[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 131 (Thursday, August 1, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5281-S5289]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     BIPARTISAN BUDGET ACT OF 2019

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3877, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3877) to amend the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, to establish a 
     congressional budget for fiscal years 2020 and 2021, to 
     temporarily suspend the debt limit, and for other purposes.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  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 Calendar No. 
     165, H.R. 3877, a bill to amend the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, to establish a 
     congressional budget for fiscal years 2020 and 2021, to 
     temporarily suspend the debt limit, and for other purposes.
         Lamar Alexander, Thom Tillis, Martha McSally, John 
           Cornyn, Pat Roberts, Mike Rounds, Susan M. Collins, Tom 
           Cotton, Roy Blunt, Roger F. Wicker, Bill Cassidy, John 
           Thune, Richard Burr, John Barrasso, Rob Portman, Lisa 
           Murkowski, Mitch McConnell.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call 
be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                           Election Security

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, later today, the Senate will move to 
consider the measure on the floor, probably pass it, and then leave 
town. There will be efforts to describe what we have done as a reason 
for satisfaction and pride. There have been accomplishments, but on one 
critical issue--really a range of issues--involving our national 
security, we have only abject failure to show for the months we have 
been here.
  I am proud to come to the floor of the Senate today to advocate for 
that cause--election security--with colleagues like Senator Amy 
Klobuchar of Minnesota and Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, who have 
been tireless champions, articulate, and eloquent advocates for this 
cause.
  Election security is national security. The testimony from Robert 
Mueller, whatever you think about his verdict on the President, clearly 
called for action.
  Robert Mueller is a modern-day Paul Revere, sounding the alarm about 
the Russians and many other nations--as he put it--who are mounting a 
renewed attack on this country.
  In the next election, this attack will make 2016 look like child's 
play, a dress rehearsal, because the tools and techniques they will 
bring to bear in attacking our democracy are so much more 
sophisticated. Already, in 2016, Robert Mueller called that attack 
sweeping and systematic. It was the reason he first spoke about it in 
his statement and in May closed that statement with a severe and dire 
warning about the ongoing interference in our democracy.
  Those many other nations already include Iran, which just last week 
the Washington Post reported to be mounting its own disinformation 
campaign using social media and misinformation--disinformation--to 
distract, divide, and sow discord here and in other democracies around 
the world.
  There is nothing unknown to many of us about the Russians' intent and 
the designs of these other nations. It is hiding in plain sight.

  From all of the classified briefings that we have received over these 
months, the Russians know what they are doing, we know what the 
Russians are doing, and we know what we are failing to do. The ones in 
the dark are the American people, and that is why Senator Klobuchar, 
Senator Warner, and I are on the floor today--to make sure that when we 
leave today, it is not the end of this topic. It is the beginning of a 
drumbeat, a cry of outrage, and unhappiness around the Nation.
  There are a number of measures that we have championed that involve 
more funding for the States to do election security, paper ballots by 
the States to provide backups, auditing standards, and cyber security 
criteria. These measures are a matter of common sense. That word 
``common sense'' is overused these days, especially in a city where it 
is on display so infrequently, but common sense is the reason we are 
here.
  I want to talk specifically about the Duty to Report Act. It is based 
on a very simple idea: If you see something, say something. The Duty to 
Report Act would require all campaigns, all candidates, and family 
members to immediately report to the FBI and the Federal Election 
Commission any offers of foreign assistance. It would codify in the law 
what is already a matter of moral duty, patriotic duty, and common 
sense. It is already illegal to accept foreign assistance during a 
campaign. It is already illegal to solicit foreign assistance during a 
campaign. All this bill would do is require individuals and campaigns 
and family members to report those illegal foreign assistance efforts 
to the FBI.
  When Robert Mueller came before Congress, he outlined the most 
serious attack on our democracy by a foreign power in our history. It 
includes 140 contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian agents--
Russian covert and overt efforts to influence the outcome of our 
election by helping one candidate and hurting another. But the Russians 
and those many other nations that will engage in similar attacks on our 
democracy have no particular partisan preference. They are doing what 
is in their interest to disrupt our democracy, and the victim in one 
election may be the one preferred in the next. So we have a common 
cause here.
  Indeed, Robert Mueller testified:

       Over the course of my career, I've seen a number of 
     challenges to our democracy. The Russian government's efforts 
     to interfere in our election is among the most serious.

  This deserves the attention of every American. We have an obligation, 
above all, as Members of this body, where there has been so much 
history of bipartisan action, to come together in this cause.
  Christopher Wray, the Director of the FBI, recently came before the 
Senate Judiciary Committee, and he warned that the Russians are still 
actively trying to interfere in our elections. Again and again, our 
intelligence community has warned severely, repeatedly, powerfully 
about this threat.
  Yet when asked whether he would accept foreign help in 2020, the 
President of the United States said: ``I'd take it.'' It is much like 
his son Donald Junior said during this last campaign in response to an 
offer of assistance from the Russians: ``I love it.''
  When Robert Mueller was asked about this point during his testimony, 
he said: ``I hope this is not the new normal. But I fear it is.''
  That is the reason we need this measure. That is the reason we need 
the measures that my colleagues, Senator Klobuchar of Minnesota and 
Senator Warner of Virginia, have helped to lead, and that is why I have 
been proud to join them in this effort.
  To my Republican colleagues in the leadership, I say: Lead or get out 
of the way. To the President of the United States: Lead or get out of 
the way. Our national security is too important to make a partisan 
issue. We ought to join together, as we did after 9/11, to prevent more 
disaster and to join in this common cause.
  This legislation is a matter of moral duty, patriotic duty, and 
common sense. With the 2020 election literally on the horizon before 
us, we must act now. Time is not on our side. It is only on our 
adversary's side.
  As much as we take pride in the National Defense Authorization Act, 
the threat to our national security is not only from the planes and the 
submarines and the aircraft carriers. It is also from the cyber attacks 
and the social media campaigns to disrupt and destroy our democracy.
  I am proud to be joined today by a great colleague who has been a 
wonderful champion on this issue, Senator Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hyde-Smith). The Senator from Minnesota.

