[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 131 (Thursday, August 1, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5281-S5289]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BIPARTISAN BUDGET ACT OF 2019
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3877, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 3877) to amend the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, to establish a
congressional budget for fiscal years 2020 and 2021, to
temporarily suspend the debt limit, and for other purposes.
Cloture Motion
Mr. McCONNELL. 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 legislative 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 Calendar No.
165, H.R. 3877, a bill to amend the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, to establish a
congressional budget for fiscal years 2020 and 2021, to
temporarily suspend the debt limit, and for other purposes.
Lamar Alexander, Thom Tillis, Martha McSally, John
Cornyn, Pat Roberts, Mike Rounds, Susan M. Collins, Tom
Cotton, Roy Blunt, Roger F. Wicker, Bill Cassidy, John
Thune, Richard Burr, John Barrasso, Rob Portman, Lisa
Murkowski, Mitch McConnell.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call
be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Election Security
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, later today, the Senate will move to
consider the measure on the floor, probably pass it, and then leave
town. There will be efforts to describe what we have done as a reason
for satisfaction and pride. There have been accomplishments, but on one
critical issue--really a range of issues--involving our national
security, we have only abject failure to show for the months we have
been here.
I am proud to come to the floor of the Senate today to advocate for
that cause--election security--with colleagues like Senator Amy
Klobuchar of Minnesota and Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, who have
been tireless champions, articulate, and eloquent advocates for this
cause.
Election security is national security. The testimony from Robert
Mueller, whatever you think about his verdict on the President, clearly
called for action.
Robert Mueller is a modern-day Paul Revere, sounding the alarm about
the Russians and many other nations--as he put it--who are mounting a
renewed attack on this country.
In the next election, this attack will make 2016 look like child's
play, a dress rehearsal, because the tools and techniques they will
bring to bear in attacking our democracy are so much more
sophisticated. Already, in 2016, Robert Mueller called that attack
sweeping and systematic. It was the reason he first spoke about it in
his statement and in May closed that statement with a severe and dire
warning about the ongoing interference in our democracy.
Those many other nations already include Iran, which just last week
the Washington Post reported to be mounting its own disinformation
campaign using social media and misinformation--disinformation--to
distract, divide, and sow discord here and in other democracies around
the world.
There is nothing unknown to many of us about the Russians' intent and
the designs of these other nations. It is hiding in plain sight.
From all of the classified briefings that we have received over these
months, the Russians know what they are doing, we know what the
Russians are doing, and we know what we are failing to do. The ones in
the dark are the American people, and that is why Senator Klobuchar,
Senator Warner, and I are on the floor today--to make sure that when we
leave today, it is not the end of this topic. It is the beginning of a
drumbeat, a cry of outrage, and unhappiness around the Nation.
There are a number of measures that we have championed that involve
more funding for the States to do election security, paper ballots by
the States to provide backups, auditing standards, and cyber security
criteria. These measures are a matter of common sense. That word
``common sense'' is overused these days, especially in a city where it
is on display so infrequently, but common sense is the reason we are
here.
I want to talk specifically about the Duty to Report Act. It is based
on a very simple idea: If you see something, say something. The Duty to
Report Act would require all campaigns, all candidates, and family
members to immediately report to the FBI and the Federal Election
Commission any offers of foreign assistance. It would codify in the law
what is already a matter of moral duty, patriotic duty, and common
sense. It is already illegal to accept foreign assistance during a
campaign. It is already illegal to solicit foreign assistance during a
campaign. All this bill would do is require individuals and campaigns
and family members to report those illegal foreign assistance efforts
to the FBI.
When Robert Mueller came before Congress, he outlined the most
serious attack on our democracy by a foreign power in our history. It
includes 140 contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian agents--
Russian covert and overt efforts to influence the outcome of our
election by helping one candidate and hurting another. But the Russians
and those many other nations that will engage in similar attacks on our
democracy have no particular partisan preference. They are doing what
is in their interest to disrupt our democracy, and the victim in one
election may be the one preferred in the next. So we have a common
cause here.
Indeed, Robert Mueller testified:
Over the course of my career, I've seen a number of
challenges to our democracy. The Russian government's efforts
to interfere in our election is among the most serious.
This deserves the attention of every American. We have an obligation,
above all, as Members of this body, where there has been so much
history of bipartisan action, to come together in this cause.
Christopher Wray, the Director of the FBI, recently came before the
Senate Judiciary Committee, and he warned that the Russians are still
actively trying to interfere in our elections. Again and again, our
intelligence community has warned severely, repeatedly, powerfully
about this threat.
Yet when asked whether he would accept foreign help in 2020, the
President of the United States said: ``I'd take it.'' It is much like
his son Donald Junior said during this last campaign in response to an
offer of assistance from the Russians: ``I love it.''
When Robert Mueller was asked about this point during his testimony,
he said: ``I hope this is not the new normal. But I fear it is.''
That is the reason we need this measure. That is the reason we need
the measures that my colleagues, Senator Klobuchar of Minnesota and
Senator Warner of Virginia, have helped to lead, and that is why I have
been proud to join them in this effort.
To my Republican colleagues in the leadership, I say: Lead or get out
of the way. To the President of the United States: Lead or get out of
the way. Our national security is too important to make a partisan
issue. We ought to join together, as we did after 9/11, to prevent more
disaster and to join in this common cause.
This legislation is a matter of moral duty, patriotic duty, and
common sense. With the 2020 election literally on the horizon before
us, we must act now. Time is not on our side. It is only on our
adversary's side.
As much as we take pride in the National Defense Authorization Act,
the threat to our national security is not only from the planes and the
submarines and the aircraft carriers. It is also from the cyber attacks
and the social media campaigns to disrupt and destroy our democracy.
I am proud to be joined today by a great colleague who has been a
wonderful champion on this issue, Senator Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hyde-Smith). The Senator from Minnesota.
[[Page S5282]]
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I first thank my colleague from
Connecticut, Senator Blumenthal, for his incredible work and leadership
on this important bill, the Duty to Report Act, as well as for all of
the other work that he has done.
He gets it. He gets that we are about to adjourn this day without
passing election security legislation. We had bipartisan election
security legislation. We have had that for years. Yet it has been
stopped in every step of the way.
