[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 92 (Monday, June 3, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3145-S3153]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




SETTING FORTH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT 
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020 AND SETTING FORTH THE APPROPRIATE BUDGETARY LEVELS 
         FOR FISCAL YEARS 2021 THROUGH 2029--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1332, which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 78, S. 1332, a bill to 
     set forth the congressional budget for the United States 
     Government for fiscal year 2020 and setting forth the 
     appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2021 through 
     2029.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                        Remembering Thad Cochran

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that last week 
we learned of the death of our friend and former colleague, Thad 
Cochran from Mississippi.
  In nearly 40 years in office, Thad served with a fierceness and 
loyalty to Mississippi matched only by his sense of dignity and respect 
for his colleagues.
  When his issues were on the line, Senator Cochran fought for 
Mississippi as hard as any Senator. He nurtured Mississippi's 
universities, schools, farms, hospitals, ports, and fishing industry. 
He was a champion of the poor and gave a voice to rural communities by 
expanding assistance for southern farmers. Perhaps it is fitting that 
he was first bitten by the political bug in his run for head 
cheerleader at Ole Miss because throughout his career and throughout 
his life, Thad never stopped being a cheerleader for Mississippi.
  One thing I will never forget was Senator Cochran's graciousness 
after my State was hit by Hurricane Sandy. He knew, from his experience 
after Hurricane Katrina, just how devastating the damage can be and how 
difficult the recovery process can seem in the aftermath of a disaster. 
At a time when many of his colleagues who always voted for their 
regions but opposed Sandy because it was New York, Senator Cochran not 
only supported it but even made sure his team was available to give us 
guidance. I will never forget that. That is the kind of gentleman and 
fair-minded individual he was--something missing a lot around here.
  In many ways, Thad Cochran was a model Senator. He understood this 
body's preference for cooperation, compromise, and congeniality almost 
intuitively. Even as the Senate has gone further away from those 
values, Senator Cochran held them close. That is just who he was. It 
made him a better Senator and a better man. We will miss him. I think 
all of us will. Our prayers go out today to his wife, Kay, his 
children, his loved ones, and his many friends.


                           Background Checks

  Mr. President, on background checks, last Friday, another horrible 
mass shooting transformed a peaceful community in America into a place 
of tragedy. In Virginia Beach, a dozen people were killed, several 
others critically wounded, and thousands of Virginians left to mourn 
and pick up the pieces.
  Today we grieve with the people of Virginia Beach, and we send our 
thanks to the brave police men and women who risked their lives to 
protect their neighbors. These tragedies leave scars that never go away 
on community after community that has suffered from it.
  It has been less than a month since I spoke on the Senate floor after 
a shooting. That is the tragedy. It is less than 1 month that I had to 
come to the floor and speak on the tragedy of one shooting, and now we 
have another. The list of national tragedies is already too long. The 
names and places of mass

[[Page S3146]]

shootings and the victims of everyday gun violence are already too 
many--far too many to count.
  So it is time, long past time to bring a bill to improve gun safety 
to the floor of the Senate. The House has already passed a bill to 
close loopholes in our background check system. It is common sense. It 
is bipartisan. More than 90 percent of Americans support closing these 
loopholes, including a majority of Republicans and a majority of gun 
owners. It is hard to defend the desire of felons, spousal abusers, and 
those adjudicated mentally ill to get firearms. In fact, those who 
oppose this kind of legislation don't defend it. They sort of slink 
away and hide figuratively, if not literally, under their desks on the 
Senate floor.
  Why will Leader McConnell not allow background checks to get a vote 
or even a debate in the Senate? Why has Leader McConnell added this 
bipartisan legislation, that has already passed the House, to his 
legislative graveyard?
  For too long, the gun lobby has reflexively opposed any gun safety 
reforms--the most benign and commonsense reforms like closing loopholes 
in our background checks--and for too long the Republican majority has 
marched in lockstep with them against the will of the American people 
and against the safety of the American people.
  It is time for that to change. Leader McConnell should call a vote on 
universal background checks now. Nobody pretends it will stop every 
shooting, but if it could prevent even one more from happening, it 
deserves our consideration. Let's not delay any longer. Let's not cower 
before the NRA. Let's do the right thing that 90 percent of Americans 
want us to do.


                           Election Security

  Mr. President, there is no principle more essential to democracy than 
the principle of free and fair elections. It is the very wellspring of 
our democracy. It is what the people at Bunker Hill, the farmers, put 
down their plows and took up muskets for--no taxation without 
representation, voting. Over the past 3 years, we have been reminded 
again and again how that very sacred wellspring of democracy, voting 
and fair elections, were attacked by a foreign power.
  Mr. Mueller's press conference last week was only the latest reminder 
of the concerted campaign by Moscow to influence our elections in 2016. 
It was also a reminder of how much we have yet to do to secure our 
elections in the future. We included some--some only--but some funding 
for election security in last year's budget, but we have been blocked 
so far from providing much needed additional support in this year's 
budget.
  We have bipartisan legislation to harden election infrastructure and 
sanction any foreign power that tries to interfere in our elections. 
That legislation is ready to go, but, once again, Mitch McConnell, 
self-described Grim Reaper, has refused to take it up--another 
tombstone in his legislative graveyard.
  At the very least, the Senate should be briefed by our intelligence 
and law enforcement chiefs about the threat of election interference in 
the 2020 election so we can all be aware of the danger that FBI 
Director Wray already has pointed out.
  On that front, I have some positive news. I have spoken to the 
Republican leader about that request. He has assured me we will have a 
briefing. We are still trying to sort out the timing of the briefing, 
but I urge that it take place as soon as possible during this work 
period so we can prepare new legislation that will go into effect at 
least a year before election day of 2020. By no means does a briefing 
replace all the other things we must do to protect our elections. It is 
necessary but not nearly sufficient. I hope when people go to this 
briefing, Members, Democrats and Republicans, they will see the danger 
and act.
  How can we sit by? We are a great power. To sit by with our arms 
folded, while Russia or China or Iran or some other country, North 
Korea, tries to interfere in our elections--that is not what a great 
power does. It protects itself and its people, especially when it comes 
to something so vital as elections.
  I hope we have this briefing quickly. I hope it reignites a desire on 
both sides of the aisle to move legislation, increase funding, and do 
what is necessary to protect our democracy.