[[Page S5282]]

  

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I first thank my colleague from 
Connecticut, Senator Blumenthal, for his incredible work and leadership 
on this important bill, the Duty to Report Act, as well as for all of 
the other work that he has done.
  He gets it. He gets that we are about to adjourn this day without 
passing election security legislation. We had bipartisan election 
security legislation. We have had that for years. Yet it has been 
stopped in every step of the way.
  Russia invaded our democracy. Let's be clear about that. I don't like 
it when we use the word ``meddle'' because that is what I do when I 
call my daughter on a Saturday night to ask her what she is doing. This 
foreign country didn't just meddle in our election. They invaded it. 
They didn't use missiles or tanks. They used a new kind of modern 
warfare, which is cyber warfare, and they did it to invade our 
democracy.
  Think about this. Our Founders literally set up a country and a 
Constitution because they wanted to be independent of a foreign 
country. In this case, it was England. Hundreds of thousands of 
Americans have lost their lives on the battlefield fighting for our 
democracy and democracies across the world. That is what World War I 
and World War II were about. They were fighting for democracies across 
the world and fighting for the simple right that people should be able 
to determine their own destiny and vote.

  Yet, in 2016, we know for a fact--we know it from President Trump's 
own intelligence advisers. Dan Coats, who was once a Senator in this 
very Chamber and who is someone we are going to miss, is leaving his 
position. Dan Coats made it clear. He said they are getting bolder. So 
this is something right in front of us right now, and we must respond 
to it.
  Yet we haven't passed a bill to address it. Yes, Senator Lankford and 
I, along with Senators Leahy, Coons, Shelby, and others have worked to 
get some money, over $200 million, into the States, which is important. 
We got that done, but it doesn't really end there because, actually, 
there were no strings attached to that in terms of what we want to have 
done in this country, and I will get to that in a minute.
  So let's first go back over the facts, because some people in this 
Chamber seem to have trouble with facts. Let's go over those. Special 
Counsel Mueller, under oath, just last week and in his report, 
concluded that Russian interference in our democracy was sweeping and 
systematic. Those were his words and not my words. We know that they 
are actively working again to undermine our democracy. In his words, 
when he was testifying under oath, ``they're doing it as we sit here.'' 
That is what he said under oath.
  The day before Special Counsel Mueller testified in the House, the 
FBI Director testified in front of the committee that I am on, the 
Senate Judiciary Committee. I was there and asked him questions. I 
asked him whether he thinks having things like paper ballots makes 
sense in the event that the Russian hacking happens again. He said: 
Yes, they would be a good thing. This is the FBI Director for the 
United States of America who was appointed by Donald Trump. Again, he 
was under oath.
  We have multiple pieces of legislation that would require backup 
paper ballots. There are different versions, but they all really do the 
same thing. Some of them have different kinds of audits, but the one 
thing they have in common is the paper ballots.
  I am leading one of these bills with Senator Warner and a number of 
my colleagues. One of them is a bill we have with Senator Wyden that is 
important, and then there is the work that Senator Lankford and I have 
done across the aisle, which is a bipartisan bill, which we continue to 
work on today.
  But what has happened? What do all of these bills have in common? 
They have been blocked by the leadership on the Republican side and 
opposed by the White House. That is right. They weren't vetoed because 
they never got to the White House but because the White House made the 
move of stopping them in their tracks before they could get to the 
White House. I know because I am the ranking member of the Senate Rules 
Committee, and our jurisdiction is elections. Our job was to get that 
bill through the committee to the Senate floor. It was actually 
scheduled for a markup, which means you get the bill all done, and you 
send it to the Senate floor, where I predict it would have gotten at 
least three-fourths of the Members working and voting for that 
bipartisan bill.
  What happened? The White House made calls. They made calls. The White 
House counsel actually called Senators on the committee and said that 
they didn't want it to advance. That is what we call ``smoking gun'' 
evidence. That happened. That happened. We know why this bill was 
blocked. In addition to that, Republican leadership, including the 
leader, made very clear that they did not want that bill to advance in 
the Senate.
  Our top intelligence officials and law enforcement officers are 
sounding the alarm about the fact that our elections are a target. Look 
at what they have done. They have blocked this, despite the best advice 
from the intelligence officials in the United States of America.
  And it doesn't stop there. It doesn't stop there. As to other bills 
that they will not allow to advance, one of them involves social media. 
You all know what it is like, when you have your Facebook page or your 
Twitter feed or you are searching something on Google, something comes 
up, and an ad pops up. Sometimes it is scarily related to something you 
were searching for, but, yes, ads pop up.
  Well, you know what other kinds of ads pop up? Political ads pop up. 
Those ads are paid for by some kind of political entity. I see my 
friend Senator Warner is here on this floor. He is an expert on this, 
as the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.
  As to the fact that actually some of these ads in 2016 were paid for 
in rubles, this is illegal. A foreign country cannot pay for ads on the 
internet, but they were doing that because there are no checks and 
balances.
  So what kind of ads are on there? Well, what would you do if you were 
on a campaign or an issue group and you want to put a bunch of dirty 
ads out there? Would you do it on TV? No, you wouldn't do it on TV. If 
you are a foreign country, would you do that? No, because there are 
rules in place for TV and newspaper and radio that they have to check 
those ads out, and they have to keep them so people can see them, and 
they have to show who has paid for them. There are no rules like that 
on social media.
  That is why I have formally introduced, with my friend Senator McCain 
and now with Senator Graham and Senator Warner, the Honest Ads Act, 
which simply puts those rules in place. Literally, if we pass that bill 
right now, today, before we left for the recess, well, they can get 
this done in the large platforms. Some of them are voluntarily doing 
it, but it is a mishmash, and some of them aren't doing it at all. We 
cannot go into this next election when last time over a billion was 
spent on them and next time it is $3 billion to $4 billion without any 
rules of the road.
  I go back to the same argument I made. Hundreds of thousands of 
people risked their lives and died on battlefields to protect that 
right to vote and to not be influenced by foreign countries. Why aren't 
we doing things to protect that democracy now in this modern age?
  Four little girls in a church in Birmingham lost their lives at the 
height of the civil rights movement. Why? Because people were trying to 
take away people's rights and because they didn't want them in on this 
democracy. That is the American history. And yes, these things we are 
talking about sound newfangled--cyber attacks and ads on social media--
but it is actually the same version of what our Founders fought for in 
the very beginning, and that is why we are making such a big deal out 
of protecting our democracy.

  Everyone remembers the 2000 election. We saw the hanging chads 
displayed on TVs across the country. That experience taught us that our 
election systems were outdated. What did Congress do back then? We 
passed the Help America Vote Act, landmark legislation that provided 
more than $3 billion to the States, helping them to update their 
election structure. That was 17 years ago, before the iPhone existed, 
and the Federal Government has not made a big investment to update our 
voting technology since.