Russia invaded our democracy. Let's be clear about that. I don't like
it when we use the word ``meddle'' because that is what I do when I
call my daughter on a Saturday night to ask her what she is doing. This
foreign country didn't just meddle in our election. They invaded it.
They didn't use missiles or tanks. They used a new kind of modern
warfare, which is cyber warfare, and they did it to invade our
democracy.
Think about this. Our Founders literally set up a country and a
Constitution because they wanted to be independent of a foreign
country. In this case, it was England. Hundreds of thousands of
Americans have lost their lives on the battlefield fighting for our
democracy and democracies across the world. That is what World War I
and World War II were about. They were fighting for democracies across
the world and fighting for the simple right that people should be able
to determine their own destiny and vote.
Yet, in 2016, we know for a fact--we know it from President Trump's
own intelligence advisers. Dan Coats, who was once a Senator in this
very Chamber and who is someone we are going to miss, is leaving his
position. Dan Coats made it clear. He said they are getting bolder. So
this is something right in front of us right now, and we must respond
to it.
Yet we haven't passed a bill to address it. Yes, Senator Lankford and
I, along with Senators Leahy, Coons, Shelby, and others have worked to
get some money, over $200 million, into the States, which is important.
We got that done, but it doesn't really end there because, actually,
there were no strings attached to that in terms of what we want to have
done in this country, and I will get to that in a minute.
So let's first go back over the facts, because some people in this
Chamber seem to have trouble with facts. Let's go over those. Special
Counsel Mueller, under oath, just last week and in his report,
concluded that Russian interference in our democracy was sweeping and
systematic. Those were his words and not my words. We know that they
are actively working again to undermine our democracy. In his words,
when he was testifying under oath, ``they're doing it as we sit here.''
That is what he said under oath.
The day before Special Counsel Mueller testified in the House, the
FBI Director testified in front of the committee that I am on, the
Senate Judiciary Committee. I was there and asked him questions. I
asked him whether he thinks having things like paper ballots makes
sense in the event that the Russian hacking happens again. He said:
Yes, they would be a good thing. This is the FBI Director for the
United States of America who was appointed by Donald Trump. Again, he
was under oath.
We have multiple pieces of legislation that would require backup
paper ballots. There are different versions, but they all really do the
same thing. Some of them have different kinds of audits, but the one
thing they have in common is the paper ballots.
I am leading one of these bills with Senator Warner and a number of
my colleagues. One of them is a bill we have with Senator Wyden that is
important, and then there is the work that Senator Lankford and I have
done across the aisle, which is a bipartisan bill, which we continue to
work on today.
But what has happened? What do all of these bills have in common?
They have been blocked by the leadership on the Republican side and
opposed by the White House. That is right. They weren't vetoed because
they never got to the White House but because the White House made the
move of stopping them in their tracks before they could get to the
White House. I know because I am the ranking member of the Senate Rules
Committee, and our jurisdiction is elections. Our job was to get that
bill through the committee to the Senate floor. It was actually
scheduled for a markup, which means you get the bill all done, and you
send it to the Senate floor, where I predict it would have gotten at
least three-fourths of the Members working and voting for that
bipartisan bill.
What happened? The White House made calls. They made calls. The White
House counsel actually called Senators on the committee and said that
they didn't want it to advance. That is what we call ``smoking gun''
evidence. That happened. That happened. We know why this bill was
blocked. In addition to that, Republican leadership, including the
leader, made very clear that they did not want that bill to advance in
the Senate.
Our top intelligence officials and law enforcement officers are
sounding the alarm about the fact that our elections are a target. Look
at what they have done. They have blocked this, despite the best advice
from the intelligence officials in the United States of America.
And it doesn't stop there. It doesn't stop there. As to other bills
that they will not allow to advance, one of them involves social media.
You all know what it is like, when you have your Facebook page or your
Twitter feed or you are searching something on Google, something comes
up, and an ad pops up. Sometimes it is scarily related to something you
were searching for, but, yes, ads pop up.
Well, you know what other kinds of ads pop up? Political ads pop up.
Those ads are paid for by some kind of political entity. I see my
friend Senator Warner is here on this floor. He is an expert on this,
as the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.
As to the fact that actually some of these ads in 2016 were paid for
in rubles, this is illegal. A foreign country cannot pay for ads on the
internet, but they were doing that because there are no checks and
balances.
So what kind of ads are on there? Well, what would you do if you were
on a campaign or an issue group and you want to put a bunch of dirty
ads out there? Would you do it on TV? No, you wouldn't do it on TV. If
you are a foreign country, would you do that? No, because there are
rules in place for TV and newspaper and radio that they have to check
those ads out, and they have to keep them so people can see them, and
they have to show who has paid for them. There are no rules like that
on social media.
That is why I have formally introduced, with my friend Senator McCain
and now with Senator Graham and Senator Warner, the Honest Ads Act,
which simply puts those rules in place. Literally, if we pass that bill
right now, today, before we left for the recess, well, they can get
this done in the large platforms. Some of them are voluntarily doing
it, but it is a mishmash, and some of them aren't doing it at all. We
cannot go into this next election when last time over a billion was
spent on them and next time it is $3 billion to $4 billion without any
rules of the road.
I go back to the same argument I made. Hundreds of thousands of
people risked their lives and died on battlefields to protect that
right to vote and to not be influenced by foreign countries. Why aren't
we doing things to protect that democracy now in this modern age?
Four little girls in a church in Birmingham lost their lives at the
height of the civil rights movement. Why? Because people were trying to
take away people's rights and because they didn't want them in on this
democracy. That is the American history. And yes, these things we are
talking about sound newfangled--cyber attacks and ads on social media--
but it is actually the same version of what our Founders fought for in
the very beginning, and that is why we are making such a big deal out
of protecting our democracy.
Everyone remembers the 2000 election. We saw the hanging chads
displayed on TVs across the country. That experience taught us that our
election systems were outdated. What did Congress do back then? We
passed the Help America Vote Act, landmark legislation that provided
more than $3 billion to the States, helping them to update their
election structure. That was 17 years ago, before the iPhone existed,
and the Federal Government has not made a big investment to update our
voting technology since.
[[Page S5283]]
The Russians knew that when they attacked us in 2016. Well, we can't
do it this way. We are not going to be able to use battleships. What
way would work today? What is their big vulnerability? Let's go for the
soft spot where they haven't been putting the money in to protect
themselves.