                            Border Security

  Mr. President, on the border, since the outset, the Trump 
administration's policy at our southern border has been chaotic, 
ineffective and, in many cases, inhumane. One of the most fundamentally 
misguided elements of the Trump administration's policy is how it has 
approached the root causes of the migration because, while the 
President complains loudly about the number of refugees and migrants at 
our border, his administration has made a few of the root causes of 
this migration more severe.
  One of the principal ways we could address the surge on migrants is 
by helping improve conditions in their own countries. Most of them are 
fleeing violence or a huge economic hardship, so they feel it is better 
to travel thousands of miles of dangers, maybe in the hands of coyotes, 
than stay home. By cracking down on gang violence and drug trafficking 
back in their home countries, we could reduce the flow of immigrants at 
our southern border.
  No one can understand--so confounded--why, in late March, the 
President announced he would be cutting off security assistance to 
Central American countries to address these very issues. The President 
cut his nose to spite his face. He made the problem worse by cutting 
off these dollars.
  The administration has provided virtually no information about the 
rationale for these cuts--$450 million. It is a completely self-
inflicted wound to our national security that makes the problem the 
President complains about worse, not better. It is almost as if the 
President is intentionally trying to add fuel to the fire, to fabricate 
a crisis, and to create, post hoc, a justification for a baseless 
emergency declaration he made months ago.
  I don't think many Americans would say cutting funding to help 
Central American countries stop migration is a responsible policy, and 
that is why we Democrats have proposed just the opposite. We propose to 
actually get at the root cause of migration by allowing asylum seekers 
to apply for asylum in their home countries, not at our southern 
border, by increasing the number of judges to process the cases at the 
border, and by helping Central American countries crack down on gang 
violence in the city's drug cartels. In fact, our bill authorizes $1.5 
billion in security assistance to the Northern Triangle to do just 
that, far and above what the administration has just cut.
  The policies the administration pursues make no sense whatsoever. 
They seem vindictive, they seem done at the moment, and they seem 
totally not thought through. We are proposing policies that will 
address the real issues here, and Democrats will push for them in any 
legislation that deals with border policy.

  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.


                        Virginia Beach Shooting

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as millions looked forward to an early 
summer weekend, Virginia Beach, VA, became the latest community where 
lives were shattered by violence. Twelve workers at the Virginia Beach 
Municipal Center were shot and killed when a lone gunman--a fellow 
employee--opened fire on Friday afternoon. Some of the victims had 
worked for the city for decades, one for just under a year. All of them 
leave behind a grieving community that must now try to make sense of 
the senseless. And several more of their colleagues were injured.
  As the community rallies behind those in grief and shock, the Nation 
is also learning about the selfless heroism of the law enforcement 
officers who bravely brought the violence to an end. Four officers 
moved quickly through the municipal building that housed 400 workers. 
They quickly located the

[[Page S3147]]

shooter, hemmed him in to prevent further innocent casualties, and 
engaged him in a firefight. Reportedly, one officer was actually shot 
but was spared serious injury due to his bulletproof vest.
  Thanks to their bravery, about 45 minutes after the shooting began, 
the suspect was in police custody.
  Such stories of courage strike us as remarkable. They inspire 
gratitude and remind us of humanity's best, just as we are faced with 
its worst. They should also be occasions to remember just how many men 
and women across America put on their uniforms every day and report to 
work, knowing they might be called on for heroism just like this. 
Hundreds of thousands of police officers and other first responders 
across our Nation protect and serve every day.
  I know that all of my colleagues join me in prayer and solidarity for 
the victims of this evil violence, for their families, and for all of 
the first responders who stand ready to jump between their neighbors 
and harm's way.


                        Remembering Thad Cochran

  Mr. President, on Thursday morning, we received sad news out of 
Oxford, MS. Our friend and distinguished former colleague, Senator Thad 
Cochran, had passed away.
  Thad took retirement a little more than a year ago to focus on his 
health and his family. That day concluded a truly remarkable career in 
the history of the Senate: seven terms; nearly four decades; the second 
longest serving Senator from Mississippi; and the tenth longest serving 
Senator, period, in American history.
  To put it all another way, when Senator Cochran first arrived in 
1978, only one of our current colleagues was here to witness it. The 
other 99 of us are all newer at this club than Thad was.
  Such a storied career was far from guaranteed when Thad decided to 
give politics a try back in the early 1970s. I have always enjoyed the 
story about his very first run for Congress.
  Remember, Mississippi had only had one other Republican Congressman 
since Reconstruction. So when this young rising-star lawyer asked Rose 
how she might like being married to a Congressman, here was her 
response: ``I don't know, which one?''
  If Thad's presence here in Congress at one point seemed improbable, 
it quickly became difficult to imagine Capitol Hill without him. His 
fruitful career produced a huge number of legislative accomplishments 
and a sterling reputation as a thoughtful, measured, and effective 
leader. He chaired the Appropriations Committee, the Agriculture 
Committee, and the Republican conference. He was at once a powerful 
force within our ranks and a trusted friend and partner to many of our 
friends across the aisle as well.
  In just the past few days, the authors of eulogies and tributes have 
enjoyed noting all the ways that Thad seemed to embody a whole region 
and era, as though he had come right out of central casting. One 
obituary talked up the ``traditional catfish fries,'' ``homespun 
politics,'' and ``Southern charm.'' Another newspaper described his 
``Southern gentility'' as a ``courtly'' and ``understated style,'' 
seeming to suggest that approach was at odds with his impressive and 
powerful perch.
  It is true that over seven terms in this body, Chairman Cochran 
appeared on ``Meet the Press'' only twice. To say he did not crave a 
national spotlight would certainly be an understatement. He was just 
too busy racking up progress for the people of Mississippi and for the 
country--busy managing the appropriations process; busy finding new 
ways to elevate historically Black colleges and universities with 
scholarship opportunities, research grant funding, and new initiatives; 
busy working across the aisle on matters of national security, like the 
bipartisan Cochran-Inouye National Missile Defense Act; busy using his 
voice to champion the concerns of farmers and rural communities, 
clearing obstacles on commodity pricing and wetlands conservation.
  Thad was so confident in American agriculture that he used it as a 
tool for international development. Now overseas farm delegations learn 
U.S. techniques firsthand through the Cochran Fellowship Program.

