[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 150 (Wednesday, September 18, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5553-S5562]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, EDUCATION, DEFENSE, STATE, FOREIGN 
OPERATIONS, AND ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2020--
                           Motion to Proceed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to legislative session to resume consideration of the motion to 
proceed to H.R. 2740, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 140, H.R. 2740, making 
     appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
     Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes.


                          Gun Control Measures

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, one of most poignant moments of my life--
and certainly of my career here in the Senate--came in 2017, when a 
gunman opened fire on a Sunday service at the little Baptist Church 
right outside of Sutherland Springs, TX.
  Twenty-six lives were lost that day; 20 people were injured; and the 
entire community--that small, little community outside of San Antonio--
was shaken to its core by this hateful act.
  It didn't take us too long to learn about the shooter--a man with a 
record of domestic violence, animal cruelty, and mental illness. He had 
been court-martialed by the Air Force and convicted of serious domestic 
abuse, which is a felony.
  By law, the shooter should have been prevented from purchasing or 
even possessing a firearm, but he wasn't because the critically 
important information about his criminal background had not been 
uploaded into the relevant background check databases maintained by the 
FBI, even though a Federal statute clearly states that all Federal 
agencies are required to do so. As a result, the gunman was able to 
unlawfully purchase four firearms, three of which he used to carry out 
this despicable act.
  In the wake of any tragedy like this, you can't help but ask: What 
if?
  In this instance, it was our sad duty to ask those questions, but we 
knew the answer. If his criminal record had been uploaded into the FBI 
background check system, the shooter would have been prevented from 
purchasing these firearms that he used in the attack.
  It was the worst kind of system failure. I searched my conscience, 
and I searched the record to try to figure out exactly what we might be 
able to do to prevent acts like this from occurring in the future.
  Ten days after the shooting, I introduced a bill called the Fix NICS 
Act. Now, it is a little bit confusing. NICS is the National Instant 
Criminal Background Check System. But it was clear that we needed to 
fix the National Instant Criminal Background Check System--hence, the 
name Fix NICS Act, which is now law.
  That law broadened the background check system to prevent violent 
criminals who shouldn't be able to purchase firearms from being able to 
do so. It was actually one of the good things that came out of this 
terrible tragedy. At a time when division and partisanship were much 
more common than working together, we actually were able to overcome 
that partisan divide and division to pass this commonsense solution to 
a real problem, which I am convinced will save lives in the future. 
This is the kind of thing our constituents expect us to do and what we 
need to do more of.
  It has been 2 years since the shooting in Sutherland Springs. 
Unfortunately, that was not the last mass violence episode experienced 
by the State of Texas. On August 3 of this year, a gunman stormed the 
El Paso Walmart, killing 22 people and wounding two dozen others. Less 
than a month later, on August 31, a man went on a shooting rampage in 
Midland and Odessa, killing 7 people and wounding 25.
  I visited each of these cities in the days following the shootings to 
pay my respects to those who had lost loved ones, to visit those who 
were still recovering in hospital rooms, and also to thank the law 
enforcement officers who I believe saved lives that would have 
otherwise been lost but for their quick and professional response.
  In those early days, we were still gathering information and working 
to get to the bottom of how these shootings happened. Now that we have 
a pretty good idea about what happened and what didn't happen that 
should have happened, it is time to work on solutions to help prevent 
these types of episodes of mass violence in the future.
  Over the weekend, the minority leader here in the Senate and the 
House Speaker said that any proposal that does not include the House-
passed universal background check legislation ``will not get the job 
done.'' But I would say to them that there is simply no evidence that 
if the House bill was law, it would have prevented any of these recent 
acts of violence.
  I have to ask: If the solution that you proposed would not have 
prevented these acts from occurring, what is the point? Is this about 
making a statement? Is this about virtue signaling? Is this about 
politics? Or is this about trying to come up with solutions to the 
problem?
  We also know that the President has repeatedly issued a veto threat 
on that particular bill, and we know there is zero--zero chance--that 
it will ever become law. That is not what I call getting the job done.
  Some of the folks who don't believe in the Second Amendment are using 
these tragedies to advance an agenda rather than to try to solve a 
problem. That is not good enough, and this is not what the American 
people deserve.
  I am not interested in introducing legislation just because we are 
being urged to ``do something.'' I am interested in trying to solve a 
problem and save lives in the process. That is what we did with the Fix 
NICS legislation, and that is exactly what we need to do by coming 
together once again.
  In the wake of the shootings in El Paso, Midland, and Odessa, I have 
been working on some ideas that I believe can, once again, help to 
unite Congress so we can pass laws that will have a real impact, and 
not just ``do something.''
  One of the most important ways to intervene as early as possible is 
to improve access to mental health services. Assisted outpatient 
treatment programs, otherwise known as AOTs, were under the 21st 
Century Cures Act, as part of a bill I introduced back then called the 
Mental Health and Safe Communities Act.
  What is so important about assisted outpatient treatment programs is 
the alternatives available to a family member. When your son or 
daughter or your spouse or your parent or your brother or your sister 
becomes mentally ill and is suffering a crisis, your options are 
extraordinarily limited. The assistant outpatient treatment programs 
provide alternatives to allow a family member to help somebody 
undergoing a mental health crisis who otherwise might be a danger to 
themselves and others.
  We know that the most common cause of gun-related deaths are 
suicides. If we could somehow get people

