[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 56 (Monday, April 1, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2105-S2114]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019--Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 268, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 268) making supplemental appropriations for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other
purposes.
Pending:
Shelby amendment No. 201, in the nature of a substitute.
McConnell amendment No. 213 (to amendment No. 201), to
change the enactment date.
McConnell amendment No. 214 (to amendment No. 213), of a
perfecting nature.
McConnell amendment No. 215 (to the language proposed to be
stricken by amendment No. 201), to change the enactment date.
McConnell amendment No. 216 (to amendment No. 215), of a
perfecting nature.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for 3 minutes for three different short remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
H.R. 268
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on the
disaster spending bill. That bill contains funds for the 2018
hurricanes and wildfires and renews the extra funds for nutrition
assistance in Puerto Rico, which is about to expire.
The Senate amendment also expands eligibility to include ongoing
Midwest floods like we presently have in Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and
Nebraska, but other States will have it as well.
At a time when some families in Iowa have everything that they own
underwater and the people of Puerto Rico are facing a funding cliff,
now is not the time to play politics with the disaster relief bill.
To my colleagues across the aisle who have been spending a lot of
time in Iowa lately as Presidential candidates, if you vote against
moving forward with the Shelby amendment, how are you going to look
Iowans in the eye and justify a vote against moving this disaster
relief bill ahead?
Tariffs
Mr. President, now I will talk about trade. I am calling on the
administration, specifically on President Trump, to promptly remove
section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from Canada and
Mexico. This will help to clear the path for the USMCA agreement and
have it ratified not just in the Congress of the United States but in
all three countries.
These tariffs and the retaliations are having a negative impact on
Americans. The agreement for Mexico, Canada, and the United States is
supposed to be a free trade agreement, but we don't have free trade
with these tariffs in place.
As Finance Committee chairman, I look forward to helping the
President with this important task. I had a chance to be at the White
House with several other Senators on that very same issue. I said to
the President something like this: You said you put the tariffs on
because Mexico and Canada weren't going to negotiate. They have
negotiated. Mr. President, you say that you have a good agreement, and
I agree that you do have a good agreement. They negotiated in good
faith. Then, wouldn't you think that the right thing to do would be to
remove the tariffs so we can move ahead?
Now, one of the important things about this is the situation in
Canada more than in the United States. Their House of Commons will
adjourn in June for their elections in October. This must be done in
the next 2 months. Well, I guess now you would say in the next 3
months, if this is going to be done this year, and I would think the
President would want to get it done this year.
Holds Disclosure Requirements
Mr. President, this is my last 1-minute comment. All Senators now
have a copy of my letter sent with Senator Wyden's signature explaining
the holds on nominations and bills and the disclosure of those holds
and the requirements that come with such holds.
[[Page S2106]]
After many years of working on the issue, the two of us, meaning
Senator Grassley and Senator Wyden, worked in good faith with the
leadership of both parties to craft a measure everyone could accept,
and it passed the Senate overwhelmingly in 2011.
The last I checked--and this is sad to say--Senator Wyden and I are
the only ones that have holds listed in the calendar. Surely, we aren't
the only ones who are holding up nominations or legislation.
I urge all Senators to comply with the holds disclosure requirements.
I also want to remind our leaders, meaning my colleague from Kentucky
and my colleague from New York, that anyone with a hold, meaning any of
the 100 Senators with a hold, must give permission to object in their
name.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Recognition of the Majority Leader
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
H.R. 268
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for almost a week, the Senate has been
considering an urgent priority: aid funding for communities across the
country that have been literally ravaged by natural disasters, like
last year's powerful hurricane season, which carried torrential
downpours and gale-force winds across the coasts of Florida and the
Carolinas and left families sorting through literally billions of
dollars of damage; the fierce wildfires that consumed millions of acres
in California and across the West, damaging or destroying tens of
thousands of homes and businesses in their path; the tornadoes that
tore through communities in East Alabama and West Georgia; and the
heavy rains and flooding that impacted part of Kentucky.
As Puerto Rico continues to get back on its feet following Hurricane
Maria, an especially urgent concern today is funding for the nutrition
assistance program. Hundreds of thousands of residents have already
felt the impacts of dwindling food aid on the island. Preventing
further serious reductions will take prompt Federal action. Even as we
speak, communities across the Midwest are still underwater, trying to
combat the severe floods that washed away homes and livelihoods.
From coast to coast and beyond, we have Americans rebuilding their
communities, their local infrastructure, their livelihoods, and in some
cases their own homes. Here in Congress, it is time to finish the good
work our colleagues from Georgia have started and pass legislation to
provide a helping hand.
I was encouraged last week when 90 Senators took the first step and
allowed the full Senate to turn to disaster funding on the floor. Yet
it has been unsettling to hear behind the scenes that our Democratic
colleagues may now be toying with the idea of opposing Chairman
Shelby's comprehensive substitute amendment.
This is no time for our colleagues across the aisle to prioritize a
political fight with the President ahead of the urgent needs of
communities across our country. Chairman Shelby has carefully assembled
a comprehensive proposal that our Democratic friends ought to jump at
the chance to support. It ensures that no affected region would be left
behind. That includes $600 million to immediately shore up disaster
nutrition assistance for the vulnerable people in Puerto Rico.
Unlike the underlying House bill, which does not address this year's
disasters, it would provide for a significant downpayment on relief and
rebuilding in the flood-damaged Midwest. The House bill has nothing for
the Midwest flooding, so it is a nonstarter for that reason and also
because the White House has indicated the President would not support
that legislation because of policy decisions made by House Democrats.
Chairman Shelby's amendment is the only game in town. It is our only
sure path to making a law with anywhere near the urgency these
Americans deserve; it is the only bill on the table with any provision
for the Midwest flooding; and it is the only bill on the table that
could earn a Presidential signature in time to deliver urgent relief on
the nutrition assistance needed in Puerto Rico.
In my view, this does not need to be a difficult partisan decision.
Indeed, I can hardly put it better than my Democratic colleagues
explained it themselves just a few weeks ago. As recently as the end of
February, 11 of our Democratic colleagues wrote to all 4 congressional
leaders to insist that this subject could not wait. They said:
``Providing desperately needed relief to impacted communities should be
a bipartisan, bicameral priority and continued inaction is
unacceptable.''
They said Congress had to fund disaster recovery and rebuilding
``immediately.''
Well, this afternoon, our colleagues will have the opportunity to
make good on their words and vote to advance Chairman Shelby's
legislation. It is our way to help all the affected communities,
including the Midwest, which the House bill would simply leave behind.