[[Page S5283]]

  The Russians knew that when they attacked us in 2016. Well, we can't 
do it this way. We are not going to be able to use battleships. What 
way would work today? What is their big vulnerability? Let's go for the 
soft spot where they haven't been putting the money in to protect 
themselves.
  They conducted sophisticated influence operations, hacked political 
committees and campaigns, revealed the emails of the chairman of the 
Democratic candidate, targeted election administrators and even private 
technology firms responsible for manufacturing and administering 
election systems. In Illinois, the names, addresses, birth dates, and 
partial Social Security numbers of thousands of registered voters were 
exposed.
  Just recently, we learned that the election systems in two Florida 
counties were hacked by the Russians. The Department of Homeland 
Security is conducting forensic analysis on computers used in North 
Carolina after it was revealed in the Mueller report that a voting 
software company was hacked by Russia.
  So we have a common set of facts about what has happened. What we 
need to do now is to address these facts with purpose. There must be an 
outcry about this from the American people. This must be done now, not 
after 2020. It has to be done now. We have a long way to go to make 
sure our election systems are resilient against attacks.
  Here are some more facts to consider. Forty States rely on electronic 
voting systems that are at least 10 years old. Eleven States have 
either no or partial backup paper ballots. Sixteen States have no 
statewide audit requirement.
  These are alarming statistics. I am not stating anything secret; the 
Russians know this today. That is why I have worked with my Democratic 
colleagues in the House and Senate on legislation that would provide 
critical election security funding in the coming years, and mostly it 
would be tied to a requirement that they have backup paper ballots. 
Otherwise, what are we going to do if we don't have those backup paper 
ballots if there is a hack? It doesn't even matter if three counties in 
a swing State were hacked if we can't figure out the results. If it 
were just their State elections, that would be embarrassing or 
pathetic, but it is going to be a national Presidential election, and 
we cannot risk having counties or States hacked into because then we 
would have chaos and not know the results.
  Last week, my bill was offered by Senator Schumer on the floor. It 
could have gone to the President's desk that day. Instead, Leader 
McConnell objected. During his objection, he said that election 
legislation must be drafted with ``great care'' and on a bipartisan 
basis. We did that.
  Senator Warner is here. He worked on it. We did that with Senator 
Lankford, but we were blocked at the Rules Committee. We were blocked. 
That is a documented fact. The markup had been scheduled. It was ready 
to go. Senator Blunt had been willing to hold a markup on the bill, and 
it was stopped.
  I am going to tell that story every day until we advance this. I have 
an opportunity to do that, and I am going to do it because people need 
to know what is going on. This should not be about partisanship or 
about what benefits which party.
  What were the Founders thinking when they decided to declare 
independence from a foreign country? They were thinking of our country 
as one. A ramshackle group of those early Founders, farmers and small 
business people, came together and said: We love this land, and we 
don't want to have another country influencing us.
  That is exactly what this is about. Election security is national 
security. It is time we started acting like it. The Federal Government 
spends more money on military bands every year than it does on election 
security assistance to the States. I love military bands, but let's get 
real.
  In 2018, we fought to get $380 million in election funding. That was 
a first step. That is 3 percent of the cost of one aircraft carrier. 
Recently, 22 State attorneys general sent a letter asking us to take 
action to protect the integrity of our election structure, including 
the attorneys general from States such as Iowa and Mississippi. These 
are not blue States. They did not see this as a partisan issue. This is 
not about one election or one party; this is about our democracy and 
our national security. We need to be a united front, I say to my 
colleagues, a united front in fighting against those who interfere with 
our democracy.
  I am glad to see Senator Warner, someone who is on the frontlines 
every day in his very important position on the Intelligence Committee.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, first of all, I want to thank my friend, 
the Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar, for her leadership and 
passion on this issue.
  This shouldn't be that hard. I know we addressed some of the 
legislation she has talked about, and also earlier Senator Blumenthal 
came to the floor as well. I think the theme you are going to hear from 
all three of us is that while we may have made some progress, the truth 
is, we are simply not doing enough to secure our election 
infrastructure.
  There is a series of bills that I think are common sense and, if they 
got to the floor, would get 75 votes and maybe even more.
  Over the past few weeks, I have come to the floor a couple of times 
to try to move by unanimous consent my legislation known as the FIRE 
Act. I am not going to do that this morning, but I do want to highlight 
this bill as one more example of commonsense, bipartisan election 
security legislation that unfortunately is not getting its chance to be 
debated on the floor of the Senate.
  The FIRE Act would simply require Presidential campaigns to do the 
right thing and report offers of foreign assistance--offers which are 
already spelled out as illegal--to the FBI. Anyone who says it does 
anything else, such as limiting contacts with the foreign press or 
limiting contact with foreign diplomats--somebody said it might 
eliminate communications with Dreamers--is just flat wrong.
  If there are ways to improve the bipartisan legislation, I am wide 
open to that. I don't know how anyone could be against the idea of 
putting our country over narrow interests or putting our national 
security concerns over political advantage. In fact, a new poll last 
week found that 87 percent of Americans support this idea. The same 
poll found that an extraordinarily large majority of Americans believe 
that it is wrong for campaigns to accept foreign assistance and that 
Congress should pass legislation to secure our elections.
  Unfortunately, in the nearly 3 years since we uncovered Russia's 
attack on our democracy, this body has not held a single vote on stand-
alone legislation to protect our election security. It is true that we 
did approve some additional funding to secure the 2018 midterm 
elections, and I commend the folks at DHS for the job they did. I am 
proud of that. But we would be making an enormous mistake if we simply 
patted ourselves on the back and said that because the Russians or 
others didn't launch a full-frontal attack in 2018, we are safe on a 
going-forward basis.
  Please, don't take my word for it. Let's look at what Special 
Prosecutor Bob Mueller said last week. He said that the Russians are 
continuing to attack virtually every day. The bipartisan Intelligence 
Committee election security report said that we have made progress, but 
there is more that needs to be done. Christopher Wray, the Director of 
the FBI, in recent testimony said this is an ongoing challenge. Dan 
Coats, for whom I have enormous respect and feel it is unfortunate that 
he left the position of Director of National Intelligence--and maybe he 
left because he was willing to continue to speak truth to power--said 
that our election security system is not secure enough. Even Gina 
Haspel, the Director of the CIA, has continued to point out that Russia 
and other foreign influences are trying to attack our democracy.
  Candidly, it has been a little bit disappointing that some of my 
colleagues are trying to turn this into a partisan issue. Securing our 
democracy is not a Democratic or Republican issue. The absurdity of 
that is like saying: Well, maybe we should think about protecting our 
power grid as a partisan issue. We know and have seen evidence

