendency toward extremism and violence. And since we have started to gut A.I.D., which was one of the first actions of this administration in January and February, China has stepped into our shoes.

“I’m on the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee. I have seen and heard testimony that China is basically stepping in where we’re walking away. We are handing Africa and Latin America to the Chinese. In some cases, to the very programs that we were sponsoring. They’re the ones now engaging with local governments, local leadership, getting the credit for helping with these kinds of problems across the world. We’re giving away the goodwill that is part of the American brand. We’re giving away the opportunity to build alliances, to strengthen our influence, especially in competition with regimes like China and Russia.

“It also creates markets for U.S. goods and the U.S. economy. A significant share of the foreign aid ends up going back to businesses and NGO’s here in the United States. So, it actually contributes to our economic development. Countries that are receiving this USAID end up being partners and customers of U.S. goods, products, and services. I mentioned it saves lives, it aligns with our values, and there’s nothing wrong with talking about values. That’s a part of what we should be doing. USAID is doing important work all over the world. I met with USAID people in Kabul, Afghanistan. I met with them in Jordan, where they’re working on a water desalinization project that will literally save Jordan. Jordan is a country that has no water, and they’re facing a tremendous crisis. One of the projects that they’re relying on is a very large water production facility supported by USAID. That’s the kind of project that I think we need to continue.

“Again, I would not say that every single project they’ve sponsored is what I would have agreed upon. That’s our job as oversight bodies, to take a look at the projects being sponsored, the administration can also do that, and they can then cull the projects we don’t think are a useful expenditure of the government’s money, or the people’s money. But not the wholesale destruction of an agency that is critical, I believe, to the foreign policy of the United States. 

“So, that’s the picture on these rescissions. I believe the more important question, though, Mr. President, as I’ve mentioned, is how this is being done. The question is, who has the power in our government over appropriations? That’s the fundamental question. Where is the power over appropriations, where do the federal dollars go?

“The answer, of course, is the Congress. Article 1, Section 8. The Congress has the ‘power of the purse.’ The president can submit his budget, and he can submit a budget that zeros out USAID, that zeros out corporation for public broadcasting. But then, the way the process works, we have hearings, we have meetings with the appropriation committee. The appropriators meet, decide, discuss, debate, and come to the floor with a bill that represents the consensus of those on the appropriations committee. And then we consider it here.

“This process that we’re talking about here—this rescission process—turns the whole thing upside down. It basically says the administration can decide programs that are going to go away, and you can take it or leave it, Congress. I believe it shreds the appropriations process. The appropriations committee, indeed, this body, becomes a rubber stamp for whatever the administration wants.  

“The deeper problem, Mr. President, is I believe this is another step in Congress’ abdication of its constitutional authority, which has dramatically accelerated since January. The war power, Article 1, Section 8, an express power of the Constitution, we barely could have a debate about that, and the President attacked another sovereign country, which may have been the right thing to do, but there was no consultation, there was no attempt whatsoever to engage Congress, which has the power over declaring war, before that step was taken.

“Foreign trade, again, foreign trade, trade among nations is the term in the Constitution, is expressly delegated by the Constitution to the Congress, and the Congress has delegated some of that authority to the president, to a president, any president, under emergency circumstances. But this President has expanded emergency to mean just about anything.

“We learned this week he’s talking about a 50% tariff against Brazil because he doesn’t like the way the current government is treating the prior president. Has nothing to do with trade, has nothing to do with trade deficits or the tariffs. It has to do with something the President individually doesn’t like. That’s not the way the systems supposed to work. The up and down rollercoaster we’ve been on with regards to tariffs is a perfect example of why one person shouldn’t have this authority. This should be something done thoughtfully and systematically here in the Congress. Under Article 1 Section 8, to debate and decide what appropriate tariff levels there are across the world and not this helter skelter up and down changing every other day that has not only affected inflation in this country and brought it up, but it’s also created enormous uncertainty both in our markets and across the world. And finally, we see the power of the purse, Congress’s fundamental responsibility. 

“And by the way, Mr. President, as I talk to my colleagues, particularly my Republican colleagues, about this issue over the last several months, one of the common refrains is, don’t worry, we don’t have to buck the President because the courts will take care of it. The courts will take care of us. They’ll protect us. Well, that ain’t happening. The ridiculous decision of the Supreme Court yesterday on the Department of Education is an indication that we cannot count on the courts to protect us from the depredations of an authoritarian, proto authoritarian regime. They basically said the President can continue to gut the Department of Education because we are going to hear the case later and decide when it comes. They did the same right with birthright citizenship. They punted on the issue and allowed the activities, the authoritarian-like activities to continue before they get to the case in their own good time.

“So we can’t count on the courts. That means we’re it. The Congress, the Senate has to stand up for the Constitution. What this bill is, is another building block in the edifice of authoritarianism that we’ve seen built, that we are seeing built before our eyes. A building block in the edifice of authoritarianism.

“Why is this important? Is this just a dispute between the Congress and the President, politics as usual. Democrats undermining a Republican president, and it’s just going to be all about the midterms and the elections of 2028? No, this is much deeper than that.

“The fundamental premise of the Constitution is the separation of power and the reason it’s there is because history tells us if power is concentrated, it’s dangerous. Madison put it bluntly in the 47th Federalist: ‘The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary in the same set of hands may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.’ He used the word tyranny. Madison wasn’t mincing words. History tells us that if you concentrate power in one set of hands it’s dangerous. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We know that from 1,000 years of human nature. And that was exactly what the framers of the Constitution were trying to prevent by this complicated, difficult structure where there’s power in the Congress, power in the states, power in the executive, power in the courts, two houses of Congress vetoes, overrides.

“All of those checks and balances which has become a kind of cliche are there for a fundamental reason, and that’s to protect our liberty. To protect us from the danger of power being concentrated in one set of hands. Now the framers thought that they didn’t have to worry about this, having set up the Constitution the way they did, because they said never will the Congress give up its power. The term they used was ambition must be made to counteract ambition. That there would be institutional rivalry and we would never give up. They didn’t reckon on parties. They didn’t reckon on party primaries. They didn’t reckon on the executive having such sway with the legislative branch that the checks and balances essentially have melted away.

“So this bill is important because of the merits, as I talked about, about the danger of wiping out USAID and all the good it does in the world and the good it does for our country, and also wiping out public broadcasting and all the good that it does, the irreplaceable good that it does for the people in the United States.

“But it’s also more dangerous than ever because it’s one more step, as I mentioned, in the breakdown of the fundamental constitutional structure that says power must be divided, because if it’s concentrated in one set of hands — and I don’t care if it’s Donald Trump or the archangel Gabriel. It’s dangerous to have the power in one set of hands. That’s how we lose our liberty.

“Madison said when the executive and legislative are united in one body, there can be no liberty. Mr. President, we must listen. We must listen to history, to the people that brought us here, the people that brought us this government, the geniuses that formed this structure to protect the liberty of the American people. And it may seem like a small thing. This is one more bill, one more item. But it is one more step, in my view, toward empowering the executive at the expense, not of the Congress, but of the people. But of the people of the United States.

“Mr. President, I don’t know what it’s going to take, but I hope this debate, this discussion will lead us to finally say this is a line too far. We’re going to draw a line here, and we’ll establish a relationship with the president that is cooperative, collaborative, bipartisan, and sharing the power that the Constitution gives to each of us.

“There’s nothing less than the liberty of our people that’s at stake. I therefore urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and begin a discussion in the appropriations process as to these two elements and how they should be structured and funded. That’s the way it should be done, not by the dictate of a President, of one who is trying to collapse the authority in our Constitution into his own hands. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.”