It is our path to securing hundreds of millions in nutrition aid for
Puerto Rico and doing so promptly. It is our shot at exactly the kind
of bipartisan action that a number of our Democratic colleagues have
actually been clamoring for, so let's vote to advance it later today.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk preceded to call the roll.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Romney). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
S. Res. 50
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, my Democratic friends from the other
side of the aisle often come to me and ask me to cosponsor bills so
they will be bipartisan, making it more likely we will get a result.
Sometimes they come to me on a difficult issue, and they ask me, in
their words, ``to rise above politics'' and support the institution and
the Constitution, and often I do that. I think my reputation for that
here is pretty secure.
So I have an offer, an invitation I made earlier to my Democratic
friends to invite them to join me in rising above politics--it will be
a harder vote for them than it will be for me--and help us change the
Senate rules in the correct way to restore the Presidential nomination
process to the stature that it deserves and work together to try to
achieve what we did in 2011, 2012, and 2013.
On March 14, the Democratic leader came to the floor, and he said the
following words:
There are times when loyalty to America, to our
Constitution, to our principles, and to what has made this
country great should lead Members to rise above and rise to
the occasion.
He was talking about the vote on the national emergency declaration
President Trump made.
The Democratic leader continued:
I hope and I pray that this moment is one of those times
when Members choose country over party and when Members rise
above politics for the sake of fidelity to our constitutional
principles and this great United States of America.
That was the Democratic leader, the Senator from New York.
The next day, 12 of us did just that. We voted for the resolution to
overturn the declaration of emergency, or, as I have explained to many
of my constituents who have said something to me about it, I voted for
the Constitution.
A month or so earlier, we were encouraged by the Democratic leader
and our friends on the other side to vote to open the government. It
was the same sort of speech, the same opportunity to rise above
politics. Six of us did--six of us on this side of the aisle.
In 2011, 2012, and 2013, when Barack Obama was President and Harry
Reid was the leader of the Democratic majority in the Senate, it
occurred to me and others that the Presidential nominating process was
in shambles. It was embarrassing to ask distinguished Americans to be
nominated for a position and then say ``You are innocent until you are
nominated'' or drag
[[Page S2107]]
things out for a long period of time. It was a bad process.
The President of the United States has 1,200 nominations to make to
Federal appointees--1,200 today, but then, it was more like 1,400. One
of the most important and perhaps the best known function of the Senate
is advice and consent. Our advice and consent to the Presidential
nominations is a crucial part of the checks and balances in our
constitutional system that was established to keep one part of our
government from having too much power. In other words, if the President
wants somebody and we don't, that is it. If he does and we confirm,
then that person knows us, knows this body, and knows about article I,
and when he or she wants money for their Department, they have to come
to the Congress elected by the people. That is the Presidential
nominating process. That is why it is so important to the Senate and to
the people of this country.
So in 2011, 2012, and 2013, Senators Reid, McConnell, Schumer,
Barrasso, Levin, McCain, Kyl, Cardin, Collins, Lieberman, and I all,
along with some others, worked to change the Senate rules to make it
easier for President Obama and his successors to gain confirmation of
Presidential nominees. As a Republican Senator during a Democratic
administration, I spent dozens of hours on that project to make it
easier for that Democratic President, with a Senate majority that was
Democratic, to form a government.
We changed the rules the right way. In other words, we followed the
rules, and the Senate passed standing orders, with large, bipartisan
margins, to do a number of things. We ended secret holds. We removed
163 major positions from the necessity of advice and consent. We
removed 3,163 minor positions from advice and consent. We created 272
positions that are Presidential nominations and made them privileged so
they could come to the floor and then go on to be voted on if no one
objected or required them to go to committee. We made it easier to
bring legislation to the floor. We made it easier to go to conference.
We simplified the forms you have to fill out if you are a nominee. We
did all that in a bipartisan way.
One more thing: By a vote of 78 votes, we decided we would reduce the
postcloture debate time for sub-Cabinet members to 8 hours and for
district judges to 2 hours. As a practical matter, that means if the
majority leader brings up a sub-Cabinet member on Monday, we have to
wait an intervening day--that is Tuesday--and then we vote on cutting
off debate on Wednesday. And how many more hours do we need to debate
it? Then it was 30. Today it is 30. We said: Then let's make it 8 for
sub-Cabinet members and 2 for district judges. That expired at the end
of President Obama's time because we made it for just one Congress, but
that is what we did.
I might add, Republicans did not insist that these new rules should
be delayed until after the next Presidential election, when there might
be a Republican President. You might say we rose above politics.
I might also add that today some people say: Well, they don't want to
vote for anything that might seem to support President Trump because he
is not popular in the Democratic primary. I can tell you that in 2013,
President Obama was not all that popular in the Republican primary in
Tennessee or in any other of the primaries, but we thought it was more
important to defend this institution and preserve its traditional and
constitutional role of advice and consent.
So, on February 25 of this year, I came to the floor and, in effect,
invited my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to rise above
politics--the same thing they often say to me. I invited them to work
with me, Senator Lankford, and Senator Blunt to speed up the
confirmation of Presidential nominees, to rise above partisanship and
to rise above politics for the benefit of the institution. It was a
pretty easy ask, I might say, because I am basically inviting them to
do what 78 of us agreed to do in 2013, which is to reduce the amount of
postcloture debate time for sub-Cabinet members and district judges.
I don't think rising above politics ought to be a one-way street. At
a time when many complained that the Executive has too much power, the
Senate is deliberately weakening itself when we undermine our advice
and consent role. What is the result of that?
Well, it diminishes our constitutional role to advise and consent
because what happens in the executive branch is it just is loaded up
with acting appointees who have never had to go through our
confirmation process.
President Trump is probably pretty happy with that. He could just put
an acting person in a particular position. That person doesn't have to
go through the process and doesn't have to answer a lot of questions.
He or she is just there and immediately there. Such as John Ryder, the
TVA board member from my State, who doesn't have to answer a lot of
questions or such as two district judges from my State--excellent
individuals--who waited 10 months to be confirmed or such as the U.S.
marshal for the Middle District of Tennessee, who had already been the
U.S. marshal before, who had to wait more than 1 year. There was none
of that. Just put in an acting person and run the government without
regard to the Senate.
As the Democratic leader said to me 2 weeks ago and 6 weeks ago, I
would ask him and others to rise above politics for the benefit of this
institution and change the rules the right way to speed up the
confirmation process.
The Senate Rules Committee gave us the right way. They adopted a
resolution in the regular order. Basically, it is the same resolution,
with a few differences, that we passed with 78 votes in 2013.