[[Page S5284]]

of foreign efforts to try to interfere with our power grid. Well, the 
country steps up and puts security measures in place. Shouldn't we 
expect the same kind of attention and commonsense approach when we see 
those same foreign adversaries attack our election infrastructure? I 
think we do need to take that kind of step and move forward.
  Senator Klobuchar already made mention of some of this legislation, 
and I know my friend the Senator from Georgia is here, so I will try to 
wrap up.
  There was a broad bipartisan group of Senators in the last Congress 
who introduced the Secure Elections Act--something I was proud to be 
part of. That bipartisan bill would have provided the additional 
resources for State and local election officials while still preserving 
local control of elections. What that legislation would have done was 
simply say that if local or State election officials want additional 
help from the Federal Government, they have to meet some basic, de 
minimis standards. We have to make sure that every polling station in 
America has a paper ballot backup. We have to make sure that there is 
appropriate auditing of how we do in our election systems.
  I wish the bill would have done more and gone up the food chain to 
the three private companies that control 90 percent of all of our voter 
files. Maybe that could be action we could take in the future. If those 
voter files were hacked into, they wouldn't have to change the vote 
totals; they simply would have to move people from one voting precinct 
to another to create chaos on election day.
  Senator Klobuchar also mentioned legislation that she, Senator 
Graham, and I worked on, a bipartisan bill to prevent disinformation--
particularly on the internet--called the Honest Ads Act. It would 
require the same disclosure rules for political ads on Facebook that 
are already in place for television, radio, and newsprint.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of another bipartisan bill called the 
DETER Act, sponsored by Senator Rubio and Senator Van Hollen. They are 
absolutely right in saying that we need to put in place automatic 
consequences if Russia or other nations use their 2016 playbook once 
again to try to interfere in our 2020 elections. Let's warn our 
adversaries that there will be consequences if they once again try to 
interfere in our election process.
  These are just a few of the largely bipartisan ideas with regard to 
protecting the United States against foreign attacks on our election 
systems. I am sure there would be suggestions on how we can improve 
this legislation. That is fine. That is what we are here to do. Let's 
debate, vote, and add amendments.
  What we should not do is simply pretend this threat is going away. We 
should not simply assume that because we improved in 2018, we are safe 
in 2020. We should recognize that local and State election officials 
need the kind of assistance, paper ballot backup, and the same 
responsibility that Federal campaign officials in Presidential 
campaigns ought to have--an affirmative duty to report. Political ads 
that pop up on Facebook ought to have the same kind of legal 
requirements that ads on television have. I don't think this is too 
much to ask. I think the overwhelming majority of Americans expect us 
to do our job on this issue.
  I hope when the Senate reconvenes in September that maybe people can 
be refreshed by their voters back in their home States, because I am 
sure that when you go to whatever State and visit with folks and talk 
about election security, they will say to the Congress and Senate: Do 
your job and pass commonsense legislation.
  Let's make sure our election security is absolutely as safe as it can 
be as we move into the 2020 elections.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. PERDUE. Madam President, in 1974, Congress passed a new Budget 
Act. It was revolutionary and comprehensive. It was supposed to 
streamline how Congress appropriates money to fund the business of the 
Federal Government every year.
  Unfortunately, now 45 years later, we know that bill was an 
unmitigated disaster. Only four times in the last 45 years since that 
Budget Act was passed has Congress funded the government through the 
appropriations process before the end of the prior fiscal year--four 
times.
  Today is the end of July. We are about to leave Congress today, 
hopefully--if our Senate today gets these bills passed. Then we will go 
back to our States, and we will work in August. We heard a lot of 
people talking yesterday about what they were planning to do in their 
States. It is a busy month. I wish it were a vacation month, but it is 
not--nor should it be--given the things we have to do today.
  When we come back in September, there will be 10 working days left 
before the end of this fiscal year, September 30--10 working days.
  As I stand before this body today, this is not a partisan 
observation. As I stand here today, we have not appropriated $1 for 
next year's budget to run the Federal Government of the United States 
of America. That is an indictment. It is an indictment of the process, 
an indictment of the Members, and an indictment of the fact that we 
have no consequences by not funding the government by September 30--not 
one.
  So today we are about to do something that could cause us to actually 
use a continuing resolution for the 187th time, potentially, since the 
1974 Budget Act passed. We now know how draconian these continuing 
resolutions are. I will talk about that in a minute.
  Hopefully, we will vote today on a bill that is a compromise bill 
that actually sets the stage. It sets the upper limit. It doesn't do 
the appropriating at the detail level. It sets the topline number for 
the fiscal year 2020, which starts October 1, 2019. That number is 
roughly $1.375 trillion. I have a debt clock in my office. I can watch 
the national debt spin about $100,000 a second--going up every single 
minute of every single day. This bill actually begins to address that. 
President Trump had a couple of priorities here.
  Before I talk about that, I want to put in perspective what this bill 
actually does. We talked before about mandatory spending and 
discretionary spending. Again, the problem is in our Federal 
Government. This whole budget drama we have seen this year and every 
year for the last 45 years only deals with the discretionary budget, 
which is $1.375 trillion for 2021.
  The dotted line here is where we are for the 2019 discretionary 
budget. Discretionary budget is 30 percent. That is the blue line here.
  The green line is the total spending of the Federal Government. Today 
we spend $1.3 trillion in discretionary spending. We spend $3.3 
trillion in mandatory spending. That is a total of $4.6 trillion.
  What is in discretionary spending? Military spending and all other 
discretionary spending is in there: health, education, agriculture, 
labor, the Attorney General's office, State. All the discretionary 
spending is in there. Some VA expenses are in there--$1.33 trillion.
  In any business, any enterprise, or your personal budget, if you only 
dealt with 30 percent of what you spend in your budgeting process, 
wouldn't we all have a good time? It wouldn't matter how much we did on 
discretionary spending because we could just go borrow more money. That 
is what the Federal Government does.
  Let me remind everybody today that we are also borrowing about 30 
percent of what we spend every year--a little less than that, but we 
are borrowing between 25 percent and 30 percent.
  Mandatory is like your home mortgage, car payment, and insurance 
payment. It is automatically deducted. So all these mandatory expenses 
that today are 70 percent of what we spend, get spent with no debate in 
Congress--none, zero. Why? Because it is mandatory. It gets spent like 
your home mortgage gets automatically deducted. Once that is done, just 
a few pennies are left to take care of discretionary.
  The point I am trying to make is, all this drama we had this year--
and every year--is over a piece of the budget that is totally borrowed. 
Over 90 percent of what we spend in our Federal Government's military 
expenses today--our national defense--is borrowed money, by definition.
  Right now, what we are talking about is a spending bill that actually 
reduces spending for discretionary items. We are not even talking about 
the mandatory side, the 70 percent. If you look at the 70 percent over 
the