  As much as the long list of achievements continued to grow, Thad 
Cochran's character and his values stayed steady. Thad may not have 
followed his schoolteacher parents into the education business, but he 
sure did take us all to school. His colleagues learned firsthand that a 
dogged work ethic and compassionate friendship are not incompatible 
here. His constituents learned that their ``quiet persuader'' kept his 
promises. And the Nation learned from a first-rate example of humility 
and grace in public service.
  So while we mourn that we no longer have our friend Thad in this 
life, we should also celebrate all of those lessons he taught us and 
celebrate the fact that they aren't going anywhere.
  On Thad's last day in the Senate, he left us with a remarkable 
farewell statement. In it, he noted that John Stennis, another long-
tenured Mississippian, had previously used Thad's desk and had signed 
it, per Senate custom. But while Senator Stennis had noted his start 
date in 1947, he never wrote down any end date on the other side of the 
dash. ``Perhaps there is symbolism there,'' Thad wrote in his farewell, 
``that our service does not end when we depart this Chamber.''
  Isn't that the truth? When it comes to Thad Cochran, his legacy and 
his example are part of this place for good. His impact continues. His 
service still inspires all of us.
  I want to close with a reference to one more part of Thad's farewell. 
Here are his very last words in the Congressional Record, the capstone 
to 45 years of statesmanship. This is what he said:

       I will now return to my beloved Mississippi and my family 
     and my friends there. I will miss this stately Chamber and 
     this city. I will not miss the power or politics. I will miss 
     people: you, my colleagues. . . . I trust, if your travels 
     bring you to Oxford, MS, you will not hesitate to visit and 
     join me for a refreshment on the porch. We can listen to the 
     mockingbirds together.

  That was our colleague--gracious, generous, always with his home 
State and his fellow Mississippians at the top of his mind and deep in 
his heart.
  Today, at the State capitol in Jackson, Mississippians gathered to 
return the favor. Thad Cochran is at the top of their minds. He is deep 
in their hearts, and, most importantly, our friend is on his way to a 
just reward in his Father's house.
  So the Senate today sends our condolences and our prayers to Thad's 
wife Kay; his two children, Clayton and Kate; his grandchildren; and 
many, many friends. We stand together in remembering our good friend.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                            Opioid Epidemic

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, during the last week, I spent some time 
traveling through Texas, meeting with constituents, and talking about 
some of the legislation we have been working on here in Washington and, 
perhaps most importantly, spent a little time listening to what was on 
their minds.
  One of the things we talked about was the fact that in 2017, more 
than 70,000 Americans died of drug overdoses. That is according to the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The opioid epidemic, which 
contributed mightily to that number, has affected every State, every 
city, and every community. My constituents, like all of our 
constituents, are in search of real solutions to try to support those 
leading the fight on the ground.
  I had the chance to spend a little bit of time in Tyler, TX, which is 
in East Texas, which we affectionately call ``behind the Pine 
Curtain.'' I learned from some of the folks in Tyler about how 
substance abuse has affected that area and what we can do better to 
serve the people who are impacted. I heard from pharmacists, healthcare 
providers, law enforcements officers, community leaders, and other 
experts about their efforts. We talked about the need for a holistic 
approach that focused on reducing supply and also reducing demand, 
helping those with substance abuse problems, and preventing drug abuse 
from occurring and spreading into the future.
  We talked about some of the legislation we have passed here in 
Congress to try to help equip them with the tools they would need in 
order to fight this fight--a bill we call the SUPPORT for Patients and 
Communities Act. This legislation provides critical tools to those 
communities in the fight against substance abuse. It reauthorizes 
programs to reduce demand for narcotics and provides tools for 
pharmacists, prescribers, and law enforcement so that

[[Page S3148]]

they can work together more seamlessly to combat opioid addiction. It 
also provides support for those recovering from substance abuse 
disorders by providing expanded treatment options and recovery 
services. It takes unprecedented steps to combat the opioid crisis, and 
it received overwhelming bipartisan support in both Chambers.

  Now, I don't blame people who may listen to this and say: Well, I 
never heard about that before. That is what happens when we pass 
overwhelmingly bipartisan legislation here in Congress. If there is not 
a big fight about it, if it is not on the cable news, if it is not on 
social media, then it happens without people paying much notice. Yet it 
is important work that happens every day here in Washington, DC--
Republicans and Democrats working together, trying to solve problems, 
trying to equip those on the frontlines with the tools they need in 
order to fight that fight.
  Folks in East Texas told me about how the new grants under the 
SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act may help to strengthen their 
efforts and help ease the pain of the opioid epidemic.
  Then I took a trip over to Lufkin High School in Lufkin, TX, which is 
also in East Texas, to meet with students, educators, and 
administrators to talk about the GEAR UP program. This is a competitive 
grant program that helps historically underrepresented students to 
achieve college and career readiness through academic, social, and 
planning support.
  For example, if you come from a family in which no one has previously 
gone to college, well, you may not really know what it is you need to 
do, starting even in the seventh grade, to begin to prepare--what 
courses you need to take, what prerequisites are going to be required 
for you to be considered by the college of your choice. If you decide 
to take a career path that doesn't involve a 4-year college--through 
one of our community colleges--and get a certificate so you can qualify 
for a good-paying job, let's say, as a certified welder, you need to 
prepare early.
  The folks in East Texas told me how these grants under the GEAR UP 
program help one to do exactly that. The GEAR UP program recognizes 
that college and career readiness begin early. That is why it is so 
important that the cohort that is first helped by these GEAR UP grants 
is of those in the seventh grade--pretty early. I don't remember having 
a plan in the seventh grade, to be sure. If I had had a plan, I am not 
sure exactly what it would have been. I came from a family in which 
going to college was expected. As a matter of fact, I never entertained 
any other idea. Yet we have to recognize that many young students don't 
have that sort of example in their own households and that they need 
some additional help in order to pursue their educations and prepare 
for good, well-paying jobs.
  The good thing about the GEAR UP program is that it doesn't use a 
blanket approach to support students because we know what works well in 
one State and in one region of the country may not work as well in 
another. Instead, the GEAR UP program gives local leaders the 
flexibility to cater to their students' needs.
  The best part about GEAR UP is that it is actually a government 
program that works. GEAR UP students graduate from high school at a 
higher rate than their peers, regardless of ethnicity or income, and 
they attend college at a higher rate.
  In Lufkin, 3,000 students have benefited from more than $10 million 
in Federal GEAR UP grants over the last two decades, and last week, I 
had the opportunity to hear what it meant to them personally. 
Statewide, Texas students have benefited from $885 million in GEAR UP 
grants over the last 20 years, and we have seen incredible results.
  I believe there are additional steps we can take to ensure that local 
leaders have the flexibility they need in order to tailor their 
programs appropriately, so earlier this year, I introduced the GEAR UP 
for Success Act, which will provide more flexibility to school 
districts on how they may use those funds so that local jurisdictions 
can better tailor these programs to their students' specific needs. It 
would reduce the local cost share significantly--by half--that is 
required to receive a GEAR UP grant, which means more students will 
benefit from these funds and these programs.
  I appreciate the folks in Tyler, in Lufkin, and in the many other 
cities I visited in Texas last week for taking the time to share with 
me their thoughts and ideas so that we can bring more Texas common 
sense to Washington, DC.