In my February 25 speech, I said to my friends on the other side: If
you don't like it in exactly the form it is, please suggest something
reasonable back. That is the way we do things. Let's amend it. Let's do
it exactly the way we did it before in 2013.
I have been encouraged by some discussion by some Members on the
other side of the aisle but nothing certain. The proposal offered by
Senator Blunt and Senator Lankford would not reduce the number of hours
we debate Supreme Court Justices, wouldn't reduce the number of hours
we debate Cabinet members or certain Board nominations, but it would
divide the 30 hours of postcloture debate equally between Republicans
and Democrats. Basically, it would put the Senate back in the place
where the Senate has always been throughout the history of the Senate.
Nominations have been decided by 51 votes--not 60 or 67 but by 51--
and they have been decided reasonably promptly. Sometimes they were
defeated, but they were decided. The Blunt-Lankford resolution would do
just that. Nominations would be decided by 51 votes, and they could be
decided reasonably promptly so we would not be diminishing the advice
and consent role of the Senate.
Everyone in this body knows what the problem is. One hundred and
twenty-eight times the majority leader has had to file a motion to cut
off debate--we call that cloture--in order to advance a nomination.
Let's say it is for a Tennessee Valley Authority part-time board
member. So he will file the motion on Monday. We don't do anything on
Tuesday. Nothing would change with that. We vote on cloture on
Wednesday--that is 51 votes--and then we have 30 hours of debate. Now
it is Thursday. So we could take a whole week dealing with a part-time
TVA board member. That has been done 128 times. That was almost never
done for previous Presidents.
We are faced with a truly miserable choice. We know this has to
change. Our friends on the other side know it has to change. They know
if they have a Democratic President in 18 or 20 months, there will be
at least one Republican Senator who will do to them what they are doing
to President Trump. The Democratic President will not be able to form a
government, and so we will further diminish the Senate in its role. So
we have a truly miserable choice: either we continue to diminish the
constitutional advice and consent role of the Senate--we could do
that--or we use what we call the Harry Reid precedent to change the
rules of the Senate by a majority vote.
The problem with the Harry Reid precedent is, it doesn't really
change the rules. It just says the rules don't mean what they say. It
is as if the referee said: Well, the rule book says first down is 10
yards, but I am going to rule that it is 9. It is a Senate precedent,
and the majority may do it, but we should avoid that if we possibly
can.
[[Page S2108]]
I don't like the Harry Reid precedent. I believe it presents a truly
miserable option, but even more miserable is continuing this debasement
of the advice and consent role of the Senate--one I worked to do more
about in 2011, 2012, and 2013 with the distinguished Democratic leader,
the Republican leader, and so many Senators.
As my friend the Democratic leader, who I see has now come to the
floor, said to me and other Republicans 2 weeks ago: ``I understand the
politics are difficult--much harder for you than for me--but our
nation, our Constitution, the beauty of this government, demands that
we rise to the occasion.'' Well, on the declaration of the national
emergency on that occasion, 12 of us did; and on reopening the
government a few weeks earlier, 6 of us did; and in 2011, 2012, and
2013, 78 of us voted to reduce the postcloture time for sub-Cabinet
nominees.
I know it can be a difficult vote in the Democratic caucus, but I
earnestly hope that between now and the time we vote this week, that we
will not be presented with this truly miserable choice of continuing to
debase the advice and consent tradition of the Senate or using the
Harry Reid precedent to change the Senate rules by majority vote.
If some of us can rise above partisanship on article I to vote
against the declaration of emergency, to vote to reopen the government,
and to remove the delay in Presidential nominees when there is a
Democratic President and a Democratic leader of the Senate, it is my
hope that some of my Democratic friends will agree to do that this week
and help us avoid what I have described as a truly miserable choice.
I thank the Presiding Officer.
I yield the floor.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Capito). The Democratic leader is
recognized.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I will be speaking about rules changes
in a minute, but I heard my friend from Tennessee when he said we will
be faced with a terrible choice.
I would simply say that that choice is being foisted on us by Leader
McConnell and none other. You can't brag about passing more judges than
ever before and then say the process is broken, and we have to change
the rules. There is a total, total--there is a word that begins with
``h'' that I will not quite say. It ends in ``y.''
H.R. 268
Madam President, on Puerto Rico, as the Senate takes up the disaster
package, I want to implore my friends on the Republican side to
remember that Puerto Rico is still recovering from Hurricanes Irma and
Maria. From city to countryside, the entire island has been decimated.
Yet the administration's response to this catastrophe can be summed up
in two words. The administration's response to Puerto Rico can be
summed up in two words: cruel and nasty.
The administration has yet to disburse $20 billion in recovery and
mitigation funds for Puerto Rico that were already appropriated, and
this is more than a year after they were appropriated by Congress.
There is $20 billion sitting there as people suffer.
Bureaucracy has similarly delayed crucial rebuilding projects at
hospitals and schools and stoked real concerns that the administration
is not interested in helping the island rebuild the way Congress
intended.
It should hardly bear repeating, but every single American citizen
deserves a Congress and a President fully committed to providing every
resource necessary to rebuild in the wake of a natural disaster. Our
fellow citizens in Puerto Rico are every bit as much American
citizens--that is by law--as we are. Yet the President seems to want to
treat them differently, cruelly, and nastily.
Now Republican Senators are attempting to strip away recovery funds
from Puerto Rico and other territories from the disaster package that
passed the House. They have even rejected a Democratic effort to speed
up the release of the billions in already allocated funding. Those are
no new appropriations. They have already rejected our efforts to speed
up the release of the billions in already allocated funding that the
Trump administration has locked away in the U.S. Treasury.
Now, because the House passed their disaster bill back in January, it
didn't include any aid to assist those affected by the recent
devastated flooding in the Midwest, but my friend Senator Leahy is
planning to offer an amendment to the House bill that would provide
much needed aid to survivors of those recent disasters because they too
deserve the aid they need to recover.
They said Emperor Nero fiddled while Rome burned. President Trump
tweets while Puerto Rico suffers. I hope my Republican colleagues will
join us in supporting this amendment and voting yes on the House bill
to support all communities that need to rebuild.
Healthcare
Madam President, on another matter, last week we were reminded of an
evergreen truth: The Republican Party is still trying to take away the
healthcare of millions of Americans. They are just sick and tired of
being blamed for it, even though the blame falls right on their
shoulders.