[[Page S5285]]

next decade or the next two decades, discretionary spending is 
relatively flat. These are aggregate numbers--total numbers adjusted 
for inflation.
  The orange line is the mandatory expenses. They are projected to 
skyrocket here, going from about 70 percent today to almost 85 percent 
of every dollar the Federal Government spends in the next 20 years--
from 70 percent today to well over 80 percent--to almost 85 percent by 
2035, 20 years from now. I argue that is the problem. Until we address 
the mandatory side of our spending and save Social Security and save 
Medicare, we will never be able to solve this debt crisis we see before 
us in very real terms today.
  Let's move to this bill we have today. I ran for the Senate because 
of the debt crisis and because of the global security crisis. This debt 
issue is real. I have been working on it for 4\1/2\ years. Yet this 
bill today actually lowers spending as a percentage of our economy. 
This bill proposes $54 billion increases in discretionary spending over 
2 years--2 percent per year for the next 2 years. That actually lowers 
spending as a percentage of our economy. As a matter of fact, since 
2011--the last 10 years--what we have seen, if we do this budget, is 
Federal spending on discretionary items goes from 8.7 percent of our 
total economy down to 6 percent.
  When I ran a business, I looked at my overhead. That is what this is. 
Overhead is declining on discretionary items as a percentage of what we 
spend totally and a percentage of our total economy.
  President Trump had two goals. One is he wanted to continue to reduce 
discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP. Check that box. This 
bill does that. All the so-called debt hawks out there and all the 
budget hawks who say: I am voting no to any new spending, need to 
recognize that this bill actually lowers spending as a percentage of 
the economy.
  The second objective the President had--and the Senate is just now 
coming to realize how draconian these 186 CRs have been over the last 
45 years. The Obama administration reduced spending in the military by 
25 percent. So readiness had been reduced to a point by January 1, 
2017, when President Trump was inaugurated--readiness in the military 
had been devastated. Two-thirds of our F-18 lead fighter jets could not 
fly. Only three of our Army brigades could go to war that night. I saw 
that. I am on the Armed Services Committee. You can see when you travel 
the world how absolutely gutted our military had been. For the last 2 
years, we have been rebuilding that, getting readiness back. In the 
month of June, the FA-18s got back to 80 percent readiness.

  The second thing this bill does is it continues, in the second and 
third year, to rebuild the military after it had been gutted by the 
prior administration. Focus of the military today is readiness and 
recapitalization, which means rebuilding burned-out equipment and 
absolutely rationalization.
  We had the first DOD audit--thanks to President Trump--in the history 
of the United States. Last November, President Trump, after telling the 
DOD we would have that--by the way, there was a law that passed in 1981 
that said we would have a DOD audit. President Trump is the first 
President in U.S. history that provided that. We now have that and 
understand opportunities to rationalize our spending.
  When you look at this vote, you look at making decisions in life. 
There are two choices--two votes--that lead to three potential outcomes 
today. A ``yes'' vote continues to support the military and defend our 
country at a level that meets the near-peer competitors' level of 
volume. When adjusted for purchasing power parity, China, today, is 
actually spending the same amount on their military as we are. They can 
get there quicker because they don't have the regulatory overhang that 
we have in the United States, but a vote yes means that we continue to 
do that; we continue to lower discretionary spending as a percentage of 
our economy; and we set the stage to, then again, begin to have the 
hard conversation of how we save Social Security and save Medicare. The 
major thing it does is it avoids the drama around not funding the 
government. It gives us a chance, anyway, to fund our government before 
October 1. Remember, September 30 ends this fiscal year.
  A ``no'' vote has two potential outcomes. A ``no'' vote could lead to 
a sequestration. People say that cuts 10 percent out of all spending. 
That sounds good to me. The reality is that happened over the last 
decade. We see now the draconian impact that had on certain parts of 
our discretionary spending like military--veterans and so forth--so we 
had to come back and rebuild. When you come back and have to rebuild 
it, it costs dramatically much more. That is the point.
  If we take a long-term view of this, we have to end up voting yes to 
this. The second outcome of a ``no'' vote is actually more of the same.
  Well, we will avoid sequestration, but we will pass a continuing 
resolution and kick the can down the road again for the 187th time. It 
sounds easy. Everybody gets to go home. We pass a CR. Yet the military 
gets gutted again--devastated. It disrupts the supply chain and keeps 
our vendors from hiring people.
  Imagine if you are a midcareer military officer or noncommissioned 
officer--imagine what that tells you about what we think of our 
military and our men and women. I hear people on both sides beat their 
chest: ``I love our military.'' ``We have to support our military.'' 
Then they vote no on a bill like this. We cannot let that happen.
  Ironically, because of the two alternatives, a ``no'' vote is 
actually a vote to increase spending dramatically--not just a little 
bit but dramatically--over the next decade or so.
  This bill is a compromise. People back home tell us to come here and 
work with the other side and compromise and make decisions and get to a 
result. We just did that. President Trump and Speaker Pelosi just did 
that. That is what this is reflective of. I am here to tell you today 
that it is our job to back that up.
  In closing, it is imperative that we get this bill passed, allow our 
appropriators to get busy and start appropriating, so by September 30--
the end of this fiscal year--we have a chance to get the government 
funded. We know a ``no'' vote leads to more spending. It is our 
responsibility to be fiscally responsible, and I think a ``yes'' vote 
here does just that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, I am on the floor today to talk about a 
crisis overseas.
  Before I do, I just want to take one moment. The Senator from Georgia 
talked about the increases in defense spending that we have done on a 
bipartisan basis and suggested that it was the prior administration 
that had gutted defense spending. That is not true. I think we should 
clear the record about that.
  In fact, in the first 3 years of the Obama administration, defense 
spending was on the rise. It was the election of a Republican Congress 
that led to what we call sequestration--the downward descent of 
discretionary spending of both defense and nondefense dollars.
  To the extent that my colleagues are worried about what happened to 
defense spending in the last 10 years, there is only one explanation 
for that; that is, the election of Republicans to the House of 
Representatives in 2010 and their demand that in order to vote for an 
increase in the debt ceiling, discretionary spending had to be slashed. 
In the first several years of the Obama administration, defense 
spending was on the rise.


