[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.
____________________