Just this morning, we read that some of my colleagues from across the
aisle have begged Attorney General Barr to reverse the administration's
wild decision to declare our current healthcare law unconstitutional--a
decision that would throw the future of preexisting conditions and
healthcare coverage for millions into doubt.
I have a better idea. If Republican colleagues truly oppose this
decision, they can work with their leadership and come down and offer
some solutions. Stop with the backroom phone calls. Stop waiting for
someone else to bail you out. Stop whispering: Oh, President Trump,
don't do it and then be afraid to buck him publicly because Americans
are depending on their healthcare.
This is a fiasco that Republicans spent years in making as they tried
to keep voting on repeal and replace and couldn't come up with a
replace. Everyone knows it. It helped shape the elections of 2018. It
will be on the minds of voters in 2020.
You know, facts are stubborn things. If the Republican Party is truly
sick of getting blamed for standing between Americans and their
healthcare, maybe they shouldn't have voted again and again to repeal
the Affordable Care Act. Maybe they shouldn't have voted to allow the
President to sabotage, piece after piece, the healthcare net we have
provided for people.
If our Republican colleagues are sick of blame, maybe they shouldn't
have given this administration the green light to sabotage the
exchanges and cut funding for programs that help people get covered and
protect them from preexisting conditions.
If Republicans are really sick of getting blamed for sabotaging the
American healthcare system, then, let me provide some friendly advice
from across the aisle: Stop sabotaging the American people's
healthcare.
Republicans can try to hide from their record, but the American
people aren't fooled. Healthcare has been a defining issue for
Republicans for generations. In the same way that the party has sworn
fealty to tax cuts for the rich and handicapping the government, the
modern Republican Party now swears fidelity to the cause of higher
healthcare costs and diminished coverage for tens of millions of
American citizens.
Tomorrow Senate Democrats will join our colleagues in the House to
take action for ourselves against the Department of Justice's war on
healthcare. We will set the record straight on the Republican's effort
to steamroll American families who enjoy coverage for the first time
thanks to this law. We will make clear that unless Republicans join us
in taking action, they will continue to own this mess--and a sorry mess
it is--when people's lives and health are at stake and our Republican
colleagues do nothing--nothing--but make it worse.
Nominations
Madam President, on another matter, one of the Senate's core
responsibilities is vetting any and all of the President's nominees.
Unfortunately, if we have learned anything in the last 2 years, it is
that this administration seems far too often willing to put nominees
forward to the Senate without performing due diligence and careful
background checks.
Just last week, we learned that the President's choice for the
Federal Reserve Board of Governors may have serious personal financial
issues. That is just the latest in a long line of red
[[Page S2109]]
flags in the records of Trump nominees. It is clear that we cannot
falter in our role as a check on the administration.
So I was bemused this morning to read the Republican leader's case
that the Senate needs to speed up President Trump's nominees to an even
faster pace. Is this the majority leader's idea of an April fool's
joke? Was his op-ed his April fool's joke on the Senate, on
bipartisanship, and on America? It is the most ridiculous thing in
print since Sidd Finch.
This is the double standard to trump all double standards. It is
simply galling--galling--for the Republican leader to say that we
aren't moving fast enough. When Barack Obama was President, qualified
nominees languished to the detriment of our government. Take the
example of Richard Cordray. For no good reason, he waited 729 days,
more than 2 years, to be confirmed to lead the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, and he was hardly an exception.
Of course, because of Republican obstruction in what the Republican
leader called one of his ``proudest moments,'' the Republican-led
Senate refused to even consider Merrick Garland's nomination to the
Supreme Court for nearly a calendar year.
But now, under President Trump, Leader McConnell has sung a different
tune. Overnight, he has become a reformer in the cause of Trumpism.
Working hand-in-hand with the Federalist Society, the Republican leader
became, in the words of his own adviser, the principal enabler of the
Trump agenda. At Leader McConnell's command, Republicans ended the blue
slip rules for circuit court nominees and even refused to confirm
Democratic nominees for bipartisan Boards and Commissions like the SEC
and the NLRB. With these moves, the Republican leader has driven a
stake further into the heart of comity and bipartisanship in the
Senate.
Now, despite openly bragging about the number of Trump judges that he
has led the Senate to confirm, Leader McConnell demands that the rules
of the Senate be changed to speed up confirmation. On the one hand,
there is too much obstruction. On the other, we proved we supported a
record amount of judges and gotten them through.
Leader McConnell, you can't have it both ways. You can't have it both
ways. Everyone sees through that.
The Senate needs to do its job. We should not be a conveyor belt for
President Trump's radical and unqualified judicial nominees. So let's
call this for what it is. This rules change is yet another power grab
by Leader McConnell, the Republican Party, and its rightwing allies. It
is a transparent attempt to further politicize our courts by packing
them with President Trump's hard-right, ideological, and too-often
unqualified nominees, and we will not be complicit in the Republican
leader's games, which sacrifice much of the comity and bipartisanship
that this Senate used to represent.
Security Clearances
Madam President, on a final matter, I was extremely troubled to see
yet another report that this administration repeatedly overruled career
officials to provide security clearances to Trump officials, despite
concerns about even blackmail and foreign influence.
Our Nation's intelligence must be protected. That is why 3 weeks ago
Vice Chairman Warner and Ranking Members Feinstein, Menendez, and Reed
called for a thorough review of compliance with security clearance
policies and procedures. The Trump administration has flouted these
rules again and again. The American people deserve some answers.
Where are the leaders of our intelligence community? Where is the
inspector general of the intelligence community? Why would our
Republican counterparts not let us confirm the Nation's top
counterintelligence official? Director Coats and the relevant inspector
general must investigate these allegations immediately and take
whatever steps are necessary to protect our national security. This
cannot wait a moment longer.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I appreciate the remarks of the
majority leader. If he would wait 1 minute, I just want to make a
little offer to him. I am not going to get into an argument with him,
but he brought up more things than I like to bring up in one speech,
anyway.
I did want to remind him that I was one of the six that voted in the
shutdown, and a day later we solved the problem that you couldn't have
done unless the six of us who did vote for it in the Republican
Conference voted for it.
I just want everybody that listens to this and watches it on TV to
know that everything he said is not always true. He did speak to us
obliquely on recognizing the fact that we did that. I just want you to
know I was one of them. I am only telling him that now because I want a
chip tomorrow on his vote, and I am going to try to impress that on
him.
Mr. SCHUMER. Will my colleague yield for a brief comment?
Mr. ISAKSON. Absolutely.
Mr. SCHUMER. I have every confidence that if my friend from Georgia
were running the Senate, we wouldn't be in this pickle.
I yield to him.