                                 Yemen

  Madam President, I am on the floor to once again talk about a dire 
humanitarian nightmare happening on the other side of the world in a 
country called Yemen, the U.S. complicity in that horror, and the 
national security disaster that comes with staying involved in this 
war.
  I could have brought a bunch of much more disturbing charts to the 
floor to talk about the world's worst humanitarian disaster--a country 
in and on the brink of famine and with a cholera epidemic that the 
world has never ever seen before in recorded history. Instead, I chose 
to bring you a picture of a child with his back turned to you in order 
to spare you the worst of this nightmare.
  Before we break, I am here to make an urgent plea to my colleagues 
because, as bad as the situation is today,

[[Page S5286]]

it is about to get much worse over the course of the summer and this 
fall. There are millions of Yemenis who are going to die if we don't 
make some decisions and pressure our allies to make some decisions in 
the coming days. The reason for this is simple.
  At the beginning of this year, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which are 
the primary military partners with the United States in Yemen, made a 
pledge they have made in the past, which is that while they would be 
dropping bombs and fighting battles on the ground in Yemen, they would 
be putting up money to make sure that people would be fed and that 
children would be immunized. They made that pledge at the beginning of 
this year. We are now halfway through the year, and the UAE and the 
Saudis have reneged on that pledge.
  Saudi Arabia pledged $750 million to the United Nations. It still 
owes, today, $630 million. The UAE pledged $750 million. It still owes, 
today, $500 million. They have always been tough negotiators and have 
been difficult to get the money from, but this year is different. This 
year, 6 months in, the Saudis and the Emirates are essentially saying: 
We are not giving the U.N. its money.
  If you meet with them, they will tell you that they are spending that 
money in other ways, that they are working with other partners inside 
Yemen to do the same kind of work. Don't let them put that argument 
over on you. There is no one in Yemen who can do the nutrition work, 
the healthcare work, or the anti-cholera work that the U.N. can and 
does. There are no other partners who have the capacity to keep people 
alive like the U.N. You can't just create and stand up that capacity 
outside of the United Nations.
  If Saudi Arabia and the UAE were not planning on giving the U.N. the 
money, then they shouldn't have promised it at the beginning of the 
year. The U.N. went out and built infrastructure. It hired partners 
based on those pledges. If the Emirates and the Saudis were not 
planning on giving the money, then they shouldn't have promised it at 
the beginning of this year.
  Let me tell you what is happening right now inside Yemen.
  Work has been suspended on 30 new feeding centers in the most famine-
stricken parts of Yemen.
  Vaccinations have been suspended for 13 million people, which 
increases the risk for things like measles and malaria.
  The procurement of new medical supplies and equipment has been 
suspended.
  UNICEF has stopped its clean water and sanitation services for 8.4 
million people, including 3 million kids, which means more cholera, and 
cholera is already on the rise. There have been more cholera cases 
reported in the first half of this year than had been reported in all 
of 2018. There have been half a million new cases of cholera just in 
the first 6 months of this year.
  A U.N.-supported treatment plant that purifies water for agriculture 
has started to shut down as well, meaning an additional 4 million 
people could be eating vegetables that are irrigated with dirty water.
  Starting very soon, the World Food Programme will not be able to buy 
vouchers for 3 million people.
  Sixty more feeding centers will close in the coming weeks.
  The World Food Programme has stopped providing nutrient bars to 2.6 
million malnourished women and children, which will tip them now into 
the category of ``severely malnourished,'' just like this child is.
  The U.N. is going to have to stop providing fuel for hospital 
generators.
  There are 35,000 cancer patients who will stop receiving treatment.
  I could go on and on and on.
  Why are we standing here? Why aren't we all pressing our friends--the 
Saudis, our allies, the Emirates--to come up with this money? While we 
all enjoy our August recess, there are going to be millions of children 
in Yemen who will look like this who don't look like this today. There 
will be hundreds of thousands who will either die or reach the brink of 
death all because of a war that the United States has perpetuated and 
because of funding commitments that can't keep all of these people 
alive, that can't save all of these children's lives but that could 
save tens of thousands of lives if our friends, our allies, would 
simply do the right thing.
  I am furious about this, my colleagues, because I don't know what the 
Trump administration is getting for this bear hug it has put around 
Saudi Arabia. After the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, we transferred to it 
more nuclear technology and sold it more weapons. Maybe the hope was, 
in exchange for that, Saudi Arabia would do something about the 
humanitarian nightmare, but it is making it worse. Saudi Arabia is 
getting everything from us, and it is not even feeding the people on 
the ground in Yemen who are dying as we speak.
  At a 2015 campaign rally in Alabama, the President said: I get along 
great with the Saudis. They buy apartments from me. They spend, like, 
$40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them 
very much.
  From 2016 to 2017, a lobbying firm connected to the Saudi Government 
paid $270,000 to the Trump International Hotel in DC. In 2018, a 5-day 
visit from Saudi officials to the Trump International Hotel in New York 
City helped to boost the hotel's quarterly revenue by 13 percent.
  Boy, I hope this isn't the reason the administration isn't pressing 
the Saudis harder to come up with their funding commitment, but the 
President has been pretty clear that the Saudis send him and his family 
a lot of money. He has been open about that. I hope this is not the 
reason for our not forcing our partners to step up. This is life-or-
death time right now. If the administration is not going to do it, then 
we will have to do it. Members of Congress will have to do it.
  I hope, before my colleagues go home and enjoy some rest and 
relaxation over the month of August, they will get on the phone with 
their friends in the Saudi Government, that they will get on the phone 
with the Emirates Government, and that they will get on the phone with 
the Trump administration and tell them that it is time to pony up the 
money they have pledged.
  The United States is the No. 1 donor, but we could do more. The 
Saudis and the Emirates have come through on a quarter of the money 
they have promised, and the consequences of that continuing are 
absolutely nightmarish. So, before we go home for our break, let's do 
something to make sure that a handful more of these kids are alive when 
we come back.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.