They conducted sophisticated influence operations, hacked political
committees and campaigns, revealed the emails of the chairman of the
Democratic candidate, targeted election administrators and even private
technology firms responsible for manufacturing and administering
election systems. In Illinois, the names, addresses, birth dates, and
partial Social Security numbers of thousands of registered voters were
exposed.
Just recently, we learned that the election systems in two Florida
counties were hacked by the Russians. The Department of Homeland
Security is conducting forensic analysis on computers used in North
Carolina after it was revealed in the Mueller report that a voting
software company was hacked by Russia.
So we have a common set of facts about what has happened. What we
need to do now is to address these facts with purpose. There must be an
outcry about this from the American people. This must be done now, not
after 2020. It has to be done now. We have a long way to go to make
sure our election systems are resilient against attacks.
Here are some more facts to consider. Forty States rely on electronic
voting systems that are at least 10 years old. Eleven States have
either no or partial backup paper ballots. Sixteen States have no
statewide audit requirement.
These are alarming statistics. I am not stating anything secret; the
Russians know this today. That is why I have worked with my Democratic
colleagues in the House and Senate on legislation that would provide
critical election security funding in the coming years, and mostly it
would be tied to a requirement that they have backup paper ballots.
Otherwise, what are we going to do if we don't have those backup paper
ballots if there is a hack? It doesn't even matter if three counties in
a swing State were hacked if we can't figure out the results. If it
were just their State elections, that would be embarrassing or
pathetic, but it is going to be a national Presidential election, and
we cannot risk having counties or States hacked into because then we
would have chaos and not know the results.
Last week, my bill was offered by Senator Schumer on the floor. It
could have gone to the President's desk that day. Instead, Leader
McConnell objected. During his objection, he said that election
legislation must be drafted with ``great care'' and on a bipartisan
basis. We did that.
Senator Warner is here. He worked on it. We did that with Senator
Lankford, but we were blocked at the Rules Committee. We were blocked.
That is a documented fact. The markup had been scheduled. It was ready
to go. Senator Blunt had been willing to hold a markup on the bill, and
it was stopped.
I am going to tell that story every day until we advance this. I have
an opportunity to do that, and I am going to do it because people need
to know what is going on. This should not be about partisanship or
about what benefits which party.
What were the Founders thinking when they decided to declare
independence from a foreign country? They were thinking of our country
as one. A ramshackle group of those early Founders, farmers and small
business people, came together and said: We love this land, and we
don't want to have another country influencing us.
That is exactly what this is about. Election security is national
security. It is time we started acting like it. The Federal Government
spends more money on military bands every year than it does on election
security assistance to the States. I love military bands, but let's get
real.
In 2018, we fought to get $380 million in election funding. That was
a first step. That is 3 percent of the cost of one aircraft carrier.
Recently, 22 State attorneys general sent a letter asking us to take
action to protect the integrity of our election structure, including
the attorneys general from States such as Iowa and Mississippi. These
are not blue States. They did not see this as a partisan issue. This is
not about one election or one party; this is about our democracy and
our national security. We need to be a united front, I say to my
colleagues, a united front in fighting against those who interfere with
our democracy.
I am glad to see Senator Warner, someone who is on the frontlines
every day in his very important position on the Intelligence Committee.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, first of all, I want to thank my friend,
the Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar, for her leadership and
passion on this issue.
This shouldn't be that hard. I know we addressed some of the
legislation she has talked about, and also earlier Senator Blumenthal
came to the floor as well. I think the theme you are going to hear from
all three of us is that while we may have made some progress, the truth
is, we are simply not doing enough to secure our election
infrastructure.
There is a series of bills that I think are common sense and, if they
got to the floor, would get 75 votes and maybe even more.
Over the past few weeks, I have come to the floor a couple of times
to try to move by unanimous consent my legislation known as the FIRE
Act. I am not going to do that this morning, but I do want to highlight
this bill as one more example of commonsense, bipartisan election
security legislation that unfortunately is not getting its chance to be
debated on the floor of the Senate.
The FIRE Act would simply require Presidential campaigns to do the
right thing and report offers of foreign assistance--offers which are
already spelled out as illegal--to the FBI. Anyone who says it does
anything else, such as limiting contacts with the foreign press or
limiting contact with foreign diplomats--somebody said it might
eliminate communications with Dreamers--is just flat wrong.
If there are ways to improve the bipartisan legislation, I am wide
open to that. I don't know how anyone could be against the idea of
putting our country over narrow interests or putting our national
security concerns over political advantage. In fact, a new poll last
week found that 87 percent of Americans support this idea. The same
poll found that an extraordinarily large majority of Americans believe
that it is wrong for campaigns to accept foreign assistance and that
Congress should pass legislation to secure our elections.
Unfortunately, in the nearly 3 years since we uncovered Russia's
attack on our democracy, this body has not held a single vote on stand-
alone legislation to protect our election security. It is true that we
did approve some additional funding to secure the 2018 midterm
elections, and I commend the folks at DHS for the job they did. I am
proud of that. But we would be making an enormous mistake if we simply
patted ourselves on the back and said that because the Russians or
others didn't launch a full-frontal attack in 2018, we are safe on a
going-forward basis.
Please, don't take my word for it. Let's look at what Special
Prosecutor Bob Mueller said last week. He said that the Russians are
continuing to attack virtually every day. The bipartisan Intelligence
Committee election security report said that we have made progress, but
there is more that needs to be done. Christopher Wray, the Director of
the FBI, in recent testimony said this is an ongoing challenge. Dan
Coats, for whom I have enormous respect and feel it is unfortunate that
he left the position of Director of National Intelligence--and maybe he
left because he was willing to continue to speak truth to power--said
that our election security system is not secure enough. Even Gina
Haspel, the Director of the CIA, has continued to point out that Russia
and other foreign influences are trying to attack our democracy.
Candidly, it has been a little bit disappointing that some of my
colleagues are trying to turn this into a partisan issue. Securing our
democracy is not a Democratic or Republican issue. The absurdity of
that is like saying: Well, maybe we should think about protecting our
power grid as a partisan issue. We know and have seen evidence
[[Page S5284]]
of foreign efforts to try to interfere with our power grid. Well, the
country steps up and puts security measures in place. Shouldn't we
expect the same kind of attention and commonsense approach when we see
those same foreign adversaries attack our election infrastructure? I
think we do need to take that kind of step and move forward.