H.R. 268
Mr. ISAKSON. Thank you. I appreciate that, I think.
Madam President, I am not going to talk about judges and appointments
and things of that nature. I could talk about them. That is a big issue
for us coming up. I want to talk about people--American citizens,
farmers, ranchers, people who make our food supply happen, people who
make our country happen and our economy happen, et cetera.
Georgia is one of a number of States that supposedly had gotten some
kind of disaster benefit some time back. We have had hurricanes,
floods, and storms. California has had great fires. We had an
earthquake in Alaska. We had volcanoes in Hawaii. This has been one of
the most devastating years--and the past couple of years now--we have
ever had, and, historically, we have always passed disaster bills to
help our citizens who are put out of business, basically, by disaster
to at least get their feet back under them.
We have helped people get healthcare. We have helped people get
housing benefits. We have helped people do a lot of things just to get
their families put back together--people like these folks right here.
I just want to remind myself from this picture here that we have the
Moss family. We have others who are here who raise cotton, raise
peanuts, and raise pecans. Georgia is now No. 1 in the U.S. of pecans.
Pecans are a huge cash crop for us. Of course, Savannah, in my State,
ships ton after ton all year long.
A pecan is an interesting nut, so to speak, because the tree has a
lifecycle of about 12 years before it can make or produce pecans. When
you invest in a pecan farmer, you are not investing like in a
watermelon farmer. You get a watermelon the first year you plant them.
You are investing in something that is going to take 12 years to mature
and begin production. We had 50 percent of our pecan crop completely
destroyed a few months ago now in southeast Georgia, and you can't
reclaim it. It is difficult to finance.
It is an unusual tree, and it is unusual wood because it is not as
strong as you would like to have it. Therefore, when it gets really
mature and really produces, it produces so much weight on itself.
Unless you are really doing a good job, you are going to lose some of
them just because of the weight it produces on its own limbs.
Peanuts, everybody knows, because we serve those peanuts back in the
cloakroom all the time to curb your appetite--Georgia peanuts. They are
all laughing and looking at me. They know how good they are. That helps
all of us make it for another day, until we get to another meal.
We do all kinds of things in here about this. Agriculture is 21
percent of my State's economy, but it is all of America's economy--a
lot of it. Most importantly, it is what we all have to do--to eat three
times a day. There is only 90 days' worth of food supply available at
any one given point in time in the world. I mean, as food grows, you
consume it, and you replant and you grow again.
We have a number of people from east coast to west and from north of
the northern border and west of the west border who are in pineapples
or
[[Page S2110]]
pecans or peanuts or whatever--cotton--and who need some relief that
they have earned and need.
What is happening is that we have had multiple attempts in the last 5
months to pass a disaster relief package. It will be offered as an
amendment that basically Senator Perdue and I have offered as well in
the past. It just takes those people in our country who have been hurt,
who are eligible for programs that exist in the law, and gets that
money out the door. For some of us, if we don't get it done in the next
2 weeks, it is just not going to get done. We have farmers who will go
out of business.
You know, everybody says all farmers are all rich. Well, they are
dirt poor. That is what they are. I was a real estate guy. I know how
you do that. You make a great balance sheet on the value of the real
estate, but all of a sudden, if you lose the value of the real estate
and you don't have anything to offset the liability that you created to
buy the real estate, you get in trouble. We have a lot of that in
Georgia, a lot of it in Alabama, a lot of it in California because of
the fire, and a lot of other places.
We need to get it straight, and the best thing we can do is to get
these farmers in a position where they know this year, if they get
their money in time to plant, they can make the money they need to pay
the bank back rather than tell the government to give them a check for
a disaster.
So we are not only talking about helping the farmer. We are talking
about helping us. Every time we get the farmer back on his or her feet
in order to go back into production, planting, and doing their job,
then, they will produce income for that, and they will pay these loans
off. Yes, they are not going to be as rich as they were before, but
they will not be out of business. Some of these farms are 200 years or
more in the family--post-Civil War farms. There are lots of people in
our State who are just dying because of what happened.
Our cotton crop was killed. It was probably the best. We think it was
going to be the best crop we ever had because the week before the storm
started hitting, we did some picking, but then the storms came through,
and in 1 day, one hurricane wiped out the cotton in Georgia.
It took out about 70 percent of the pecan trees in Georgia. It took
out our blueberries--yes, blueberries. Everybody says Michigan produces
the most blueberries, or Maine does. No, they don't. Georgia does.
Agriculture is an entrepreneurial business in our State, but it takes
the ability to raise the money to plant it, produce it, sell it, take
the crop to market, and reinvest it. We are not talking about people
getting rich. We are talking about people taking the risk of doing
business like you have always done business.
So I am going to talk about this amendment for just a second. It is
so important. There is some misinformation out there. Leader Schumer
obliquely referred to a whole lot of misinformation. I am going to
correct one of them that he said in just a minute.
It is important to know what we are doing tomorrow. We are going to
tell Renee Moss, Greg Mims, and Casey Cox--these families right here--
that help is on the way for their cotton, their pecans, their peanuts,
and their farms. It is help not to give them a handout but to give them
a hand up and tell their bankers that we are going to stick with them
so they can work overtime to make the money back to pay the bank back
and also pay us back. That is what we ought to do, and that is what we
should do, but if we don't do it before the month is over, we are dead.
As many of you know in here, the SNAP money ends this month. The SNAP
money fix is in this. You are not going to have student nutrition
programs if you don't get it added into the legislation and get it
passed. They run out, technically, on March 31, and we have 14 days
until that is passed, which will be April 14, to finally restore it. We
have to restore it as fast as we can. We have to get it done. This bill
does that.
Let me tell you what the bill does. You heard about Puerto Rico. I
love Puerto Rico. When I was in the Air Force, we did field trainings
at Ramey Air Force Base. I was a load master. We did runs down there to
the east coast all the time. I love the people down there. I love the
food down there. I love the beaches down here and the great folks. They
have already gotten a number of millions of dollars that they talked
about in a speech today. They want $600 million that were now approved
in this bill. Now, $600 million is a lot of money.
They already got $40 billion and haven't spent all of that. We need
to make sure everybody gets their fair share for the disasters that
took place and does not take the disaster money and use it as a payoff
somewhere down the line.
Puerto Rico should be helped, but the rest of the country shouldn't
be held hostage because of Puerto Rico. We have Florida, Alabama, North
Carolina, and South Carolina with hurricane damage, California with the
wildfires, Alaska with the earthquake, Hawaii with the volcanoes, and
also include $600 million for Puerto Rico. There is no money for CDBG,
like some of them wanted, but the rest of the money for the SNAP
program. That is what their votes are going to be about.
