[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 79 (Tuesday, May 15, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2659-S2660]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          The Budget Agreement

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, notwithstanding what we sometimes hear 
about a deadlocked Washington, there are times when both parties work 
together. Three months ago, Republicans and Democrats came together, 
and we reached a bipartisan budget agreement. Republicans and Democrats 
together reached an agreement to lift the budget caps and provide 
relief from sequestration but, most importantly, to make responsible 
and new investments in the American people over the next 2 years. Then, 
President Trump, as he stated earlier that he would do if we reached 
that agreement, signed it into law.
  But now, even though he signed it into law and even though the 
agreement had been worked out with Republicans, Democrats, and the 
White House together, the President has proposed--and, unfortunately, 
House Republicans have drawn up a proposal--to claw back vital funding 
for children's healthcare, to claw back funding for rural communities, 
to take back funding for our infrastructure programs, and to take back 
funding for law enforcement.
  These programs from which the White House and, apparently, their 
allies in the House want to raid the money aren't Democratic 
priorities. They are bipartisan, American priorities. Ivanka Trump has 
said that American families need relief. The policies that allow women 
with children to thrive shouldn't be just for a press conference or a 
photo opportunity. They should be the norm.
  President Trump's proposal would claw back $7 billion from the 
Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP. If you can't keep a child 
healthy, what are they going to be like as an adult? CHIP currently 
provides health insurance for 8.7 million vulnerable children from low-
income families. Millions of families from red States and blue States, 
urban and rural, depend on CHIP to keep their children healthy and 
happy and to make them the healthy and happy future generation. I don't 
know how pulling $7 billion out of this program aligns with the 
policies to allow children to thrive and to say that should be the 
norm. You can't say at a press opportunity: This will be the norm--to 
allow children to thrive--but oh, by the way, we are going to take back 
the money to make that work. And if the money can no longer be 
dedicated to the CHIP program, well, then reinvest it in other 
important programs as we have done in the past--programs that support 
our Nation's children and families, including Head Start, the Child 
Care and Development Block Grant Program, opioid prevention, and 
cutting-edge research at NIH.
  The President's proposal also takes away $159 million from our law 
enforcement. I began my career in law enforcement. I can't understand 
taking $159 million from law enforcement. The President claims that he 
is going to ``support our police like our police have never been 
supported before.'' This week is National Police Week. Today, May 15, 
is designated as National Peace Officers Memorial Day. This is when we 
pause to thank and recognize our Nation's law enforcement officers for 
their important work and those officers who sacrificed their

[[Page S2660]]

lives. How does cutting $159 million in resources support our law 
enforcement?
  Then the President's proposal will claw back $462 million from 
infrastructure programs. The President has tweeted often that our 
infrastructure will, again, be the best in the world--the greatest in 
the world, he tweets. A tweet doesn't cost anything, but if you are 
going to match your actions and your words, it may cost something. It 
doesn't help if you are going to take almost half a billion dollars out 
of our infrastructure at the same time that you are saying and tweeting 
that we are going to make it the best in the world.
  He said he is going to cut $252 million that is meant to combat 
infectious diseases that threaten the United States and threaten 
millions of Americans who travel, work, serve, and study abroad. Just 
last week, there were confirmed cases of the Ebola virus in the 
Democratic Republic of the Congo. This is not a fight we should be 
retreating from.
  We shouldn't say we will stop money to fight infectious diseases but 
then we send our soldiers abroad. We send our Peace Corps abroad. We 
send our diplomats abroad, and Americans travel abroad. We have 
students who go abroad. Don't retreat from that fight.
  The United States will not be ready to face the flu pandemic until it 
improves its vaccines, its healthcare infrastructure, and its 
coordination with other countries--all of which we are told are top 
priorities for the White House, according to a National Security 
Council official who said on Monday:

       Influenza is a priority to the White House, and represents 
     both a health security and a national security threat. Today, 
     however, we cannot respond with the speed that we need to.

  This is probably because of the large number of deaths of Americans 
inside the United States during the last flu season. But what do they 
do? They cut back a quarter of a billion dollars meant to combat 
infectious diseases. The photo op where they say that we are against 
these kinds of infections in the United States looks good. Nobody is 
going to disagree with being against it. I hope my colleagues will 
disagree with cutting out the money we need to carry out the 
President's promise.
  Then, there is the proposal to claw back $1 billion meant to invest 
in our rural communities. Almost 2 months ago, in about March--it seems 
so long ago--Secretary Perdue testified before the Senate that 
``prosperity in rural America is particularly vital, not just for the 
rural communities we love, that many of us call home, but also for our 
entire Nation.'' I agree with Secretary Perdue. Many of us do call 
rural communities home. My own town has 1,800 people in it. I love it, 
so I agree with him, but whether it is a rural community in my State or 
any of the 50 States, we don't invest in their prosperity, as the 
administration has promised, if we strip $1 billion in resources from 
them.

  In fact, the President's promises this will not be his last proposal. 
He is going to send another package in the coming weeks that would 
attack the foundation of the bipartisan agreement--an agreement 
Republicans and Democrats reached in Congress and was signed into law 
by the President. He is going to go back on that, adding even more 
rescissions.
  I am sure he is looking at the deficit. The President's tax giveaway 
to billionaires and corporations increased our Nation's deficit by $1.9 
trillion. According to the CBO, the rescission bill the House will 
debate next week will save only $1 billion--a tiny, tiny fraction of 
what has been given away to billionaires and corporations.
  The President's actions should match his words. He says ``America 
First,'' but then just in the last few days, he has gone out of his way 
to fight to save jobs, but they are Chinese jobs. I would rather he 
fight to save jobs in our State. I wish that rather than spending his 
time fighting to save Chinese jobs, the President would work to save 
American jobs. We have people who could use jobs in our country. Let 
China worry about China's jobs. Don't have the President spending his 
time, first, cutting the money to create jobs in America and then 
spending time fighting to save Chinese jobs in China. You can't strip 
investments from the American people and say you are in favor of saving 
jobs in China and say that somehow this is making America strong.
  In the Senate, though, there is good news. We are focused on moving 
forward, on a bipartisan basis, on the fiscal year 2019 process. Just 
yesterday, Chairman Shelby and I announced a schedule. We will mark up 
all 12 of the appropriations bills by the end of June. Our staffs, 
Republican and Democratic alike, are going to be working nights and 
weekends to get us in this position. We, as Senators, are committed to 
spending whatever amount of time it takes--whether we have to go into 
the evening, whether we have to go throughout the week--to get all 12 
of them marked up by the end of June.
  I hope the House Republican leader will abandon this ill-considered 
rescission bill. This is not the start to the fiscal year 2019 process 
I would have hoped for.
  Chairman Shelby and I have different patterns and different 
philosophies, but we want the Senate to work. We are working very hard 
together. I have great respect for him in putting together our 12 
appropriations bills. We can do it. We will be a better body if we do 
it. Let's stop the tweeting and the sloganeering, and let's deal with 
substance.