Senator Klobuchar already made mention of some of this legislation,
and I know my friend the Senator from Georgia is here, so I will try to
wrap up.
There was a broad bipartisan group of Senators in the last Congress
who introduced the Secure Elections Act--something I was proud to be
part of. That bipartisan bill would have provided the additional
resources for State and local election officials while still preserving
local control of elections. What that legislation would have done was
simply say that if local or State election officials want additional
help from the Federal Government, they have to meet some basic, de
minimis standards. We have to make sure that every polling station in
America has a paper ballot backup. We have to make sure that there is
appropriate auditing of how we do in our election systems.
I wish the bill would have done more and gone up the food chain to
the three private companies that control 90 percent of all of our voter
files. Maybe that could be action we could take in the future. If those
voter files were hacked into, they wouldn't have to change the vote
totals; they simply would have to move people from one voting precinct
to another to create chaos on election day.
Senator Klobuchar also mentioned legislation that she, Senator
Graham, and I worked on, a bipartisan bill to prevent disinformation--
particularly on the internet--called the Honest Ads Act. It would
require the same disclosure rules for political ads on Facebook that
are already in place for television, radio, and newsprint.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of another bipartisan bill called the
DETER Act, sponsored by Senator Rubio and Senator Van Hollen. They are
absolutely right in saying that we need to put in place automatic
consequences if Russia or other nations use their 2016 playbook once
again to try to interfere in our 2020 elections. Let's warn our
adversaries that there will be consequences if they once again try to
interfere in our election process.
These are just a few of the largely bipartisan ideas with regard to
protecting the United States against foreign attacks on our election
systems. I am sure there would be suggestions on how we can improve
this legislation. That is fine. That is what we are here to do. Let's
debate, vote, and add amendments.
What we should not do is simply pretend this threat is going away. We
should not simply assume that because we improved in 2018, we are safe
in 2020. We should recognize that local and State election officials
need the kind of assistance, paper ballot backup, and the same
responsibility that Federal campaign officials in Presidential
campaigns ought to have--an affirmative duty to report. Political ads
that pop up on Facebook ought to have the same kind of legal
requirements that ads on television have. I don't think this is too
much to ask. I think the overwhelming majority of Americans expect us
to do our job on this issue.
I hope when the Senate reconvenes in September that maybe people can
be refreshed by their voters back in their home States, because I am
sure that when you go to whatever State and visit with folks and talk
about election security, they will say to the Congress and Senate: Do
your job and pass commonsense legislation.
Let's make sure our election security is absolutely as safe as it can
be as we move into the 2020 elections.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. PERDUE. Madam President, in 1974, Congress passed a new Budget
Act. It was revolutionary and comprehensive. It was supposed to
streamline how Congress appropriates money to fund the business of the
Federal Government every year.
Unfortunately, now 45 years later, we know that bill was an
unmitigated disaster. Only four times in the last 45 years since that
Budget Act was passed has Congress funded the government through the
appropriations process before the end of the prior fiscal year--four
times.
Today is the end of July. We are about to leave Congress today,
hopefully--if our Senate today gets these bills passed. Then we will go
back to our States, and we will work in August. We heard a lot of
people talking yesterday about what they were planning to do in their
States. It is a busy month. I wish it were a vacation month, but it is
not--nor should it be--given the things we have to do today.
When we come back in September, there will be 10 working days left
before the end of this fiscal year, September 30--10 working days.
As I stand before this body today, this is not a partisan
observation. As I stand here today, we have not appropriated $1 for
next year's budget to run the Federal Government of the United States
of America. That is an indictment. It is an indictment of the process,
an indictment of the Members, and an indictment of the fact that we
have no consequences by not funding the government by September 30--not
one.
So today we are about to do something that could cause us to actually
use a continuing resolution for the 187th time, potentially, since the
1974 Budget Act passed. We now know how draconian these continuing
resolutions are. I will talk about that in a minute.
Hopefully, we will vote today on a bill that is a compromise bill
that actually sets the stage. It sets the upper limit. It doesn't do
the appropriating at the detail level. It sets the topline number for
the fiscal year 2020, which starts October 1, 2019. That number is
roughly $1.375 trillion. I have a debt clock in my office. I can watch
the national debt spin about $100,000 a second--going up every single
minute of every single day. This bill actually begins to address that.
President Trump had a couple of priorities here.
Before I talk about that, I want to put in perspective what this bill
actually does. We talked before about mandatory spending and
discretionary spending. Again, the problem is in our Federal
Government. This whole budget drama we have seen this year and every
year for the last 45 years only deals with the discretionary budget,
which is $1.375 trillion for 2021.
The dotted line here is where we are for the 2019 discretionary
budget. Discretionary budget is 30 percent. That is the blue line here.
The green line is the total spending of the Federal Government. Today
we spend $1.3 trillion in discretionary spending. We spend $3.3
trillion in mandatory spending. That is a total of $4.6 trillion.
What is in discretionary spending? Military spending and all other
discretionary spending is in there: health, education, agriculture,
labor, the Attorney General's office, State. All the discretionary
spending is in there. Some VA expenses are in there--$1.33 trillion.
In any business, any enterprise, or your personal budget, if you only
dealt with 30 percent of what you spend in your budgeting process,
wouldn't we all have a good time? It wouldn't matter how much we did on
discretionary spending because we could just go borrow more money. That
is what the Federal Government does.
Let me remind everybody today that we are also borrowing about 30
percent of what we spend every year--a little less than that, but we
are borrowing between 25 percent and 30 percent.
Mandatory is like your home mortgage, car payment, and insurance
payment. It is automatically deducted. So all these mandatory expenses
that today are 70 percent of what we spend, get spent with no debate in
Congress--none, zero. Why? Because it is mandatory. It gets spent like
your home mortgage gets automatically deducted. Once that is done, just
a few pennies are left to take care of discretionary.
The point I am trying to make is, all this drama we had this year--
and every year--is over a piece of the budget that is totally borrowed.
Over 90 percent of what we spend in our Federal Government's military
expenses today--our national defense--is borrowed money, by definition.