                            Border Security

  Mr. President, on another matter, we know that Central American 
migrants continue to make their way to our southern border in record 
numbers and that law enforcement, city officials, and nongovernmental 
organizations are struggling to manage this influx of humanity. We are 
seeing people arrive en masse, and it is not uncommon to see multiple 
groups, each with hundreds of people, arrive in a single day.
  My State has 1,200 miles of a common border with Mexico, and I 
believe that border security is one of the Federal Government's most 
important responsibilities. These are people who are showing up at our 
border and literally turning themselves in to the Border Patrol because 
they know that by exploiting gaps in our asylum laws, they are 
virtually guaranteed entry into the United States. As well, the human 
smugglers who get rich by smuggling this human cargo from Central 
America, across Mexico, and into the United States are making untold 
millions of dollars in this very profitable business.
  Last week, one of the large groups who came to El Paso broke a 
record. The Border Patrol encountered a group of more than 1,000 
illegal immigrants--more than double the previous record of 421 that 
was set last month. Only 39 of the people who were traveling in that 
group were single adults. The rest were either families or children who 
were traveling alone, and that was no mistake. The smugglers know that 
if they send unaccompanied children or families, they can exploit those 
vulnerabilities in our immigration and asylum laws and successfully 
place those individuals in the United States, only to be told to show 
up at later dates for court hearings that are maybe months or even 
years into the future. Surprise, surprise--most do not show up, and 
they successfully make their way into the United States without 
complying with our immigration laws. We simply don't have the 
facilities, the funding, or the resources to detain and properly care 
for many of these individuals, let alone these children and families.
  Regardless of where each individual Member of Congress stands on 
immigration generally, I hope everyone in this Chamber can agree that 
there is a problem and that it must be addressed urgently.
  In the short term, I hope appropriators can come to an agreement soon 
to provide desperately needed funding to those who are working to 
manage this humanitarian crisis in Texas and in other border States. 
Without the Federal Government's assistance, funding to support these 
migrants may soon dry up, and conditions in these facilities will 
rapidly deteriorate.
  Additional funding is a much needed bandaid to help manage this 
crisis right now, but we need to continue working on longer term 
solutions so that we can stop the flow of migrants without hurting our 
country economically or doing it in a way that is inconsistent with our 
values and our laws.
  Our country relies, for example, on a strong trading relationship 
with Mexico. Goods and services that were traded between our countries 
in 2018 totaled more than $670 billion. Much of the trade we have is 
between Texas and Mexico. Mexico is by far and away my State's top 
trading partner. In 2018, Texas exported nearly $110 billion in goods 
to Mexico. That is roughly four times the number of exports to our No. 
2 trading partner--Canada. We also imported more than $107 billion from 
our southern neighbor. That includes everything from motor vehicle 
parts, to computer equipment, to tractors, to avocados. It is not 
uncommon to see certain products, like automobiles, cross the border 
multiple times throughout the production process before they eventually 
make their way to consumers. It is a fact of life that businesses and 
jobs in our communities in Texas and literally around the country rely 
on a strong trading relationship between the United States and Mexico--
something I have always supported and for which I will continue to 
advocate.

[[Page S3149]]

  I appreciate President Trump's unwavering commitment to securing our 
southern border and enforcing our immigration laws, and I will continue 
to support his efforts to stop the flow of illegal immigration, to 
improve physical security, to close dangerous loopholes in the law, and 
to provide our frontline officers and agents the tools and resources 
they need to carry out their sworn mission.
  It is important to remember that with any actions that we take to 
secure our southern border, we must also keep in mind the important 
role that Mexico plays in the economy of the United States. My State 
enjoys a strong relationship economically with Mexico because of that 
1,200-mile common border and because of the sort of trading and 
commercial relationships I described a moment ago. Any decisions that 
would disrupt that relationship need to be closely examined and debated 
and be subject to a cost-benefit analysis.
  I believe there are solutions that can secure our border, that can 
fix this mass influx of humanity that is coming across as a result of 
the exploitation of our asylum laws, and that can also deliver a secure 
economy not just for Texas but for the entire United States. In Laredo, 
TX, 14,000 to 16,000 trucks a day cross the international border 
between Laredo, TX, and Nuevo Laredo, and that is an important part of 
the Texas and local economies. They understand the importance of that 
cross-border trade, and they are interested in working with us to try 
to make sure we deal with what is broken when it comes to our asylum 
laws.
  My friend and colleague Henry Cuellar, who is a Democrat from Laredo 
and represents that part of the State, has joined with me in a 
bipartisan, bicameral bill to fix what the Border Patrol and the 
Department of Homeland Security say needs fixing in our asylum laws 
because there is basically now a superhighway leading from Central 
America, through Mexico, into the United States, and we are seeing more 
and more people being drawn to the opportunities they have when they 
enter the United States and exploit those broken laws.
  My plea to all of our colleagues here on a bipartisan basis is this: 
We need to get serious about fixing these problems. I think the 
American people look at us and wonder why it is we have let partisan 
politics overcome our willingness to do the things we said we would do 
when we ran for office to benefit the American people. This is one of 
those issues that require a congressional solution. Nobody else can fix 
it. We need to get serious about finding solutions and getting this 
fixed as soon as we possibly can.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ernst). The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Budget Proposal

