[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 103 (Wednesday, June 20, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4257-S4261]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO DISCHARGE--H.R. 3
Mr. LEE. Madam President, pursuant to title X of the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, I have a discharge petition
at the desk and move to discharge from the Senate Committees on
Appropriations and Budget H.R. 3, to rescind certain budget authority
proposed to be rescinded in special messages transmitted to the
Congress by the President on May 8, 2018.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to section 1017(b) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, there will
now be up to 1 hour of debate on the motion to discharge, equally
divided between the two leaders or their designees.
Who yields time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Madam President, over the next 10 years, our national debt
is set to balloon from $21.16 trillion today to more than $33.9
trillion in 2028.
With interest rates set to increase, the payments on the debt will
also likely double over the next 10 years as a percentage of total
economic output. Consider for a moment the fact we are paying a little
more than $300 billion a year to service our debt. It is not that much
more than we were paying a couple of decades ago when our national debt
was roughly one-fifth, one-sixth of its current size. The only reason
our debt service payments are as low as they are today is that our
interest rates are at all-time historic lows. Our Treasury yield rates
are artificially, historically, aberrationally, severely low. The
situation gets a lot worse if our artificially, historically low
interest rates increase or start to return to their historical averages
at a pace quicker than has been projected, as is easily possible. For
example, if interest
[[Page S4258]]
rates were to return just to historical norms--I am not talking about a
rebound above the historical average, just a rebound to historical
norms--taxpayers would soon be drowning in trillion-dollar annual
interest payments just for the interest on our debt, which means just
the difference between what we are paying in our debt service payment
now and what we would be paying then, possibly a few short years from
now. It is more than we spend on the Department of Defense. This is
really frightening, and this is why it is such welcome news that there
is some movement on this front.
That is why it is such welcome news that on May 8 President Trump
sent to Congress a request to rescind $15.4 billion worth of extraneous
spending. This is something Congress used to do all the time. This is
something that in decades past would occur dozens, even scores of
times, during a single Presidential administration, and it was a
bipartisan matter, of course. Returning unused taxpayer money isn't
just good government; in a republic, it should be expected, and it
should be the norm. In 1981, President Reagan and a divided Congress
rescinded more than $15 billion in Federal spending and another $16
billion in 1985 and 1986. President Clinton made three rescission
requests in 2000, totaling $128 million.
Now we have the chance to take up the mantle again. President Trump's
specific proposals draw back unused funds from expired programs,
obsolete programs, and accounts that the Congressional Budget Office
says are wildly, needlessly overfunded. In fact, according to CBO, none
of the funds in the requested rescissions would alter current Federal
programs in any way. For instance, CBO has certified that the $7
billion CHIP rescission would not affect either outlays or the number
of Americans with health insurance. And I should note that Congress has
rescinded CHIP funding in every enacted Labor-HHS appropriations bill
since 2011, more than $50 billion in total during that time period.
The spending targeted for rescission is either expired or rendered
unattainable by current eligibility requirements. The $15 billion is
just sitting, unused, in agency accounts. So how does it help to cut
spending if this money is just sitting there? This is the real sticking
point, for Congress has this cute little habit of paying for new
spending by raiding these unused funds. It is a budgetary trick, a
gimmick, if you will. The money may not be used this year, but it can
be recycled into budget gimmicks in future years. Rescinding it now
takes the $15 billion out of circulation for those kinds of shenanigans
in the not-too-distant future, and, of course, that is the real reason
why it will not pass unanimously.
Now, to its credit, the House of Representatives has stepped up. On
June 7, the House of Representatives passed its own $14.8 billion
rescissions package. Now it is our chance. Now we have the opportunity
to do the same. This is the Senate's chance to show the American people
that we retain some modicum of attention and of seriousness when it
comes to the spending habits of the Federal Government and when it
comes to fiscal restraint in Washington, DC.
Cutting spending that isn't actually going to be spent may not be a
profile in courage, but it is at least a sign of a pulse, and in
Washington that is something. That is something important that we can
and we should show today. It is a step toward fiscal responsibility and
away from the cynicism and the waste that has turned this city into
what is known as ``the swamp.''