The Democrats are going to say, just as Mr. Schumer did--he was for
this a while back. I don't know what happened. I guess he got upset
about something; I don't know what it is. This says we are going to
take care of people who had disasters that they didn't want and lost
lots of money they couldn't afford to lose. They are going to go out of
business, which we don't want them to do. It is going to compound their
problems in their States.
I know the Senator from Arkansas, the Presiding Officer, knows
exactly what I am talking about. Rice is the main product in Arkansas,
as well as other agricultural products. It is key to their economy. So
we have to get them safe while we can.
It is about those crops. It is about their insurance. It is also
about their economy. I wanted to bring this up. It is about global
warming. It is about climate change. It is about a lot of things we
don't ever brag about around this place. I am going to brag about it
simply because people think these things are about one simple subject.
This is a report out of the Appropriations subcommittee that does a
number of things to fix things that are broken, things that people
around here talk a lot about wanting to do, things like $20 million for
the CDC to continue its research on epidemics, which saved us with
Ebola when it hit us a couple of years ago, and it will save us again
with measles. We are on the cusp of an outbreak of measles--an outbreak
like we have never seen before. It is not there yet, and I don't want
somebody to run out and say: He said it is there. But it is coming if
we don't react to it or respond to it. It is critical that we do and
see to it that we do it as fast as possible.
It is about $600 million for Puerto Rico.
It is about emergency forest restoration programs where our forests
have been destroyed by storms.
It is about nutrition assistance for the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, a province of the United States of America where
people are starving right now and going into malnutrition.
It is about American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and market facilitation
programs for AGI waivers.
It is about the economic development assistance programs that are not
working right now because they are not funded, and if we don't get them
funded, they are not going to work for the betterment of our economy.
It is about $200 million to repair the damage caused by Hurricane
Florence to Marine Corps installations at Marine Corps Base Camp
Lejeune. I think you and I agree that the Marine Corps is very
important. You might say, what emergency do they have? They were wiped
out by the storm. If we don't rebuild these things as quickly as
possible, we will have our marines without a place to bivouac, a place
to sleep or a place to eat. We don't want that to happen.
That is what this is about. It is not about giving out perk money; it
is about absolute essentials to the defense of our country, the food of
our country, et cetera.
So I want to appeal to Senator Schumer. I listened to his remarks.
Now, unfortunately, the Senator from Vermont has come. He didn't know I
[[Page S2111]]
was talking, I guess. I will talk about him a little bit too. Mr. Leahy
is a fine gentleman and a great friend of mine, but he has kind of let
me down on this one. I want to talk about that. I am hoping maybe I can
change his mind and maybe yours as well, Mr. President. We don't have a
second chance at this. We had two chances that didn't make it. We
voluntarily got off the other bills because we didn't have enough money
to get on them, so we had to get something else passed. One of them was
restoring the cuts before the shutdown--which, by the way, we got off
of the shutdown vote to allow this to pass so we could cut out one of
the arguments. I wanted to throw that in as well.
I see he is leaving already. He didn't want to hear what I had to
say. He told me--and I will try to phrase this correctly--he told me: I
have always voted for emergency money.
I have always voted for emergency money, too, for Yankees, for
southerners, westerners, and northerners, because when we have an
emergency in this country, it is America's emergency; it is not just an
emergency for one region.
We don't want to bleed ourselves to death or wastefully spend this
money, but by golly, if we become a country where we cannot depend on
ourselves to help ourselves when times are tough--I don't know.
Senator Romney and I talked before this a little bit ago about how we
really ought to have a sinking fund and create a funding source that
over time can accumulate money as a hedge against future disasters. We
know we are going to have them; we always do. We know they are going to
come; they always do. At least have more money in the bank to be
prepared for them so we don't get into political battles like we are in
now where we have tangential issues that we are debating all because of
the amendment, et cetera.
So with the senior Senator from Vermont on the floor, I am going to
cut some of my remarks short so he will have plenty of time to say
whatever he has to say, but I want him to hear what I have to say.
This is about Puerto Rico. They are getting $600 million, and they
have already gotten some money. They aren't going to get everything
they want, but they are getting everything they should get out of this
particular bill, including SNAP.
The farmers in the South are going to get a chance to replant, a
chance to borrow, and a chance to make the money to pay back over time.
Otherwise, it is going to be on our backs anyway, so if we don't help
them, we are going to be stuck. It is about doing the right thing at
the right time for the right people. The right thing is to restore the
commonsense bills we have passed that will allow them to farm or
whatever it is they do. That is No. 1.
No. 2, we need to do it without arguing about regions or people or
what they do. We ought to do it as American citizens supporting other
American citizens and what they do for their livelihood, and they pay
their taxes because of that.
Lastly, there are times when we have great debates over things that
are political in nature or funny in nature. I am serious as a heart
attack about this. I told Mitch McConnell, who was mentioned by Senator
Schumer a minute ago, I told Mitch--I said: I can't go home this
weekend and tell them the same thing I told them the last four
weekends. I have to tell them we got the job done for them, or we are
going to fail them.
I don't want to fail them. I want to vote for the amendment tomorrow
that Senator Shelby offered. If it loses, I am going to vote for the
one the Democrats will offer, which will give us a chance to get
something back in the conference committee. If both of those lose, we
may as well go home. We will wake up one day in the next few months and
say: What did we do? Why did we do that? We lost our perspective.
It is not just about Georgia; it is about America. It is not just
about farming; it is about a lot of things. It is time for us to do
what is right, what we should have done on the two bills before--that
we approved. Let's make it happen the way we have always done, and
let's do the right thing at the right time for the right people, for
the citizens of the United States for America.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). The Senator from Vermont.
Unanimous Consent Request--Amendment No. 205 to Amendment No. 201
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, while my friend is still here on the floor,
he was absolutely correct when he pointed me out as saying that I have
long supported disasters, whatever State is involved, whether it is a
red State, blue State, or purple State. I believe in helping Americans.
We are all part of the United States of America.
I think we do waste time sometimes in having debates on things we
should not. For example, when the Republicans controlled the House of
Representatives and the Senate and we had a bill to keep our government
open and to fund part of the barriers along the Mexican border, both
the Senator and I voted the same way. We voted for the bill. It would
have given $1.4 billion that the Executive could use toward security.
The President threaten to vetoed that, saying it was not enough even
though the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats had voted for it
in the House and the Senate. So he shut down the government for 35
days, which caused unprecedented hurt to Americans of all political
persuasions all over this country. I believe the CBO said it cost the
country about $11 billion.