Right now, what we are talking about is a spending bill that actually
reduces spending for discretionary items. We are not even talking about
the mandatory side, the 70 percent. If you look at the 70 percent over
the
[[Page S5285]]
next decade or the next two decades, discretionary spending is
relatively flat. These are aggregate numbers--total numbers adjusted
for inflation.
The orange line is the mandatory expenses. They are projected to
skyrocket here, going from about 70 percent today to almost 85 percent
of every dollar the Federal Government spends in the next 20 years--
from 70 percent today to well over 80 percent--to almost 85 percent by
2035, 20 years from now. I argue that is the problem. Until we address
the mandatory side of our spending and save Social Security and save
Medicare, we will never be able to solve this debt crisis we see before
us in very real terms today.
Let's move to this bill we have today. I ran for the Senate because
of the debt crisis and because of the global security crisis. This debt
issue is real. I have been working on it for 4\1/2\ years. Yet this
bill today actually lowers spending as a percentage of our economy.
This bill proposes $54 billion increases in discretionary spending over
2 years--2 percent per year for the next 2 years. That actually lowers
spending as a percentage of our economy. As a matter of fact, since
2011--the last 10 years--what we have seen, if we do this budget, is
Federal spending on discretionary items goes from 8.7 percent of our
total economy down to 6 percent.
When I ran a business, I looked at my overhead. That is what this is.
Overhead is declining on discretionary items as a percentage of what we
spend totally and a percentage of our total economy.
President Trump had two goals. One is he wanted to continue to reduce
discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP. Check that box. This
bill does that. All the so-called debt hawks out there and all the
budget hawks who say: I am voting no to any new spending, need to
recognize that this bill actually lowers spending as a percentage of
the economy.
The second objective the President had--and the Senate is just now
coming to realize how draconian these 186 CRs have been over the last
45 years. The Obama administration reduced spending in the military by
25 percent. So readiness had been reduced to a point by January 1,
2017, when President Trump was inaugurated--readiness in the military
had been devastated. Two-thirds of our F-18 lead fighter jets could not
fly. Only three of our Army brigades could go to war that night. I saw
that. I am on the Armed Services Committee. You can see when you travel
the world how absolutely gutted our military had been. For the last 2
years, we have been rebuilding that, getting readiness back. In the
month of June, the FA-18s got back to 80 percent readiness.
The second thing this bill does is it continues, in the second and
third year, to rebuild the military after it had been gutted by the
prior administration. Focus of the military today is readiness and
recapitalization, which means rebuilding burned-out equipment and
absolutely rationalization.
We had the first DOD audit--thanks to President Trump--in the history
of the United States. Last November, President Trump, after telling the
DOD we would have that--by the way, there was a law that passed in 1981
that said we would have a DOD audit. President Trump is the first
President in U.S. history that provided that. We now have that and
understand opportunities to rationalize our spending.
When you look at this vote, you look at making decisions in life.
There are two choices--two votes--that lead to three potential outcomes
today. A ``yes'' vote continues to support the military and defend our
country at a level that meets the near-peer competitors' level of
volume. When adjusted for purchasing power parity, China, today, is
actually spending the same amount on their military as we are. They can
get there quicker because they don't have the regulatory overhang that
we have in the United States, but a vote yes means that we continue to
do that; we continue to lower discretionary spending as a percentage of
our economy; and we set the stage to, then again, begin to have the
hard conversation of how we save Social Security and save Medicare. The
major thing it does is it avoids the drama around not funding the
government. It gives us a chance, anyway, to fund our government before
October 1. Remember, September 30 ends this fiscal year.
A ``no'' vote has two potential outcomes. A ``no'' vote could lead to
a sequestration. People say that cuts 10 percent out of all spending.
That sounds good to me. The reality is that happened over the last
decade. We see now the draconian impact that had on certain parts of
our discretionary spending like military--veterans and so forth--so we
had to come back and rebuild. When you come back and have to rebuild
it, it costs dramatically much more. That is the point.
If we take a long-term view of this, we have to end up voting yes to
this. The second outcome of a ``no'' vote is actually more of the same.
Well, we will avoid sequestration, but we will pass a continuing
resolution and kick the can down the road again for the 187th time. It
sounds easy. Everybody gets to go home. We pass a CR. Yet the military
gets gutted again--devastated. It disrupts the supply chain and keeps
our vendors from hiring people.
Imagine if you are a midcareer military officer or noncommissioned
officer--imagine what that tells you about what we think of our
military and our men and women. I hear people on both sides beat their
chest: ``I love our military.'' ``We have to support our military.''
Then they vote no on a bill like this. We cannot let that happen.
Ironically, because of the two alternatives, a ``no'' vote is
actually a vote to increase spending dramatically--not just a little
bit but dramatically--over the next decade or so.
This bill is a compromise. People back home tell us to come here and
work with the other side and compromise and make decisions and get to a
result. We just did that. President Trump and Speaker Pelosi just did
that. That is what this is reflective of. I am here to tell you today
that it is our job to back that up.
In closing, it is imperative that we get this bill passed, allow our
appropriators to get busy and start appropriating, so by September 30--
the end of this fiscal year--we have a chance to get the government
funded. We know a ``no'' vote leads to more spending. It is our
responsibility to be fiscally responsible, and I think a ``yes'' vote
here does just that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, I am on the floor today to talk about a
crisis overseas.
Before I do, I just want to take one moment. The Senator from Georgia
talked about the increases in defense spending that we have done on a
bipartisan basis and suggested that it was the prior administration
that had gutted defense spending. That is not true. I think we should
clear the record about that.
In fact, in the first 3 years of the Obama administration, defense
spending was on the rise. It was the election of a Republican Congress
that led to what we call sequestration--the downward descent of
discretionary spending of both defense and nondefense dollars.
To the extent that my colleagues are worried about what happened to
defense spending in the last 10 years, there is only one explanation
for that; that is, the election of Republicans to the House of
Representatives in 2010 and their demand that in order to vote for an
increase in the debt ceiling, discretionary spending had to be slashed.
In the first several years of the Obama administration, defense
spending was on the rise.
Yemen
Madam President, I am on the floor to once again talk about a dire
humanitarian nightmare happening on the other side of the world in a
country called Yemen, the U.S. complicity in that horror, and the
national security disaster that comes with staying involved in this
war.