In Congress we face a lot of difficult decisions--gut-wrenching,
heart-wrenching decisions--but this is not one of them. President
Trump's request is as reasonable as can be imagined. Now, $15 billion
may be a drop in the bucket compared to $15 trillion or $21 trillion,
but that is a reason to support this legislation, not to oppose it.
Congress needs to retrain its atrophied muscles in preparation for the
far larger tasks that lie ahead.
If we do not find the will--if we can't somehow muster the willpower
necessary to reduce Federal spending ourselves now, long before the
laws of mathematics and economics force us to do so--we will regret it.
If we wait until those laws catch up with us, it will be a whole lot
more painful later than it will be if we start making more modest
adjustments now.
Every day that passes without action represents more of our national
debt being thrown onto our children's backs--another line item on the
fiscal indictment that we are writing, however unwittingly or
unknowingly, against ourselves.
We have to change course. This bill provides us with a good chance to
take one small step toward sanity.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the motion to discharge.
Discharge Petition--H.R. 3
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with title 10
of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974,
hereby direct that the Senate Committees on Appropriations
and Budget be discharged from further consideration of H.R.
3, a bill to rescind certain budget authority proposed to be
rescinded in special messages transmitted to the Congress by
the President on May 8, 2018, in accordance with title X of
the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act 1974.
Mike Lee, Patick J. Toomey, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, David
Perdue, Jeff Flake, Joni Ernst, Ron Johnson, John
Kennedy, Marco Rubio, Thom Tillis, Steve Daines, Mike
Rounds, John Cornyn, Ben Sasse, James Lankford, Tom
Cotton, John Barrasso, Mike Crapo, James Risch.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have been in the Senate long enough to
think that maybe the Senate can start to go back to being the Senate. A
Senate that votes on things and debates things and reflects the will of
the people--not what is dictated from the White House. Perhaps that was
wishful thinking on my part, because in just the latest example of the
``cut first and ask questions later'' policies of the Trump
administration, we are now going to vote on a bill that will claw back
billions of dollars from children's health insurance, affordable
housing investments, infrastructure, rural development, and innovative
energy programs. This is the same White House that just forced through
Congress a $1.9 trillion--not billion, but trillion--tax giveaway, most
of which goes to billionaires and corporations. Then, they say we have
to cut children's health insurance because we have to reduce the
deficit. We can give billionaires and corporations $1.9 trillion, but
this might increase the deficit. So we have to cut children's health
insurance, affordable housing investments, infrastructure, rural
development, and innovative energy programs. That goes beyond
laughable. It is unconscionable.
President Trump is seeking to cut $7 billion from funding for
children's health insurance. If you strip this funding from the
Children's Health Insurance Program, we leave children unprotected from
unforeseen events like a flu outbreak or a natural disaster.
This takes away the ability of Congress should be able to make
critical investments in healthcare and education. Even if the money can
no longer be dedicated to CHIP, we should reinvest it in other
important programs as we have done in the past--programs that support
our Nation's children and families. I don't think there is any Member
of this body who, when they are campaigning, doesn't talk about how
important children and their families are to them. I hope those same
families will ask them: How much money did you take out from children
and families?
Earlier this year, the Congress did what they were supposed to.
Republicans and Democrats came together to direct this funding to the
Federal response to the opioid epidemic, the childcare and development
block grants, Head Start, and the National Institutes of Health. These
are investments in our country. They are not tax giveaways. They are
investments in our country. If you strip this funding, it is penny wise
and pound foolish.
President Trump wants to claw back billions of dollars from
infrastructure programs. I see so many of these photo ops he does,
speaking about how we want to have better infrastructure. However, we
don't want to pay for it so we will take the money back.
Let's look at what the money is that he wants to take away. It is
programs to do everything from supporting loans to helping factories
produce more efficient vehicles to building bridges in small
communities. These are programs that directly support American jobs.
They are not jobs overseas. They
[[Page S4259]]
are jobs right here, and now they want to take the money out.