What did he then sign? The new bill we came up with, which had $1.3
billion. He rejected the bill the Republicans and Democrats had
supported that had $1.4 billion, shut down the government, ruined the
lives of many hundreds of thousands of Americans, cost our economy over
$10 billion, and then signed a bill to get $100 million less.
I worry we are in somewhat the same situation now. We seem to be
deciding which Americans are going to be helped based on a tweet. I
believe all Americans should be helped, and I voted for disaster relief
for the States of every Senator who is on the floor presently. I have
never asked what their priorities were or what their political
background was; if they had a disaster, I voted for it. I think it is
the responsibility of the Federal Government to stand with American
communities in crisis.
I praised Chairman Shelby and his staff for their efforts to move
this process forward. I know communities in Senator Shelby's State
recently experienced their own natural disaster. As vice chairman of
the Appropriations Committee, as a U.S. Senator, and as a Vermonter, I
am ready to stand with the people of Alabama because that is what we
Americans do.
When Tropical Storm Irene devastated my State in 2011, Members of
this body came to me not as Republicans or Democrats but as American
citizens eager to help their neighbor. When disasters have hit other
parts of the country, I have done exactly the same.
But now we should know that for more than 1 year, one of our
neighbors has been in crises. In 2017, Puerto Rico was hit by two back-
to-back category 5 hurricanes. It is an almost unprecedented disaster--
two back-to-back category 5 hurricanes. At first, the administration
was saying: Well, there is only a handful of people who died. Well, it
turns out that we estimated that 2,975 Americans lost their lives. That
is one heck of a handful. Their homes were demolished. Their
communities were destroyed. This was more than 1 year ago.
Today, if you fly over Puerto Rico, the landscape will still be
specked with blue plastic tarps that serve as temporary roofs and
shelters. From the ground, you see that the wear and tear of a year and
a half has frayed that plastic. The boards haphazardly holding up these
plastic roofs have warped, and they appear ready to collapse.
The New York Times wrote a story on the 1-year anniversary of the
storms. The stories told are heartbreaking.
One woman, Martina Cruz Sanchez, described her hurried routine every
time it rains. First, she has to climb a ladder to where her roof used
to be before 100-plus-mile-an-hour winds ripped it off and scattered it
around the island. Then, using a hose, she has to manually siphon off
the accumulating puddles to keep the roof from leaking on what little
she has left.
[[Page S2112]]
Ms. Cruz's situation is not unique. On a different part of the
island, Pablo Figueroa is forced to live in the only corner of his
small home that still has a roof. Two others described living out of a
tent attached to their neighbor's garage. A fallen tree remains from
where it first crashed through Paula Cruz Ortiz's home. Julia Rivera, a
mother of nine, laments that she has ``lost everything'' except her
``faith in God.''
Across the island, water-logged walls have gone unrepaired and have
begun to rot. A hospital that was flooded was overtaken by toxic mold--
a hospital. A hospital that was flooded was overtaken by toxic mold. A
year after the storm, it remained closed.
The mold in 82-year-old Leomida Uniel's home has stained the walls
black. This 82-year-old person had a lung infection as a result.
When Carmen Cruz was asked about losing her home, she said: It was a
little house--two bedrooms--but for me, it was a castle.
I tell these stories because these are American citizens. I would
tell the same story if they were Vermonters or whatever other State
they might be from. They are American citizens. These are our
neighbors. These are human beings. Let's treat them as such. To do any
less is an embarrassment to our country, this body, and our humanity.
This was an extraordinary disaster and requires an extraordinary
response.
What has happened? Let's be very frank. Let's be very honest about
what has happened. Instead of standing with our neighbors, our fellow
Americans, the President has chosen to hold petty grudges, which is way
beneath the Office of the Presidency. He wants to pick winners and
losers by deciding who gets assistance based on his own arbitrary
standards. That is wrong. This Senator says that is un-American.
I know firsthand that the Federal Government is a critical partner in
the effort to recover and rebuild. North Carolina, South Carolina,
Florida, California, Texas, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands just to name a few are all counting on us to get this bill
across the finish line. I have urged Senate Republicans to take up and
pass the House bill, H.R. 268, since the House first passed it in
January. The Republican leadership has refused. So they have forced
Puerto Rico to begin to cut back nutrition assistance weeks ago.
I am glad to see that the Republican substitute amendment finally
includes money for Puerto Rico's nutrition assistance program. We
should get that money to the island soon, but nutrition assistance is
not enough. Puerto Rico needs to rebuild. I have offered a compromise
path forward from what the House passed, but it would address the needs
of Puerto Rico. It would unlock billions of dollars in additional
assistance for the mainland. Keep in mind that billions of these
dollars are just sitting there.
If Senate Republicans would accept this proposal, we could quickly
pass this disaster bill. Even though it is different than the House
bill, we could pass it in the Senate, and I believe the House would
pass it and forego the need for a conference and get assistance to the
people who need it sooner rather than later.
I agree with my distinguished colleague and friend that we should do
that this week. We could do that today. In a moment--and I alert my
colleagues on the other side--I will ask unanimous consent to take up
and adopt this amendment, but if the amendment is not adopted, I will
vote against the cloture motion on the Republican substitute.
We cannot advance a bill that picks and chooses among Americans and
says that some Americans are lesser than others. We cannot advance a
bill that does not address these critical needs.
H.R. 268, the underlying House-passed bill, is a good bill. It
provides for much needed relief of victims of Hurricane Florence,
victims of Hurricane Michael, and the Hawaii volcanoes, and California
wildfires, just to name a few of the disasters. It also continues
critical assistance to Puerto Rico.
Today I filed an amendment to extend relief to the victims of the
recent tornadoes in the Southeast and the flooding in the Midwest. H.R.
268 was drafted before that flooding occurred. My amendment would
ensure that they receive assistance, as well.
I am about to ask unanimous consent that this amendment to the House
bill be adopted, as well. I believe that it is the responsibility of
the Federal Government not to pick and choose which Americans are
really Americans. It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to
stand with all American communities in crisis. We have to do it now.
The needs are pressing. The people are waiting. When somebody serves in
the Armed Forces--whether they are from Puerto Rico, Alabama, or
Vermont--they don't pick and choose and say: Well, I will go to bat if
this matter tells me to, but not this one.
I alert my colleagues that I ask unanimous consent that it be in
order to offer amendment No. 205 to Shelby amendment No. 201 and that
the amendment be agreed to with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). Is there objection?