  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I rise today to let the American people 
know that there are some of us left in Washington--some of your 
representatives--who actually do care about the mounting debt.
  We now have over $22 trillion worth of debt, and you ask yourself: 
Whose fault is this? How did it get so out of control? How did we 
accumulate so much debt that we are accumulating debt at $1.5 million 
every minute?
  Under George W. Bush, the debt went from about $5 trillion to $10 
trillion. Under President Obama, it went from $10 trillion to $20 
trillion. Under President Trump, it will go from $20 trillion to about 
$30 trillion.
  So the debt is out of control, and you ask yourself: Why is no one 
doing anything about it? Whose fault is it?
  Well, really, I think you can see that it is a bipartisan problem. 
Both parties are at fault. We have a debt now that exceeds $22 
trillion. If you have ever seen usdebtclock.org, you can see the 
numbers spinning out of control.
  Now, how would that apply to an individual? Each individual American 
in the country owes about $70,000 of that debt. Some people say: Well, 
it is so enormous; do deficits really matter?
  In fact, I think it was one of the changes, when Republicans way back 
said that deficits don't matter. Well, it actually does matter. It 
matters to your budget each year because what happens is that as 
interest grows, it crowds out everything else.
  In fact, interest right now is the fourth leading item in the budget, 
only behind Medicare and Social Security and defense. But if you look 
at interest on the debt, what is going to happen over the next decade 
or so is that interest is in the red, and you can see interest is 
climbing and will exceed, over time, both defense and also Social 
Security. So it is a real problem. As interest on the debt rises, it 
sort of crowds out all other spending.
  So what are people doing about it? What are your Senators doing about 
it, and what are your Congressmen doing about it? Nothing. Absolutely 
nothing.
  The Democrats control the House. Will they have a budget this year? 
So far, goose egg, no budget.
  How about the Republicans in the Senate? Do they have a budget? Well, 
they did pass one out, but there is no plan of ever voting on it on the 
floor.
  So what we will get to vote on today is my budget. My budget is 
called the Penny Plan Budget. What my budget does is that it cuts one 
penny out of every dollar.
  (Mr. BOOZMAN assumed the Chair.)
  It is interesting because as I see people come to Washington--and 
almost everybody who comes to Washington wants money--and I tell them: 
First of all, I have to tell you, we have no money. We are $1 trillion 
short this year.
  People have such good causes. They say: Well, we want money for this 
disease or that disease.
  I say: Well, wait a minute. What if we said that we will give you 99 
percent of what you had last year? We will give you one penny less. So 
if your charity or disease or the thing you are concerned about got 
$100 million, next year you get $99 million.
  Here is what is interesting. Most of these people are advocates for 
Federal money. They often advocate for the State government looking for 
more Federal money. I have yet to meet a person, liberal, conservative 
or independent, who doesn't say: Hmm, I get 99 percent of what I got 
last year, and everybody would get the same? We would spend 99 percent 
of what we spent last year, and it would be spread across every sector, 
every sector that the right or left wants? I say: Yes. We spend 99 
percent, and if you do, guess what, the budget balances in 5 years--or 
at least it did until recently.
  I have been proposing the penny budget for the last 6 or 7 years, and 
up until now it actually balanced in 5 years if you cut one penny out 
of every dollar, but guess what. The longer you wait, the more interest 
there is, the more of a burden of debt there is, and the harder it is 
to actually fix the problem. So this year, for the first time, we have 
to call it a two-penny plan. It still balances in 5 years, but we spend 
only 98 percent of what we spent the previous year.
  What would happen? You will still have 98 percent of your government. 
Is there anybody in America who does not believe there is 2 percent 
waste? I think, if you did a survey of the American people, they would 
probably be more accurate than up here. There has to be 10-percent 
waste in these programs. We find it all the time.
  I will give you two quick examples. We are spending $50 billion a 
year in Afghanistan, and even for those who advocate staying in 
Afghanistan for another decade or more--which I don't--we are spending 
money on wasteful things. We spent $90 million on a luxury hotel across 
from our Embassy. It was never completed. It is a shell of a building, 
and the Taliban can crawl into this building and shoot down into our 
Embassy. Now our soldiers have to risk life and limb to patrol an empty 
hotel that somebody ripped us off on for 90 million bucks and fled the 
country.
  We built a $45 million gas station in Afghanistan. It was supposed to 
cost a half million, but 83 cost overruns later, it cost $45 million. 
Guess what kind of gas is pumped at this gas station, if you could ever 
get there to see if it exists--natural gas because somebody decided 
that the defense industry should be reducing the carbon footprint of 
the

[[Page S3150]]

world, and we weren't supposed to be killing our enemies so much as 
reducing the carbon footprint of the world. So we built a natural gas 
station in Afghanistan.
  The problem? They don't have any cars. The average income in 
Afghanistan is about $800 a year, and there are very few people who 
have cars, and of the ones who do have cars, none of them run on 
natural gas.
  The examples go on and on.
  We spent $2 million studying whether, when someone sneezes on the 
food in front of you at the cafeteria, you are more or less likely to 
eat the food. It took them $2 million to figure that one out.
  This is throughout government. There is, at the least, 1 to 2 percent 
waste. There is probably 10 percent waste and just throwing the money--
it would almost be better just to burn the money.
  What do we do? Who is saying anything about it? The media says no one 
is, and this is fake news--it is a lie--because when the tax cuts came 
around, I insisted the tax cuts be paid for. How many people voted with 
me? Eight Senators, all Republicans, not one Democrat.
  So you ask yourself what are the Democrats for? Are the Democrats for 
balancing the budget? No, they don't care at all about the deficit.
  Do Republicans care? Some do, most don't. So we are going to have a 
vote on my budget which cuts two pennies out of every dollar, balances 
the budget within 5 years, and then actually lets the budget grow at 2 
percent a year for the remaining 5 years, and we would be a much 
stronger nation.
  If we were to actually balance the budget and then let the country 
move forward and grow, once again, we would have the greatest 
confidence. The world would have great confidence in us again. If we 
don't do it, I think there is a real problem coming for us.
  There is going to be a day within the next 10 years that interest 
will actually exceed $1 trillion. Right now we are spending $400 
billion on interest. So it is a real problem. It is crowding out 
everything else, and it is becoming one of the largest items we have in 
the budget.
  Why can't we get there? What seems to be the problem?
  The first problem is math. They have us kind of--it is fuzzy. It is 
called Washington math. Washington math, if you read the Washington 
Post, they will say: Oh, no. It is not just cutting 1 percent; your 
budget is going to cut $10 trillion over the next 10 years.
  Here is what the difference is. If we don't spend any more money--
last year, we spent $4 trillion. If we keep spending $4 trillion over 
the next 4 years, would that be cutting any money or spending the same 
amount?
  Be careful what you answer. The Washington Post and the liberal media 
will tell you we have now cut $10 trillion if we keep spending the same 
amount over 10 years. Why? Because they are anticipating the curve of 
spending. The baseline of spending, this red line, is going up. 
Spending is going like this, but most people in their normal household 
income would say: I made $40,000 this year, and next year, if I make 
$45,000, that is an increase. The government would say: No, we 
anticipated your making $45,000 next year, so it is not an increase. 
They work it on a baseline that is elevated. So if we don't spend $10 
trillion more next year than we did this year, over the next 10 years, 
they will say we have actually cut spending. This is a real problem.
  For example, it is this dotted green line. We cut 2 percent a year 
over a 5-year period, and then we allow government to grow at 2 percent 
a year. People would say: Oh, well, it doesn't look like you are really 
cutting spending. That is the truth of the matter. Over a 10-year 
period, spending will increase 18 percent over where we are today, but 
the fake news media will report that we cut $10 trillion. This is not a 
rounding error. We say spending is going up 18 percent, and the fake 
news will say they cut $10 trillion in spending and orphans and widows 
and the older generation will be out on the doorstep, and there will be 
no more government. No. We are talking about a $4 trillion government 
that is still spending close to $4 trillion. What we will not let it do 
is go to $5 trillion over the next 10 years. This is eminently 
reasonable.