For an administration that is perpetually in ``infrastructure week,''
it doesn't make sense if you are trying to cut funding for
infrastructure. How do we put ``America first'' when you strip funds
that support Americans jobs?
In a continued push to leave rural America behind, Mr. Trump's
rescission package would cut millions of dollars from rural development
programs. Every single Senator in this body has rural areas in their
State, and they know that these programs help to ensure that the same
basic services are offered in rural areas that we see in urban areas--
things that we rely on, like schools or healthcare, for instance, or
police stations. Are we saying that only urban areas can have that but
rural areas can't?
In the Appropriations Committee, Senator Shelby and I have been
focused on moving forward through the fiscal year 2019 process. We are
trying to return the committee to regular order--something that most
Republicans and Democrats in this body say they want. We have
successfully kept poison pill riders and controversial authorizing
language out of the appropriations bills, whichever side of the aisle
they came from, and we passed, by an overwhelming margin, seven
bipartisan bills out of our committee.
It has been years since we have seen that happen. Here we have seven
bipartisan appropriations bills come out of committee, and almost all
Republicans and all Democrats voted for them. Even with the Interior
appropriations bill--that is a bill that has been historically bogged
down with poison pill riders and usually forced into a massive omnibus
appropriations bill because we could not reach an agreement. In the
past we had to put it in an omnibus bill because we couldn't agree on
it--guess what happened. We passed it out of committee unanimously. I
don't recall that happening in nearly a decade.
Now, if we go forward with this rescission package, it is going to
derail the process.
The rescission bill undermines the bipartisan budget deal that
Republicans and Democrats struck just four months ago.
If we go forward with this package, another will fall, and another,
and another, even further undermining the agreement.
I will remind everybody that if they haven't gotten around to reading
the Constitution, it does grant Congress the power of the purse, not
the executive branch. Congress decides spending priorities, not the
President. We ought to actually do our job. We should exercise our
right. We should reject this rescissions package. We should uphold the
bicameral, bipartisan budget agreement.
So I urge all Senators to reject this rescissions package and to
oppose the motion to discharge.
Madam President, I don't see any other Senator seeking the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the
time be equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Tax Reform
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise in celebration of the 6-month
anniversary of passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. I know there were
a lot of remarks about the benefits of tax cuts right out of the gate,
but many of the benefits from the reform of the old, broken, and
outdated Tax Code will accumulate over the long run.
I rise to talk about some of the benefits from the new Tax Code that
can be witnessed by hard-working families right now. For example, the
typical family of four making the median family income of around
$75,000 a year is right in the middle of the first year of our cuts.
Those typical families are going to see their taxes cut by more than
half.
We also doubled the child tax credit and expanded its refundability
to benefit more working families. The Tax Code also makes filing taxes
easier and more straightforward for the typical middle-class family.
That is because the standard deduction was nearly doubled.
Taken all together, provisions like these are the reason the
nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation found that the overall
distribution of the new tax bill is directed toward the middle class.
This is happening everywhere.
Take my home State of Utah, for example. According to some recent
numbers from the Tax Foundation, citizens of Utah can expect, on
average, a tax cut of nearly $1,500, or 2.4 percent of their income.
Take advantage of those hundreds of dollars and start paying off your
car a little sooner. Maybe go out to see a baseball game or take your
family on a road trip to see some of the beautiful national parks
around our country and especially throughout the State of Utah. All of
those things are now that much more possible because of our tax reform.
Those direct tax cuts are just a part of the larger picture ushered
in by tax reform. More broadly, tax reform has provided a shot in the
arm to a long-ailing economy. After cutting the corporate tax rate from
35 percent to 21 percent, businesses have been able to reinvest, build
new facilities, hire new workers, and start innovating now more than
ever.
Recent polls by the National Association of Manufacturers, the
Business Roundtable, Gallup, and the National Federation of Businesses
show that optimism, and plans to expand hiring and growth for
businesses of all sorts and sizes are at alltime highs. This optimism,
along with lower costs of increasing investments and doing business,
has already started to result in real changes for the middle class.