I could have brought a bunch of much more disturbing charts to the
floor to talk about the world's worst humanitarian disaster--a country
in and on the brink of famine and with a cholera epidemic that the
world has never ever seen before in recorded history. Instead, I chose
to bring you a picture of a child with his back turned to you in order
to spare you the worst of this nightmare.
Before we break, I am here to make an urgent plea to my colleagues
because, as bad as the situation is today,
[[Page S5286]]
it is about to get much worse over the course of the summer and this
fall. There are millions of Yemenis who are going to die if we don't
make some decisions and pressure our allies to make some decisions in
the coming days. The reason for this is simple.
At the beginning of this year, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which are
the primary military partners with the United States in Yemen, made a
pledge they have made in the past, which is that while they would be
dropping bombs and fighting battles on the ground in Yemen, they would
be putting up money to make sure that people would be fed and that
children would be immunized. They made that pledge at the beginning of
this year. We are now halfway through the year, and the UAE and the
Saudis have reneged on that pledge.
Saudi Arabia pledged $750 million to the United Nations. It still
owes, today, $630 million. The UAE pledged $750 million. It still owes,
today, $500 million. They have always been tough negotiators and have
been difficult to get the money from, but this year is different. This
year, 6 months in, the Saudis and the Emirates are essentially saying:
We are not giving the U.N. its money.
If you meet with them, they will tell you that they are spending that
money in other ways, that they are working with other partners inside
Yemen to do the same kind of work. Don't let them put that argument
over on you. There is no one in Yemen who can do the nutrition work,
the healthcare work, or the anti-cholera work that the U.N. can and
does. There are no other partners who have the capacity to keep people
alive like the U.N. You can't just create and stand up that capacity
outside of the United Nations.
If Saudi Arabia and the UAE were not planning on giving the U.N. the
money, then they shouldn't have promised it at the beginning of the
year. The U.N. went out and built infrastructure. It hired partners
based on those pledges. If the Emirates and the Saudis were not
planning on giving the money, then they shouldn't have promised it at
the beginning of this year.
Let me tell you what is happening right now inside Yemen.
Work has been suspended on 30 new feeding centers in the most famine-
stricken parts of Yemen.
Vaccinations have been suspended for 13 million people, which
increases the risk for things like measles and malaria.
The procurement of new medical supplies and equipment has been
suspended.
UNICEF has stopped its clean water and sanitation services for 8.4
million people, including 3 million kids, which means more cholera, and
cholera is already on the rise. There have been more cholera cases
reported in the first half of this year than had been reported in all
of 2018. There have been half a million new cases of cholera just in
the first 6 months of this year.
A U.N.-supported treatment plant that purifies water for agriculture
has started to shut down as well, meaning an additional 4 million
people could be eating vegetables that are irrigated with dirty water.
Starting very soon, the World Food Programme will not be able to buy
vouchers for 3 million people.
Sixty more feeding centers will close in the coming weeks.
The World Food Programme has stopped providing nutrient bars to 2.6
million malnourished women and children, which will tip them now into
the category of ``severely malnourished,'' just like this child is.
The U.N. is going to have to stop providing fuel for hospital
generators.
There are 35,000 cancer patients who will stop receiving treatment.
I could go on and on and on.
Why are we standing here? Why aren't we all pressing our friends--the
Saudis, our allies, the Emirates--to come up with this money? While we
all enjoy our August recess, there are going to be millions of children
in Yemen who will look like this who don't look like this today. There
will be hundreds of thousands who will either die or reach the brink of
death all because of a war that the United States has perpetuated and
because of funding commitments that can't keep all of these people
alive, that can't save all of these children's lives but that could
save tens of thousands of lives if our friends, our allies, would
simply do the right thing.
I am furious about this, my colleagues, because I don't know what the
Trump administration is getting for this bear hug it has put around
Saudi Arabia. After the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, we transferred to it
more nuclear technology and sold it more weapons. Maybe the hope was,
in exchange for that, Saudi Arabia would do something about the
humanitarian nightmare, but it is making it worse. Saudi Arabia is
getting everything from us, and it is not even feeding the people on
the ground in Yemen who are dying as we speak.
At a 2015 campaign rally in Alabama, the President said: I get along
great with the Saudis. They buy apartments from me. They spend, like,
$40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them
very much.
From 2016 to 2017, a lobbying firm connected to the Saudi Government
paid $270,000 to the Trump International Hotel in DC. In 2018, a 5-day
visit from Saudi officials to the Trump International Hotel in New York
City helped to boost the hotel's quarterly revenue by 13 percent.
Boy, I hope this isn't the reason the administration isn't pressing
the Saudis harder to come up with their funding commitment, but the
President has been pretty clear that the Saudis send him and his family
a lot of money. He has been open about that. I hope this is not the
reason for our not forcing our partners to step up. This is life-or-
death time right now. If the administration is not going to do it, then
we will have to do it. Members of Congress will have to do it.
I hope, before my colleagues go home and enjoy some rest and
relaxation over the month of August, they will get on the phone with
their friends in the Saudi Government, that they will get on the phone
with the Emirates Government, and that they will get on the phone with
the Trump administration and tell them that it is time to pony up the
money they have pledged.
The United States is the No. 1 donor, but we could do more. The
Saudis and the Emirates have come through on a quarter of the money
they have promised, and the consequences of that continuing are
absolutely nightmarish. So, before we go home for our break, let's do
something to make sure that a handful more of these kids are alive when
we come back.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
H.R. 3877
Mr. PAUL. Madam President, some say it is irresponsible not to raise
the debt ceiling. Well, true fiscal conservatives say it is
irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling without any reform of our
profligate spending ways. To allow the debt ceiling to go up an
infinite amount--as much as Congress can possibly spend and borrow over
a nearly 2-year period--is fiscally irresponsible and has never been
seen in our history. This may well be the most fiscally irresponsible
thing we have done in the history of the United States.
The Federal Government is currently spending nearly $2 million every
minute. Don't let anybody fool you--this is a spending problem. The
annual deficit this year will exceed $1.2 trillion. What is
irresponsible is recklessly indenturing our children and our
grandchildren. What is irresponsible is binding our kids to this
massive burden of debt. What is irresponsible is a Congress that
believes it is Santa Claus and that it can be everything to everyone
and that everything is free.
At least the Democrats are honest. The Democrats don't care about
deficits, and they will tell you that to your face. The Democrats, in
fact, are falling all over themselves to propose more than $50 trillion
in new spending in addition to the trillion-dollar annual deficits.