                               H.R. 3877

  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, some say it is irresponsible not to raise 
the debt ceiling. Well, true fiscal conservatives say it is 
irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling without any reform of our 
profligate spending ways. To allow the debt ceiling to go up an 
infinite amount--as much as Congress can possibly spend and borrow over 
a nearly 2-year period--is fiscally irresponsible and has never been 
seen in our history. This may well be the most fiscally irresponsible 
thing we have done in the history of the United States.
  The Federal Government is currently spending nearly $2 million every 
minute. Don't let anybody fool you--this is a spending problem. The 
annual deficit this year will exceed $1.2 trillion. What is 
irresponsible is recklessly indenturing our children and our 
grandchildren. What is irresponsible is binding our kids to this 
massive burden of debt. What is irresponsible is a Congress that 
believes it is Santa Claus and that it can be everything to everyone 
and that everything is free.
  At least the Democrats are honest. The Democrats don't care about 
deficits, and they will tell you that to your face. The Democrats, in 
fact, are falling all over themselves to propose more than $50 trillion 
in new spending in addition to the trillion-dollar annual deficits. 
They want to add $50 trillion in spending.
  Yet it is not just the Democrats. The Republicans are also guilty--at 
least the Big Government Republicans who will vote for this monstrous 
addition of debt. Many of the supporters of this debt deal ran around 
their States for years and complained that President Obama was spending 
too much and borrowing too much. These same Republicans now--the whole 
disingenuous lot of them--will wiggle their way to the front of the 
spending trough to vote for as much or more debt than President Obama 
ever added.

[[Page S5287]]

  Get this. All of those who said the debt was bad under President 
Obama will today snuggle their way up, wiggle their way up to the 
spending trough, and they will do exactly what they condemned under 
President Obama. Shame. Shame on the politicians who have campaigned as 
conservatives but who have governed as big spenders.
  America, wake up. The two parties are often one. The two parties that 
ostensibly fight are in reality one party of big spenders, separated 
only by where they want to spend the money.
  The media reports of a lack of compromise. The opposite is true. 
There is too much compromise, and the compromise is always more debt, 
more porkbarrel spending, and more burden for our kids.
  Yet there is another path. There is another form of compromise. 
Instead of compromising to raise spending for guns and butter, we could 
compromise to hold the line on all spending. Just a mere 2-percent cut 
in spending would balance the budget over a 5-year period--1 or 2 
pennies out of a dollar. You get to spend 98 percent of what you spent 
last year, and we balance the budget. Yet that is never enough because 
these people are not honest with you. They are not willing to hold the 
line. They want more, more, more. More spending, though, means more 
debt, and that is what we are getting. So what I offer today is a 
compromise.
  The right would have to deal with less military spending. The right 
says: Oh, we don't have enough. Perhaps the mission is too big for the 
budget. It isn't a lack of money. We spend more money on the military 
than the next 10 countries combined. We spend more money on the 
military than all of Europe spends. It isn't a lack of money; it is 
that the mission is too large. Why do we have troops in 50 of 55 
African countries? Why are we involved in every civil war on the globe? 
We need to question what our mission is. The left would have to accept 
less welfare spending or at least hold the line and get 98 percent of 
what it spent last year on welfare. The right would have to spend 98 
percent of what it spent on the military last year. Guess what. We 
would balance the budget.
  My amendment is called cut, cap, and balance. When the balanced 
budget is passed and sent to the States, when spending caps are in 
place and when spending has been cut, then and only then would we raise 
the debt ceiling. This is the only responsible way of dealing with 
this. It is irresponsible to give a blank check to a government that 
has shown itself to be so reckless and for it to so recklessly 
disregard any kind of sense of sanity with regard to the budget.
  Today's votes, though, will be a litmus test for fiscal conservatism. 
Those Senators who vote for an unlimited increase in the debt ceiling 
are not and have no right to call themselves conservatives.
  America, wake up, watch the votes today, and discover who actually 
gives a damn about the future of our country.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.


                           Amendment No. 932

  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 932.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 932 to H.R. 3877.

  Mr. PAUL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

                (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 
     2019''.

     SEC. 2. DEBT LIMIT INCREASE.

       (a) In General.--Effective on the date described in 
     subsection (b), the limitation in effect under section 
     3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, shall be increased 
     by $500,000,000,000.
       (b) Effective Date.--The date described in this subsection 
     is the earliest of the date on which the Archivist of the 
     United States transmits to the States S. J. Res. 3 (116th 
     Congress) in the form introduced on January 4, 2019, S. J. 
     Res. 5 (116th Congress) in the form introduced on January 24, 
     2019, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the 
     United States, or a similar amendment to the Constitution of 
     the United States if the amendment requires that total 
     outlays not exceed total receipts, contains a spending 
     limitation as a percentage of the gross domestic product, and 
     requires that tax increases be approved by a two-thirds vote 
     in both Houses of Congress for their ratification.

     SEC. 3. LIMIT FOR ON-BUDGET SPENDING.

       (a) Point of Order.--
       (1) In general.--It shall not be in order in the Senate or 
     the House of Representatives to consider any bill, joint 
     resolution, motion, amendment, amendment between the Houses, 
     or conference report that would cause the total amount of on-
     budget spending for any of fiscal years 2020 through 2029 to 
     exceed the amount specified in paragraph (2) with respect to 
     such fiscal year.
       (2) Caps.--The amount specified in this paragraph is the 
     following:
       (A) With respect to fiscal year 2020, $3,435,880,000,000.
       (B) With respect to fiscal year 2021, $3,367,160,000,000.
       (C) With respect to fiscal year 2022, $3,299,820,000,000.
       (D) With respect to fiscal year 2023, $3,233,820,000,000.
       (E) With respect to fiscal year 2024, $3,169,150,000,000.
       (F) With respect to fiscal year 2025, $3,232,530,000,000.
       (G) With respect to fiscal year 2026, $3,297,180,000,000.
       (H) With respect to fiscal year 2027, $3,363,120,000,000.
       (I) With respect to fiscal year 2028, $3,430,390,000,000.
       (J) With respect to fiscal year 2029, $3,498,990,000,000.
       (b) Waiver and Appeal.--
       (1) Senate.--Subsection (a) may be waived or suspended in 
     the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative vote of three-
     fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, 
     shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the 
     Chair on a point of order raised under subsection (a).
       (2) House of representatives.--
       (A) In general.--Subsection (a) may be waived or suspended 
     in the House of Representatives only by an affirmative vote 
     of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (B) Point of order protection.--In the House of 
     Representatives, it shall not be in order to consider a rule 
     or order that waives the application of subparagraph (A).


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). The Democratic leader 
is recognized.