Take, for example, the list of more than 100 different utility
companies that have cut their rates across the country. According to
one compilation, the American people are on track to pocket more than
$2.8 billion just this year off those savings.
Some might also argue that this is a normal period of expansion and
growth in the economy. As one journalist recently noted, tax reform has
poured ``jet fuel'' on a growing economy.
According to the most recent reports in June, the total number of
workers receiving unemployment benefits is running at the lowest levels
in 44 years, and that is just in terms of numbers of people drawing
unemployment benefits, not even taking into account the massive
population growth since December 1973.
For the first time since record-keeping began in 2000, the number of
available positions exceeded the number of job seekers, according to
the information from the Department of Labor. This is just the initial
boost. I tend to think positive economic outcomes are most often
created by hard work and good policy, like our tax reform package.
That is why activity in the labor market has been especially robust,
with more than 1 million jobs already created in this year alone. That
is why wage growth has been trending upward, and that is why business
investment has been robust. More Americans now have access to more of
their own hard-earned money. As Republicans predicted, we are already
seeing the middle class and the economy generally benefit.
Mark my words, there is a lot more growth we should anticipate coming
down the pike as more and more people start to realize how much tax
reform actually does, and will, affect their families, their
businesses, their communities, and our country as a whole.
As business investment and productivity pick up due to higher
expected aftertax returns from investment, wage growth, too, will
continue to pick up. All told, these changes are creating a paradigm
shift. More than ever before, Americans can expect things to be better
tomorrow than they are today.
Personally, I am more excited than ever for my great-grandchildren,
my grandchildren, and my children. I am grateful to everyone who has
made this possible. After all, major tax reform like this is truly a
once-in-a-generation opportunity for all of us.
Just 6 months in, we have seen so many positive results from the tax
reform that the list is too long to cover in just one speech. Make no
mistake, the list of positives from tax reform for
[[Page S4260]]
American families and businesses will continue to grow larger and
longer.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Tariffs
Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I rise to talk about the abuse of
authority that is taking place with the administration's use of section
232 of the Trade Act to implement taxes on the American people. Let me
say this one more time. The President, and the administration, abusing
section 232 of the Trade Act, have decided on their own accord to tax
the American people. They have put in place a 25-percent tariff on
steel and aluminum and are getting ready to do so on some other
products. Yet, this is Congress's responsibility--Congress's
responsibility--to generate tariffs or deal with taxes.
The administration, by citing section 232--a national security
issue--is taxing goods coming into America from Canada, from Europe,
and our allies on a national security basis.
Today I wrote a letter to Secretary Ross, our Secretary of Commerce,
because it is my understanding--actually, today, in a hearing with the
Finance Committee, he said there were 22,506 requests from companies in
the United States asking for exclusions--exclusions--from being taxed
for goods that come in to support their companies.
I will say to my friends here, on what basis do we think these
exclusions might be granted? We have already had an abuse of authority
in using 232. I guess my question to Secretary Ross is, on what basis
is he going to be granting these exclusions? Are they going to be
friends of the administration who get exclusions? Are they going to
deny exclusions to opponents of the administration or are they going to
use the national security reason, if you will, to grant exclusions?
I want to say, again, I think this is our responsibility. I realize
that when additional tariffs go in place in July--when these other
countries retaliate, which is their plan on July 1--my guess is this
issue may become more ripe for action, not unlike what is happening at
the border right now where people are seeing what is occurring and
action is being promoted to solve the problem. I think, once the
tariffs by these other companies kick in against us on July 1--because
we, in a most unusual way, the administration citing national security
against Canada, Mexico, many of our NATO allies and the European
Union--I think this issue is going to become ripe. I think it is going
to become ripe for Senate action and House action.
Again, I will ask people in this room, knowing they cited 232, which
again is an abuse of that authority, are we comfortable with the
criteria that the administration is going to be using on the 22,000--
actually, let me see here. Maybe that is a low number. It is 26,977
issues that have been dealt with, but 22,506 exclusions have been asked
for. In other words, we have companies that are coming to the
administration which is abusing its authority. We have companies that
are going to the administration, asking that they not be impacted by
the taxes that are being placed on their companies, unilaterally by
this administration, with no congressional input.