  I have talked to people from the right, the left, and the center, and 
said: Can you live with 99 or 98 percent of what you spent last year? I 
have yet to have a person say that for the good of the country, why 
don't we do that. What would happen is, it would be a compromise.
  Who drives the spending debate around here? Who drives that we need 
more spending? It is really both parties, but recently it has been 
Republicans. The Republicans say: We have to have more military 
spending. The Democrats say: We will give you more military spending if 
you give us more welfare spending. So all spending goes up. That is the 
compromise.
  People say we don't compromise. Hey, we are spending money, and these 
guys compromise every day, and it is at your expense. It is why the 
deficit is so big.
  What about a different compromise? What if the right and the left 
said military is important--the left said, social welfare is important, 
but you know what, for the good of the country, let's spend 99 percent 
of what we spent last year on these programs or 98 percent. It could be 
done, but it takes resolve, and the American people need to know that 
those who are in charge are not doing anything about this.
  Now, some will argue, and the fake news media has argued, well, it is 
all about the tax cut. Republicans don't care about the deficit because 
they cut taxes. Well, that is actually not true. We actually had more 
revenue last year than the preceding year, even though we did cut 
taxes. So we had $14 billion more in taxes but $127 billion more in 
spending.
  So the problem is a spending problem. Of all of our spending, which 
is about $4 trillion in spending or a little bit more, about two-thirds 
of that spending is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food 
stamps. We don't ever vote on any reforms to these programs. These are 
called the entitlements, and nobody has any bills. There are no bills 
coming forward to look at the entitlement spending.
  Why is this a problem? The remaining third of government spending is 
half military and half welfare. If you eliminated the military spending 
completely and eliminated welfare spending completely, entitlements 
still drive the deficit.
  So what do we have to do? We have to make some tough choices. I was 
very honest with the people who voted for me. I told them, look, we are 
living longer, and we have less kids, so the demographics of Social 
Security and Medicare don't work. The main reason Medicare and Social 
Security is short is because we have smaller families. Your great-
grandparents had a lot of kids, your grandparents had less kids, you 
had less kids, and your kids today are having less. So we have less and 
less young people and more and more old people. It is a demographic 
imbalance. That is why Social Security is short, and that is why 
Medicare is short, but you can fix them both easily.
  You have to gradually raise the age when we begin taking Medicare and 
Social Security. We already did it in Social Security. We did it under 
Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill. A conservative Republican and a liberal 
Democrat in 1983 came together and said: We are running out of money. 
What do we do? They actually did raise the age from 65 for Social 
Security very gradually to 67. I haven't heard one person debating it 
since. Everybody accepted it and said: Look, in order to keep these 
programs intact and not bankrupt the country, we have to do this.
  This is what Democrats and Republicans should do now: Come together 
and say Social Security is $7 trillion short. Medicare is $35 trillion 
to $40 trillion short. If you do nothing, they are both going to 
implode. If you want these programs and you want them to continue, you 
have to do something. Very gradually raising the age at which people 
start Medicare and Social Security has to be done. You can either do it 
now and do it very gradually, a month or two a year over a 20-year 
period, or you can wait until they are completely bankrupt.
  If you wait until Social Security is completely bankrupt in 2034, 
what happens is everybody has to take a 25-percent cut, but if you do 
it very gradually, you will never have to have these cuts. It just 
means that everybody will have to wait a little bit longer to get 
there.

[[Page S3151]]

  It is important that we do have budgets. We have this enormous debt 
of $22 trillion. We are adding $1 trillion dollars each year. Yet the 
Senate will not vote on a budget this year, other than my budget, and 
the House, controlled by Democrats, will not vote on a budget either. 
So you have both Houses really not tending to their duty.
  Now when we have a vote for the balanced budget amendment, everybody 
turns out in force and votes. In 2012, we had a vote in this body, and 
every Republican voted to balance the budget in 5 years--an amendment 
to the Constitution that would require 5 years. Yet the Republican 
budget that is coming out of committee never balances. So we kind of 
give lip service to this idea. When people are at home campaigning, 
they pound the table and say: We are going to stop the deficits. We are 
going to be the frugal party--and guess what. Neither party has been 
very good with your money.
  It is because they are afraid. They get elected, and they become 
afraid that they will be unelected if you tell them the truth.
  I think we live in a time where it is the opposite now. People want 
someone to tell the truth--the emperor has no clothes. Social Security 
spends more money than comes in. If we don't admit these truths and 
have a discussion about them and if we are so occupied yelling at each 
other over elections and who did what during the last election--have 
you heard any discussion on television, have you seen one television 
program talk about Social Security going bankrupt, $7 trillion short; 
Medicare going bankrupt, $35 to $40 trillion short?
  Have you heard any news program or have you seen anything on the 
news--right, left, or center--that actually talks about our problems? 
No, it is yack, yack, yack about election this and election that. 
People are still unhappy with the results of the election, when in 
reality maybe we should talk about some of the difficult problems that 
confront us.
  I think the No. 1 threat to our national security is our debt. I am 
not alone. Admiral Mullin, who was Chief of Staff under President 
Obama, said the same thing. There are people in the military who 
understand that maybe our military mission is so big that our military 
can't keep up with it. If we are going to have troops in 50 of 54 
African countries, if we are going to have troops in every Middle 
Eastern country, and if we are going to have large bases in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, yes, maybe we don't have enough money.
  Our Founding Fathers said you only go to war when Congress votes on 
it. Recently, there has been a rattling of sabers over Iran. We are 
tightening the screws on Iran and not letting them sell oil to anyone. 
They are getting their back up and tensions are flaring. Well, the 
Constitution says very clearly that you don't go to war with anybody--
including Iran--unless you ask Congress for permission.
  The President does not have permission to take us to war. Many people 
don't realize this. The Founding Fathers specifically didn't want to 
give that power. In fact, it was Madison who said that the executive is 
the branch most prone to war; therefore, we have, with studied care, 
vested the power to go to war in Congress. Yet we live in a time in 
which Presidents of both parties take us to war. President Obama began 
and continued the war in Syria, in Libya. President Trump has continued 
those things on both sides of the aisle. But it is not just whether it 
is good or bad foreign policy; it is extraordinarily expensive. We are 
bankrupting the American people. We are borrowing money at a million 
and a half dollars every minute. Really, this is sort of a crummy gift 
to the next generation. It is like: Oh, by the way, you are lucky. You 
are going to be inheriting the national debt, and you will be paying 
for it.