                               H.R. 3877

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, in a short time the Senate will vote on 
final passage of a bipartisan agreement to lift the budget caps for 2 
years and extend the debt ceiling. It is an agreement that will 
strengthen our national security and provide our troops with the 
resources they need to do a very difficult and often dangerous job. 
Importantly, it will clear the way for critical investments in 
America's middle class, as well as for those struggling to get to the 
middle class, in healthcare, education, childcare, cancer research, our 
veterans, and more.
  For too long, the arbitrary, draconian limits of sequester have 
hampered our ability to invest in working Americans and our military 
readiness. This deal ends the threat of sequester permanently. That is 
huge.
  As large forces erode the financial security of the middle class--
globalization, automation, technological advancement--one of the only 
forces large enough to push back on the side of the middle class and 
help them is the Federal Government.
  Investing in education, healthcare, infrastructure, and childcare is 
how we give middle-class Americans greater security and give Americans 
struggling to get into the middle class a ladder up--something this 
government has done for decades and decades but hasn't been doing very 
well since the sequester has been in effect.
  The sequester has hamstrung our ability to make investments in the 
middle class for 8 years--but no longer. Thank God.
  Not only does this agreement end the sequester, it includes a 
significant increase in support for domestic priorities. In fact, the 
budget deal increases domestic budget authority $10 billion more than 
defense. In the 3 years of Trump's Presidency and a Republican Senate, 
Democrats have secured over $100 billion in increases for domestic 
programs. That means additional resources for the States to combat the 
opioid epidemic; support for VA hospitals caring for our veterans; 
cancer

[[Page S5288]]

research and other critical medical research that have saved the lives 
of literally millions; climate and clean energy technology; reducing 
the burden of college debt; infrastructure and transportation 
improvements.
  So this $100 billion is not abstract. It means jobs; it means ladders 
up; and it means hope for the American people, who are often pushed 
around by forces much larger than themselves.
  Finally, this legislation lays the groundwork to avoid another 
government shutdown and will preserve the full faith and credit of the 
United States.
  As my colleagues know well, the House has already passed this 
legislation and recessed for the State work period. The President 
supports it. Reportedly he is calling Members to encourage them to vote 
yes. The final piece to this puzzle is the Senate's stamp of approval.
  I want to salute Senator Leahy, our ranking member, all of the 
members of the Appropriations Committee, and all of those who came up 
with this bipartisan agreement.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote yes. Let's 
give our military, our middle class a boost before the Senate adjourns 
today.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 932

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the Paul 
Amendment No. 932.
  Mr. PAUL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), 
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from New York 
(Mrs. Gillibrand), 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 or change their vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 23, nays 70, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 260 Leg.]

                                YEAS--23

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Braun
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Romney
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (SC)
     Toomey
     Young

                                NAYS--70

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

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bennet
     Booker
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Isakson
     Sanders
     Warren
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 23, the nays are 
70.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 932) was rejected.
  The majority leader.


                           Order of Business

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
remaining votes be 10 minutes in length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 
     165, H.R. 3877, a bill to amend the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, to establish a 
     congressional budget for fiscal years 2020 and 2021, to 
     temporarily suspend the debt limit, and for other purposes.
         Lamar Alexander, Thom Tillis, Martha McSally, John 
           Cornyn, Pat Roberts, Mike Rounds, Susan M. Collins, Tom 
           Cotton, Roy Blunt, Roger F. Wicker, Bill Cassidy, John 
           Thune, Richard Burr, John Barrasso, Rob Portman, Lisa 
           Murkowski, Mitch McConnell.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on H.R. 
3877, a bill to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
Act of 1985, to establish a congressional budget for fiscal years 2020 
and 2021, to temporarily suspend the debt limit, and for other 
purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand), 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 67, nays 27, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 261 Leg.]

                                YEAS--67

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Leahy
     Markey
     McConnell
     McSally
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Roberts
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--27

     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Braun
     Carper
     Cotton
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Hawley
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     Paul
     Risch
     Romney
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Tester
     Tillis
     Toomey

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Booker
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Isakson
     Sanders
     Warren
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 67, the nays are 27.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I support the bipartisan budget deal that 
will extend the debt ceiling and lift the current budgets caps for the 
next 2 years.
  This important deal will avoid harmful cuts to domestic priorities, 
prevent a default on our Nation's debt, and finally allow appropriators 
to get to work on this year's appropriations bills to fund the 
government.
  Despite proposing draconian cuts in his budget, I am glad that 
President Trump has agreed to join Democrats in permanently ending the 
threat of sequester.

[[Page S5289]]

  For too long, sequestration has handcuffed Congress's ability to make 
investments in middle-class priorities that advance the health, 
financial security, and well-being of the American people.
  I am pleased that this agreement goes even further than previous 
budget deals by increasing nondefense spending by $10 billion more than 
defense spending.
  With this budget deal, Democrats have secured an increase of more 
than $100 billion in funding for domestic priorities since President 
Trump took office.
  I am especially pleased that this budget deal will allow us to 
continue making the big investments in medical research conducted at 
the National Institutes of Health, as well as the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention, that will improve and save lives.
  Because of NIH funding, new treatments have been developed that 
reduced cancer deaths more than 25 percent over past two decades.
  Thirty years ago, HIV was a death sentence. Because of NIH funding, 
that is no longer the case.
  Because of NIH-funded research, deaths from heart disease and stroke 
have fallen by nearly 80 percent since 1970.
  Because of NIH funding, we are on the verge of curing--yes, curing--
sickle cell anemia.
  Consider this: Between 2010 and 2016, the Food and Drug 
Administration approved more than 200 new drugs and treatments for use 
in the United States; every single one of them was developed with NIH 
dollars.
  Congress has recognized the importance of NIH, which is why we have, 
on a bipartisan basis, provided the NIH with $9 billion in additional 
funding over the past 4 years, a 30 percent increase in that time.
  This agreement will allow us to continue those vital investments.
  Most importantly, this agreement will help prevent another harmful 
government shutdown from occurring this fall.
  While not perfect, this budget deal will finally allow Congress to 
get to work on this year's appropriations bills and invest in the 
programs that the American people rely on.
  I hope that my colleagues will join me in passing this agreement with 
overwhelming bipartisan support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all cloture time is 
expired.
  The clerk will read the title of the bill for the third time.
  The bill was ordered to a third reading and was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Mr. WICKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  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 (Mrs. Fischer). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 67, nays 28, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 262 Leg.]

                                YEAS--67

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Leahy
     Markey
     McConnell
     McSally
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Roberts
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--28

     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Braun
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Cotton
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Hawley
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     Paul
     Risch
     Romney
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Tester
     Tillis
     Toomey

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Booker
     Harris
     Isakson
     Sanders
     Warren
  The bill (H.R. 3877) was passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

                          ____________________