[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.

                          ____________________