I say to my colleagues, do we not want to know on what basis they
unilaterally are going to decide not to tax certain companies? In other
words, most companies are being taxed 25 percent. They just decided to
do that themselves. Yet they are going to grant exclusions.
I think this issue is going to wreak havoc on our country. It already
is wreaking havoc on our relationships with friends that have been with
us for many years in defense that have to come our aid, and we have
come to their aid. We have had alliances.
Again, I challenge the Senate to take action on this. There is an
amendment that is broadly supported by people on both sides of the
aisle, with a wide range of ideology, that would say, if we are going
to invoke 232, a national security section, we would vote on that. My
sense is, as this moves along, people are going to want to vote on
that, and I look forward to that day occurring.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Forced Family Separation
Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise to address the issue that I know
folks in both parties of both Houses, and, of course, across the
country, are concerned about; that is, the issue of child separation at
the border.
This is, unfortunately, an issue that because there is so much
outrage, there is, in fact, substantial unity against the policy that
is in place right now. I am, like a lot of Americans, vehemently
opposed to the policy of what, in essence, amounts to ripping children
away from their parents. I, like a lot of Americans, have demanded that
the President and his administration end this cruel policy immediately.
We are hearing some reports that there may be an action taken. I
don't know what that action will be, but I hope it is an action that
will end the policy. Until we know that, we have to continue to urge
the President to do the right thing.
Earlier this week, the Department of Homeland Security released data
showing that between May 5 and June 9--just a little more than a
month--2,342 children were taken from their parents at the border. That
is about 70 children per day taken from their parents.
I have received thousands of emails, letters, and phone calls from
concerned Pennsylvanians who are demanding an immediate end to the
policy. I never imagined that I would have to stand here today, nor
should anyone, to talk about a scenario where the U.S. Government is
separating children from their parents at the border. That seems
incomprehensible that would ever happen, but it has.
I am reading part of a statement that reads as follows:
Our government is forcibly separating children--including
toddlers--from their parents and sending them to detention
facilities as a means of sending a message and influencing
Congress.
That was a statement not made by a Democratic Senator or a Democratic
House Member or a Republican or any politician; that was part of a
larger statement made by Thomas Donahue, the president and CEO of the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce--not someone who is very often lined up on the
same side as Democratic Senators. I think that is an understatement.
To say this policy is cruel, inhumane, and an insult to the values of
our Nation is to utter an understatement. This is a policy that is
straight from the pit of hell, and there is probably worse that we
could say about it. It is hard to comprehend that any administration at
any time would propose, let alone implement, a policy that would result
in children being separated from their parents.
Unlike what the administration has tried to argue, this is not about
following the law or securing the border. Neither of those statements
is relevant here. This is a conscious decision by this administration,
which is contrary to the decisions by the last two administrations--one
a Republican administration, the other a Democratic administration--
that decided not to separate children from their parents.
Unfortunately, this administration decided to do just that.
Many people have heard the statements attributed to the American
Academy of Pediatrics. There were several different folks who were
quoted on this, depending on which medical organizations they belonged
to.
One of the most compelling statements was by Dr. Colleen Kraft, the
president of the American Academy of Pediatrics. She is obviously an
expert about children and is from an expert organization. Dr. Kraft
visited a children's immigration detention facility in Texas earlier
this month. She called what she saw there, in the systemic separation
of children from their parents, ``a form of child abuse.'' According to
Dr. Kraft, once young children are separated from their caregivers or
parents, they are likely to develop toxic stress in their brains. The
toxic stress disrupts children's brain development and increases levels
of flight-or-fight hormones in their bodies. This kind of emotional
trauma could eventually lead to children having health problems, such
as heart disease and substance abuse disorders.
[[Page S4261]]
There is well-documented scientific evidence of the long-lasting harm
that policies like this have on children. In the Washington Post
yesterday, in an article entitled ``What Separation from Parents Does
to Children,'' a professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Dr.