They want to add $50 trillion in spending.
Yet it is not just the Democrats. The Republicans are also guilty--at
least the Big Government Republicans who will vote for this monstrous
addition of debt. Many of the supporters of this debt deal ran around
their States for years and complained that President Obama was spending
too much and borrowing too much. These same Republicans now--the whole
disingenuous lot of them--will wiggle their way to the front of the
spending trough to vote for as much or more debt than President Obama
ever added.
[[Page S5287]]
Get this. All of those who said the debt was bad under President
Obama will today snuggle their way up, wiggle their way up to the
spending trough, and they will do exactly what they condemned under
President Obama. Shame. Shame on the politicians who have campaigned as
conservatives but who have governed as big spenders.
America, wake up. The two parties are often one. The two parties that
ostensibly fight are in reality one party of big spenders, separated
only by where they want to spend the money.
The media reports of a lack of compromise. The opposite is true.
There is too much compromise, and the compromise is always more debt,
more porkbarrel spending, and more burden for our kids.
Yet there is another path. There is another form of compromise.
Instead of compromising to raise spending for guns and butter, we could
compromise to hold the line on all spending. Just a mere 2-percent cut
in spending would balance the budget over a 5-year period--1 or 2
pennies out of a dollar. You get to spend 98 percent of what you spent
last year, and we balance the budget. Yet that is never enough because
these people are not honest with you. They are not willing to hold the
line. They want more, more, more. More spending, though, means more
debt, and that is what we are getting. So what I offer today is a
compromise.
The right would have to deal with less military spending. The right
says: Oh, we don't have enough. Perhaps the mission is too big for the
budget. It isn't a lack of money. We spend more money on the military
than the next 10 countries combined. We spend more money on the
military than all of Europe spends. It isn't a lack of money; it is
that the mission is too large. Why do we have troops in 50 of 55
African countries? Why are we involved in every civil war on the globe?
We need to question what our mission is. The left would have to accept
less welfare spending or at least hold the line and get 98 percent of
what it spent last year on welfare. The right would have to spend 98
percent of what it spent on the military last year. Guess what. We
would balance the budget.
My amendment is called cut, cap, and balance. When the balanced
budget is passed and sent to the States, when spending caps are in
place and when spending has been cut, then and only then would we raise
the debt ceiling. This is the only responsible way of dealing with
this. It is irresponsible to give a blank check to a government that
has shown itself to be so reckless and for it to so recklessly
disregard any kind of sense of sanity with regard to the budget.
Today's votes, though, will be a litmus test for fiscal conservatism.
Those Senators who vote for an unlimited increase in the debt ceiling
are not and have no right to call themselves conservatives.
America, wake up, watch the votes today, and discover who actually
gives a damn about the future of our country.
I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Amendment No. 932
Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 932.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment
numbered 932 to H.R. 3877.
Mr. PAUL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment
be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of
2019''.
SEC. 2. DEBT LIMIT INCREASE.
(a) In General.--Effective on the date described in
subsection (b), the limitation in effect under section
3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, shall be increased
by $500,000,000,000.
(b) Effective Date.--The date described in this subsection
is the earliest of the date on which the Archivist of the
United States transmits to the States S. J. Res. 3 (116th
Congress) in the form introduced on January 4, 2019, S. J.
Res. 5 (116th Congress) in the form introduced on January 24,
2019, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the
United States, or a similar amendment to the Constitution of
the United States if the amendment requires that total
outlays not exceed total receipts, contains a spending
limitation as a percentage of the gross domestic product, and
requires that tax increases be approved by a two-thirds vote
in both Houses of Congress for their ratification.
SEC. 3. LIMIT FOR ON-BUDGET SPENDING.
(a) Point of Order.--
(1) In general.--It shall not be in order in the Senate or
the House of Representatives to consider any bill, joint
resolution, motion, amendment, amendment between the Houses,
or conference report that would cause the total amount of on-
budget spending for any of fiscal years 2020 through 2029 to
exceed the amount specified in paragraph (2) with respect to
such fiscal year.
(2) Caps.--The amount specified in this paragraph is the
following:
(A) With respect to fiscal year 2020, $3,435,880,000,000.
(B) With respect to fiscal year 2021, $3,367,160,000,000.
(C) With respect to fiscal year 2022, $3,299,820,000,000.
(D) With respect to fiscal year 2023, $3,233,820,000,000.
(E) With respect to fiscal year 2024, $3,169,150,000,000.
(F) With respect to fiscal year 2025, $3,232,530,000,000.
(G) With respect to fiscal year 2026, $3,297,180,000,000.
(H) With respect to fiscal year 2027, $3,363,120,000,000.
(I) With respect to fiscal year 2028, $3,430,390,000,000.
(J) With respect to fiscal year 2029, $3,498,990,000,000.
(b) Waiver and Appeal.--
(1) Senate.--Subsection (a) may be waived or suspended in
the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn,
shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the
Chair on a point of order raised under subsection (a).
(2) House of representatives.--
(A) In general.--Subsection (a) may be waived or suspended
in the House of Representatives only by an affirmative vote
of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(B) Point of order protection.--In the House of
Representatives, it shall not be in order to consider a rule
or order that waives the application of subparagraph (A).
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). The Democratic leader
is recognized.
H.R. 3877
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, in a short time the Senate will vote on
final passage of a bipartisan agreement to lift the budget caps for 2
years and extend the debt ceiling. It is an agreement that will
strengthen our national security and provide our troops with the
resources they need to do a very difficult and often dangerous job.
Importantly, it will clear the way for critical investments in
America's middle class, as well as for those struggling to get to the
middle class, in healthcare, education, childcare, cancer research, our
veterans, and more.
For too long, the arbitrary, draconian limits of sequester have
hampered our ability to invest in working Americans and our military
readiness. This deal ends the threat of sequester permanently. That is
huge.
As large forces erode the financial security of the middle class--
globalization, automation, technological advancement--one of the only
forces large enough to push back on the side of the middle class and
help them is the Federal Government.
Investing in education, healthcare, infrastructure, and childcare is
how we give middle-class Americans greater security and give Americans
struggling to get into the middle class a ladder up--something this
government has done for decades and decades but hasn't been doing very
well since the sequester has been in effect.