  Kids already realize they are inheriting this college debt. It is 
difficult to pay college debt. As you look at this and you look at the 
individual share, here is 2015--about $58,000 per person with the debt. 
But look at what it is doing over time. It is pyramiding. The debt is 
beginning to explode because we are just doing nothing to rein it in.
  Whenever we have a vote on trying to do something about the debt, as 
we did when we passed the tax cut--I introduced a budget motion that 
said the tax cut should be paid for with spending cuts. We got eight 
Republicans. I introduced another motion that said we should use budget 
reconciliation--fancy words for a majority vote--to actually rein in 
the spending and entitlements. I got four votes.
  There aren't enough people up here. The people up here don't seem to 
care about the debt. They just think, oh, we will just pile it on, and 
we will be fine. But we are hollowing out the country. When people talk 
about hollowing out the country, the one thing is the debt.
  We superficially are doing quite well at this point, but there will 
be a day of reckoning. There will be a day of reckoning on which the 
government will have to make a decision, and the decision becomes to 
print more money to pay for the debt, at which time the country loses 
the value of its currency.
  It is happening in Venezuela. Do you know what the inflation is down 
there? It is 130,000 percent. The money is worthless as soon as they 
print it. You have to be paid a couple times during the day because if 
you start working at 8:00 in the morning, by 5:00 in the evening, the 
money is worth less and less. It virtually has no value.
  We have to decide. Do you want something for nothing? Do you really 
believe we can give you free college? Do you think it is really free? 
Do you think nobody is going to have to pay for it? Do you think we can 
give you free healthcare? Do you think we can give you a free car or a 
free cell phone? No. Somebody pays for it. If we don't pay for it 
through taxes, we just pile on the debt, and we are destroying the 
country with it. Most people sort of know this instinctively. There is 
no ability to have something for nothing. You have to work for it.
  The thing is, if we go on and on and say we are just going to keep 
piling on the debt, the day of reckoning is coming, and when it comes, 
a once great country could be dragged down by this mountain of debt 
that we have.
  Today my budget will be put forward. It is the Penny Plan budget. The 
Penny Plan budget is now basically the two-penny budget because it no 
longer balances in 5 years if we cut one penny. But if we cut two 
pennies, meaning that next year, we would spend 98 percent of what we 
spent this year--is there anybody in America who thinks the government 
and the people who receive stuff from the government couldn't live on 
98 percent?
  When I ask people in my office who actually work in the private 
sector, they say yes. Many times in their career, there was a downturn 
in sales, and they had to take less money or less income--some people 
said significantly less--or they had to cut back on their family 
expenses. Do you know what government does? The opposite. If we go into 
a recession, there is this leftwing, egg-headed idea that we should 
spend more money, that we should go further into debt and start 
lavishing out money instead of--when you are not selling things and 
things aren't doing as well, you cut back on your consumption. You cut 
back on things.
  We have a great country. We shouldn't let it get away from us. I 
don't think there is any way in the world we could not move on and 
become a stronger nation if we would try the Penny Plan. Like I said, 
people should pay attention to this because all these representatives--
at least on the Republican side--go home and say they are for balanced 
budgets, but they are not really for balanced budgets if they vote for 
budgets that never balance.
  The budget by Republicans coming out of the Senate committee never 
balances. The budget from the Democrats hasn't even made it out of 
committee. There probably will be no vote in the House or the Senate on 
the budget. Neither one of them ever balances. It is in the Republican 
rules that we are supposed to advocate for a budget that balances in at 
least 10 years. Now we are putting forward budgets that never balance.
  Look at what the deficit has done. The red is what has already 
occurred, and the pink is what is to come. Most of this is driven by 
entitlements. You will hear that as an argument. Particularly in the 
Republican caucus, they will say: Yeah, it is all driven by 
entitlements. We need to do something about entitlements.
  Then you put forward a bill. I have a bill. I have a bill to reform 
Social Security by gradually letting the age go

[[Page S3152]]

up a month or two a year over the next 20 years. I also would means 
test the benefits, meaning that wealthier people would receive a little 
bit less Social Security. People would say: Well, I don't want to do 
that. If you don't, the whole system is going to implode. So can't we 
go ahead and just do it now and do it in the least painful sort of way?
  Do you know how many people I have on my bill? I think there are four 
people brave enough to put their names on a bill that would gradually 
allow the Social Security age to go up. But if you talk to people 
quietly, even on the other side of the aisle, they will admit to you 
that, yeah, we ought to do something, but nobody ever does anything. 
The other side says: We will do it only if you raise taxes on the 
wealthy. We already have a progressive Tax Code.
  Interestingly--a lot of people don't know this--our Tax Code in 
America is more progressive than Scandinavia's. You have heard some of 
the clamor for socialism. They want Swedish socialism. Well, we have 
higher taxes on the wealthy than they do in Sweden. In fact, in Sweden, 
in Denmark, it is the opposite, actually--the middle class and the poor 
are more heavily taxed than in our country.
  When you look and you hear people say ``Well, Sweden and Denmark--why 
don't we become Denmark? Let's give everybody paid leave, free paid 
leave. Let's give the uncle of the baby free paid leave. Let's give 
everybody--the grandparents need paid leave. It is all going to be 
free,'' well, guess what, they do stuff like that in Scandinavia, but 
everybody pays a 25-percent sales tax. It is not free. Everybody pays a 
25-percent sales tax in Scandinavia.
  In addition, the income tax in Denmark--and many of the other 
countries are similar--is 60 percent at $60,000. Do you want to buy a 
car in Scandinavia? Do you wonder why these people are freezing, riding 
their bike all winter long? There is a 200-percent tax to buy a car. If 
you want to buy a $30,000 car, you have to have $60,000 up front to pay 
the government, and then you need another $30,000 to buy the car.