Mr. ISAKSON. Reserving the right to object and I will yield to the
Senator from Alabama.
I want everybody to listen closely. Senator, please listen to me
closely. You are a great friend. I love you to death. But do you know
what you just did? When you read off the States that deserved money and
ought to get it, and you read them one by one, you left out one--
Georgia. That is why I am down here.
Mr. LEAHY. I said these are among other States, if you look at what I
said.
Mr. ISAKSON. I am not saying it to be ugly. Facts are facts, and I am
scared that a Freudian slip--which I am sure that probably was or
something like that--might be something that causes us to get lost
again. No. 1, I want to point out that in your own remarks, from your
own memory or from your own notes, that is exactly what was said.
Mr. LEAHY. If the Senator would yield.
Mr. ISAKSON. Absolutely.
Mr. LEAHY. I said in there, ``just to name a few.'' I did not leave
anybody out.
Mr. ISAKSON. I don't want to cut anybody out, but I want to make that
point.
I yield to Senator Shelby.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. I want to follow the distinguished Senator from Georgia.
I also reserve the right to object here, and in the proper time, I will
object.
If my colleagues are interested in supporting legislation here today
that helps the people who are impacted by the 2019 storms and
legislation that can actually be signed into law, then, I would say
they should vote to invoke cloture on my amendment No. 201 today.
I am afraid they are not going to do that, but I will speak on my
amendment in greater detail shortly, if I am permitted to.
At the moment, I object to the unanimous consent request offered by
the distinguished Senator from Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Unanimous Consent Request--Amendment No. 234
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order
to offer amendment No. 234 to the language proposed to be stricken and
that the amendment be agreed to with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. I will
object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, this afternoon I rise to urge my
colleagues to vote for cloture on the pending Shelby amendment on the
floor.
My amendment provides critical resources to those impacted by a wide
range of natural disasters in 2018--fires, earthquakes, volcanoes,
hurricanes, and tornadoes, among others. It also includes funding to
begin to address some of the 2019 disaster damage.
[[Page S2113]]
This funding, I believe, is essential to aid our fellow Americans who
are working to pick up the pieces and move on. There is a broad
agreement, basically, on both sides of the aisle--Democrat and
Republican--that this legislation should address 2019 disasters, and,
both, my amendment and the underlying bill, do this.
There are, however, two glaring differences that I would like to
discuss briefly. First, the Shelby amendment provides assistance to
those affected by the 2019 disasters. The underlying bill does not.
Secondly, the Shelby amendment has the support of the President. The
underlying bill does not.
This assistance is not just for those whose lives were destroyed by
the tornado that recently hit my home State of Alabama. It is also for
those whose homes, crops, and livestock have been swept away by
catastrophic flooding in the Midwest that we all witnessed recently.
Thus far, my Democratic colleagues have been unwilling to help these
people unless their demands are met. What are their demands? Not more
resources for 2018 or 2019 disasters, which is what the thrust of this
bill is about. No, instead they demand nearly $1 billion more for
Puerto Rico. We all agree that Puerto Rico was devastated in 2017 by
Hurricane Maria. That is why Congress provided Puerto Rico billions of
dollars in aid in a supplemental last March right here in the Congress.
Yet much of the funding that we provided has not been spent yet--
billions of dollars. In fact, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development recently reported that Puerto Rico has $1.5 billion in
community development block grant funding available but has only spent
$42,000. Think about that.
Why, then, are my Democratic colleagues seeking to include $431
million more for community development block grants for Puerto Rico but
not $1 for folks in the Midwest who continue to watch the floodwaters
rise as we speak?
The one piece of Puerto Rican funding we agree is essential--in fact,
it is urgent--is nutrition assistance. They need it, and they need it
now. That is why my amendment includes $600 million to provide the
people of Puerto Rico the food safety net they need now.
I believe we need to move forward with this disaster package so that
those who have thus far received nothing from this Congress and those
in desperate need of assistance can move on with their lives. We should
not further delay, I believe, this assistance. Those in need must not
be forced to wait any longer.
I also wholeheartedly agree with my colleagues who said in a recent
letter to Senate and House leadership: ``Providing desperately needed
relief to impacted communities should be a bipartisan, bicameral
priority and continued inaction is unacceptable.''
I hope we will all join together to provide assistance to those who
urgently need it today, regardless of whether the State we represent
has been struck by disasters covered in this bill.
Only one of the two options before the Senate seeks to help everyone
impacted by disasters and can be signed into law, and that is the
Shelby amendment. Again, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on cloture.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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 Senate amendment
No. 201 to H.R. 268, making supplemental appropriations for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other
purposes.
Mitch McConnell, Roy Blunt, Richard C. Shelby, Johnny
Isakson, Pat Roberts, Steve Daines, Mike Rounds, David
Perdue, Rick Scott, Lamar Alexander, John Barrasso,
John Hoeven, John Thune, John Boozman, Shelley Moore
Capito, Tom Cotton, Rob Portman.
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 Senate
amendment No. 201, offered by the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby, to
H.R. 268, making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2019, 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr.
Cassidy), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Arizona
(Ms. McSally), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Louisiana (Mr.
Cassidy) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee)
would have voted ``nay.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 44, nays 49, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 55 Leg.]
YEAS--44
Alexander
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Capito
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Jones
Kennedy
Lankford
Moran
Murkowski
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Wicker
Young
NAYS--49
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Braun
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Paul
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--7
Burr
Cassidy
Harris
Lee
McSally
Sullivan
Toomey
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 44, and the nays
are 49.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
The majority leader is recognized
Mr. McCONNELL. I move to reconsider the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
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 H.R. 268, making
supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2019, and for other purposes.
Mitch McConnell, Josh Hawley, John Thune, Shelley Moore
Capito, Johnny Isakson, Mike Crapo, Richard Burr, James
Lankford, Tom Cotton, Roy Blunt, David Perdue, Mike
Rounds, Bill Cassidy, John Cornyn, Rob Portman, Steve
Daines, John Kennedy.
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.
268, a bill making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2019, and for other purposes, shall be brought to
a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
[[Page S2114]]
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the
Senator from Arizona (Ms. McSally), the Senator from Alaska (Mr.
Sullivan), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) would
have voted ``nay.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Ms. Harris)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 48, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 56 Leg.]
YEAS--46
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Jones
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--48
Alexander
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Thune
Tillis
Wicker
Young
NOT VOTING--6
Burr
Harris
Lee
McSally
Sullivan
Toomey
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are
48.
Three-fifths of Senators duly chosen and sworn having not voted in
the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
____________________