The sequester has hamstrung our ability to make investments in the
middle class for 8 years--but no longer. Thank God.
Not only does this agreement end the sequester, it includes a
significant increase in support for domestic priorities. In fact, the
budget deal increases domestic budget authority $10 billion more than
defense. In the 3 years of Trump's Presidency and a Republican Senate,
Democrats have secured over $100 billion in increases for domestic
programs. That means additional resources for the States to combat the
opioid epidemic; support for VA hospitals caring for our veterans;
cancer
[[Page S5288]]
research and other critical medical research that have saved the lives
of literally millions; climate and clean energy technology; reducing
the burden of college debt; infrastructure and transportation
improvements.
So this $100 billion is not abstract. It means jobs; it means ladders
up; and it means hope for the American people, who are often pushed
around by forces much larger than themselves.
Finally, this legislation lays the groundwork to avoid another
government shutdown and will preserve the full faith and credit of the
United States.
As my colleagues know well, the House has already passed this
legislation and recessed for the State work period. The President
supports it. Reportedly he is calling Members to encourage them to vote
yes. The final piece to this puzzle is the Senate's stamp of approval.
I want to salute Senator Leahy, our ranking member, all of the
members of the Appropriations Committee, and all of those who came up
with this bipartisan agreement.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote yes. Let's
give our military, our middle class a boost before the Senate adjourns
today.
I yield the floor.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Vote on Amendment No. 932
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the Paul
Amendment No. 932.
Mr. PAUL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet),
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from New York
(Mrs. Gillibrand), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the
Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts
(Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote or change their vote?
The result was announced--yeas 23, nays 70, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 260 Leg.]
YEAS--23
Barrasso
Blackburn
Braun
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Moran
Paul
Risch
Romney
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (SC)
Toomey
Young
NAYS--70
Alexander
Baldwin
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Jones
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McConnell
McSally
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Roberts
Rosen
Rounds
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NOT VOTING--7
Bennet
Booker
Gillibrand
Harris
Isakson
Sanders
Warren
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 23, the nays are
70.
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
The amendment (No. 932) was rejected.
The majority leader.
Order of Business
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
remaining votes be 10 minutes in length.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The legislative 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 Calendar No.
165, H.R. 3877, a bill to amend the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, to establish a
congressional budget for fiscal years 2020 and 2021, to
temporarily suspend the debt limit, and for other purposes.
Lamar Alexander, Thom Tillis, Martha McSally, John
Cornyn, Pat Roberts, Mike Rounds, Susan M. Collins, Tom
Cotton, Roy Blunt, Roger F. Wicker, Bill Cassidy, John
Thune, Richard Burr, John Barrasso, Rob Portman, Lisa
Murkowski, Mitch McConnell.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on H.R.
3877, a bill to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985, to establish a congressional budget for fiscal years 2020
and 2021, to temporarily suspend the debt limit, and for other
purposes, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker),
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), the Senator from
California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and
the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 67, nays 27, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 261 Leg.]
YEAS--67
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cramer
Crapo
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Jones
Kaine
King
Leahy
Markey
McConnell
McSally
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Roberts
Rosen
Rounds
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Thune
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NAYS--27
Bennet
Blackburn
Braun
Carper
Cotton
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Fischer
Gardner
Hawley
Johnson
Kennedy
Klobuchar
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
Paul
Risch
Romney
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Tester
Tillis
Toomey
NOT VOTING--6
Booker
Gillibrand
Harris
Isakson
Sanders
Warren
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 67, the nays are 27.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I support the bipartisan budget deal that
will extend the debt ceiling and lift the current budgets caps for the
next 2 years.
This important deal will avoid harmful cuts to domestic priorities,
prevent a default on our Nation's debt, and finally allow appropriators
to get to work on this year's appropriations bills to fund the
government.
Despite proposing draconian cuts in his budget, I am glad that
President Trump has agreed to join Democrats in permanently ending the
threat of sequester.
[[Page S5289]]
For too long, sequestration has handcuffed Congress's ability to make
investments in middle-class priorities that advance the health,
financial security, and well-being of the American people.
I am pleased that this agreement goes even further than previous
budget deals by increasing nondefense spending by $10 billion more than
defense spending.
With this budget deal, Democrats have secured an increase of more
than $100 billion in funding for domestic priorities since President
Trump took office.
I am especially pleased that this budget deal will allow us to
continue making the big investments in medical research conducted at
the National Institutes of Health, as well as the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, that will improve and save lives.
Because of NIH funding, new treatments have been developed that
reduced cancer deaths more than 25 percent over past two decades.
Thirty years ago, HIV was a death sentence. Because of NIH funding,
that is no longer the case.
Because of NIH-funded research, deaths from heart disease and stroke
have fallen by nearly 80 percent since 1970.
Because of NIH funding, we are on the verge of curing--yes, curing--
sickle cell anemia.
Consider this: Between 2010 and 2016, the Food and Drug
Administration approved more than 200 new drugs and treatments for use
in the United States; every single one of them was developed with NIH
dollars.
Congress has recognized the importance of NIH, which is why we have,
on a bipartisan basis, provided the NIH with $9 billion in additional
funding over the past 4 years, a 30 percent increase in that time.
This agreement will allow us to continue those vital investments.
Most importantly, this agreement will help prevent another harmful
government shutdown from occurring this fall.
While not perfect, this budget deal will finally allow Congress to
get to work on this year's appropriations bills and invest in the
programs that the American people rely on.
I hope that my colleagues will join me in passing this agreement with
overwhelming bipartisan support.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all cloture time is
expired.
The clerk will read the title of the bill for the third time.
The bill was ordered to a third reading and was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
Mr. WICKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker),
the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 67, nays 28, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 262 Leg.]
YEAS--67
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cramer
Crapo
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Jones
Kaine
King
Leahy
Markey
McConnell
McSally
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Roberts
Rosen
Rounds
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Thune
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NAYS--28
Bennet
Blackburn
Braun
Carper
Cassidy
Cotton
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Fischer
Gardner
Hawley
Johnson
Kennedy
Klobuchar
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
Paul
Risch
Romney
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Tester
Tillis
Toomey
NOT VOTING--5
Booker
Harris
Isakson
Sanders
Warren
The bill (H.R. 3877) was passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
____________________