  It is not free. There is no free lunch. When people say that 
government can provide you all these things, they can only do it by 
either taxing you or borrowing. Right now, we are doing it mostly 
through borrowing.
  The reason I think it is probably destined to get worse over time is 
we have gradually taken people off the tax rolls. Really, below 
$50,000, there is a very minimal amount of income tax being paid. In 
fact, those who are in the top 10 percent pay almost all of the income 
tax in our country. People say: We need to stick it to the rich; the 
rich aren't paying their fair share. Guess what. The top 10 percent pay 
87 percent of the income tax. Almost all of the income tax is paid by 
the top 10 percent. If you go to the top 50 percent--that is $75,000 
and above--it is well over 90 percent. Ninety-six or ninety-seven 
percent of the income tax is paid for by people who make $75,000 and 
above.
  There is a young socialist on the other side who says: We need a 
special tax on the rich, on those who make $10 million a year. You have 
heard this. Even Republicans are saying: Well, yeah, let's stick it to 
the rich. Let's get those filthy rich people.
  Let's say you do it, put a 70-percent tax on those who make $10 
million. Well, let's do the math. What does it bring in? Let's say they 
all continue to work, and let's say they all pay their taxes and don't 
move to another country. That will bring in $50 billion. That sounds 
like a lot of money. How much would Medicare for All cost? Sixty 
trillion dollars. All right. The tax brings in $50 billion. The 
spending proposal for just Medicare for All is $60 trillion. For the 
Green New Deal, add another $10 trillion. Their spending proposals are 
so big--no one can even define them within a few trillion dollars 
because they are so enormous.
  Realize what I said before: The deficit is driven by what you already 
have. You have Medicare for senior citizens. It is $35 trillion short. 
If you were $35 trillion short, does it make sense to now expand 
Medicare to everyone? So what we have is Medicare for Some, Medicare 
for senior citizens. It is $35 trillion short, and they want to expand 
it to everybody.
  Also, realize they want to ban insurance. There will be no insurance 
companies and no insurance through your employer. Right now, there are 
180 million people who have health insurance. Do you think it is going 
to be a very pleasant transition to having everybody on the government 
insurance? Where is the money going to come from?
  These proposals are ludicrous on their face. We face mounting debt 
and deficits from what we have. This should be a no-brainer. These 
people should be laughed out of polite society. No one who is 
intellectually honest should listen to these people. There is really no 
reason for them to be in the discourse because they are so completely 
out of touch with reality. We have so much debt from what we are 
already trying to give you through Medicare and Social Security. These 
people want to double, triple, and quadruple that. It doesn't work. It 
is a recipe for disaster.
  As you look around the world, as people get more and more in debt and 
there is more and more spending, look what happens. Look what happens 
as we approach socialism around the world. If you look at the examples 
of socialism from the last century, it is a history of famine and 
genocide--Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez, Maduro. It 
doesn't work.
  We actually live in the best time ever to be alive in the history of 
the world. Does that sound excessive? It is absolutely true. In 1800, 
80 percent of people lived in extreme poverty. When I was born in the 
1960s, it was down to a third of the people who lived in extreme 
poverty, $2 a day or less. It went from 80 percent to a third. In the 
span of my lifetime, it is under 10 percent. I am not talking about 
America; I am talking about the whole world. Less than 10 percent of 
the people live in extreme poverty now. You have to ask yourself why. 
How did we get here? Was it just an accident? Was it a fluke? Were we 
born with oil under the ground, and all of a sudden we got rich?
  For some nations, sometimes that could be true. Look at Venezuela. 
They have more oil under the ground, more oil deposits than any other 
country in the world, and socialism took the richest country in the 
world and made it the poorest country in the world. They are eating 
their pets in Venezuela. They are starving. The average person has lost 
20 pounds. What does that have to do with the budget? They got 
overextended. Their deficit became massive even in the face of oil 
revenue.
  People say America is a rich country. Yes, we are a rich country, but 
we are overextended. I don't want our country to be Venezuela. When the 
President said America will not become a socialist nation, I took that 
at face value. If we don't want to be a socialist nation, we can't keep 
piling on the debt.
  What I have today is a proposal. We will see if anybody chooses it. 
My prediction is that not one Democrat will vote to balance the budget. 
They vote to hike all your taxes a million percent, which would kill 
the economy, and they would say: Oh, that is how we balance the budget. 
But they will not vote to cut any spending. They will not vote to even 
control spending.
  My budget over 10 years actually slowly increases spending over time. 
We keep it steady, and we cut it 1 or 2 percent for 5 years, and then 
we allow it to grow at 2 percent. We could do that and be a stronger 
country, but we have to examine the failures in history. We have to 
examine what has happened under socialism, Big Government, and debt in 
other countries and decide whether we want to go that way, decide 
whether we are going to simplistically say: Gimmee, gimmee, gimmee. I 
want something for nothing, and there is no reason I should have to 
work for it. It is just not fair unless you give it to me.
  Realize there will be a price. There is no such thing as a free 
lunch. There is no such thing as something for nothing.
  I offer this budget to the American people, and I hope you will watch 
all your representatives vote. Not one Democrat will vote for it, but 
over half the Republicans won't vote for it either. They will say: It 
is too dramatic. We can't cut spending that much.
  One penny out of a dollar is what I have been proposing for 5 years. 
I usually get 15 to 20 votes. Now we have had to go up to two pennies 
for every dollar because nobody is really doing anything to cut 
spending, and spending is still exploding. So this is called the

[[Page S3153]]

Two Penny Plan budget now. It would be 98 percent of last year. We 
would spend 98 percent next year of what we spent this year. I think 
the American people would support it.
  I hope the American people will pay attention today to how people 
vote. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Penny Plan budget.


                             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 the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 78, S. 1332, a bill to set forth the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 2020 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary 
     levels for fiscal years 2021 through 2029.
         Mitch McConnell, John Thune, Johnny Isakson, Jerry Moran, 
           Mike Crapo, Roger F. Wicker, Steve Daines, Roy Blunt, 
           Richard C. Shelby, Richard Burr, Mike Lee, James 
           Lankford, John Cornyn, James E. Risch, David Perdue, 
           Rick Scott, Rand Paul.

  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 the 
motion to proceed to S. 1332, a bill to set forth the congressional 
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2020 and 
setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2021 
through 2029, 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 Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. 
Capito), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from West Virginia 
(Mrs. Capito) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 
the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 22, nays 69, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 130 Leg.]

                                YEAS--22

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Braun
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Paul
     Risch
     Romney
     Sasse
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Tillis
     Toomey

                                NAYS--69

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McConnell
     McSally
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Roberts
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Alexander
     Booker
     Capito
     Harris
     Hyde-Smith
     Moran
     Perdue
     Sanders
     Warren
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 22, the nays are 
69.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.

                          ____________________