Charles Nelson, said:
The effect is catastrophic. There's so much research on
this that if people paid attention at all to the science,
they would never do this.
It goes on and on and on. I could quote more detail for a long time
about what he has said and about what other experts have said, but we
don't have time today. Suffice it to say the research that shows the
damage that is done to children when they are forcibly separated from
their parents explains why more than 9,000 mental health professionals
and 172 organizations signed a petition to urge the President to end
the policy of separating families. In this petition, the mental health
professionals wrote:
From decades of research and direct clinical experience, we
know that the impact of disrupted attachment manifests not
only in overwhelming fear and panic at the time of
separation, but that there is a strong likelihood that these
children's behavioral, psychological, interpersonal, and
cognitive trajectories will also be affected. The National
Child Traumatic Stress Network notes that children may
develop post traumatic responses following separation from
their parents and specifically lists immigration and parental
deportation as situations of potentially traumatic
separation. To pretend that separated children do not grow up
with the shrapnel of this traumatic experience embedded in
their minds is to disregard everything we know about child
development, the brain, and trauma.
That is from the petition that was signed by mental health
professionals across the country--9,000 of them. Those professionals
and the professionals at the American Academy of Pediatrics, the
American College of Physicians, and the American Psychiatric
Association have also issued statements against the policy. Together,
these organizations represent more than 250,000 doctors across the
country. To support this policy, you would have to assert that a
quarter of a million doctors in the United States of America are
somehow wrong and that you know better.
If we were to ask the administration, ``Before you put this policy in
place, did you talk to the American Academy of Pediatrics? Did you talk
to child psychologists? Did you talk to the American College of
Physicians or other professionals who know something about children and
trauma and long-term damage to their brains and to their development?''
I am afraid the answer to that question would be no. Yet I await the
answer from the administration. I hope the answer will be yes.
I have more here, but I know we have to go, so I will not use all of
it. Over the next couple of hours and days, we have to keep insisting
that the administration take action to end this policy today, which it
could--which the President could, which the Attorney General could. I
realize that sometimes here in Washington, people say: Do something
right now. Take action today. Take action this week or this month. Yet,
in this case, today matters; hours matter; days matter in the lives of
those children--more than 2,300 or more, and the projections are just
going through the roof about what will happen over the next couple of
weeks and month.
Ending the policy today and reuniting child and parent matters a lot
because every day that goes by makes it worse for that child.
Unfortunately, for some children, it might be too late. That traumatic
event and the aftereffects--the hours and the days and even weeks now
that they have been separated--might result in permanent damage. I hope
I am wrong about this, but days matter here, and even hours matter.
We are hoping that the administration will reverse course on a
policy--I will say again and keep saying--that is straight from the pit
of hell. It should end today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Madam President, our national debt stands at about $21
trillion. The interest costs on this alone are more than $300 billion
every single year. That is money that can't go toward shoring up our
national defense or shoring up Social Security or Medicare or some
other Federal program. That is money that goes to our creditors. Now,
it has to, but the scary part is that that is just a drop in the bucket
compared to what it could be just a few years from now. The only reason
it is even this low is that our Treasury yield rates--the rates at
which we pay interest on our national debt--are at an alltime, historic
low. As soon as they return to their historic averages, we will see
that interest payment increase manyfold. If we wait until that moment
arrives, this will be a very difficult process not just for the Federal
Government, not just for Congress, but for the entire country.
It is time for us to start taking gradual steps in the right
direction now. This opportunity--this rescissions package that has been
proposed by the President--provides us with a meaningful step in that
direction. I applaud President Trump for proposing these rescissions.
It is time for Congress to get back in the practice of taking these
things up, of considering them, and of passing them.
I respectfully urge all of my colleagues to vote for this measure.
Mr. President, I yield back all time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to discharge.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs.
Shaheen) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 134 Leg.]
YEAS--48
Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Capito
Cassidy
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young
NAYS--50
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Donnelly
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Jones
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
McCain
Shaheen
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________