[[Page S5554]]

the mental health treatment they need early, before they even think 
about taking their own life, we would save many lives. If we can get 
people--like Adam Lanza, for example, in Sandy Hook--mental health 
treatment, so he does not become violent to others as well, I think we 
have a very realistic opportunity to actually save lives going forward.
  The Mental Health and Safe Communities Act also increased resources 
and training for law enforcement and first responders to identify those 
with mental illness and respond with treatment-based alternatives. By 
strengthening and expanding these programs and prioritizing a strong 
mental health workforce, I believe we can avert potential crises before 
they happen--not all of them, but I think we can make some real 
progress.
  Additionally, I think there are things we could do to build on the 
success of Fix NICS by enforcing current law and improving the existing 
background check system.
  We know we need to take decisive action against individuals who are 
violating current law by selling and manufacturing large numbers of 
firearms without a Federal firearms license. It is clearly Congress's 
intent to make sure that if you are in the business of buying and 
selling firearms in a commercial enterprise, you should be licensed by 
the Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or the ATF.
  For example, the shooter in Odessa attempted to purchase a firearm 
from a licensed dealer, but because licensed dealers must perform 
background checks, he flunked it. He managed to circumvent the 
background check requirement by later purchasing his weapon from an 
individual who was obviously in the business of manufacturing and 
selling firearms, but who never registered as a firearms dealer. Thus, 
the shooter evaded a background check, because, as I said, all 
federally licensed firearms dealers are required to do that.
  We know that, under current law, it can be difficult to prosecute 
individuals who are circumventing Federal law when they fail to 
register as a federally licensed firearms dealer. I believe Congress 
has a role--and there is a pretty clear path forward--to clarify 
existing law so that unlicensed dealers can be prosecuted and more 
people in the business of selling firearms will become federally 
licensed firearms dealers and, thus, by definition, end up doing more 
background checks when they are in the business of doing so.
  As we have learned as well, it is also important for us to take 
additional steps to harden soft targets like schools. We know that 
people don't generally try to shoot up a police station. They go to the 
soft targets, where these cowards know they will not be met with much 
resistance. We need to improve intervention and threat assessment at 
schools and share information more broadly between teachers, parents, 
and counselors so we can identify potential acts of violence before 
they occur.
  My point is that we need to focus on things that could actually work. 
In the case of the Fix NICS Act, it was able to become law because it 
had the support of both Republicans and Democrats here in Congress, as 
well as the President. That is precisely what we need to do again.
  The sorts of things I mentioned are real and meaningful changes we 
can make here to prevent more communities from grieving from additional 
tragedies. I hope we rise to the occasion and once again work together 
and come up with consensus legislation. I, as one Senator, am willing 
to work with anyone on either side of the aisle to build consensus and 
to pass legislation that will make our country and our communities 
safer.


                            Brett Kavanaugh

  Mr. President, briefly on another matter, Justice Brett Kavanaugh was 
confirmed almost a year ago, but that hasn't stopped the partisans on 
the left from carrying out their fact-devoid smear campaign.
  About this time last year, the confirmation hearing for an 
exceptionally well-qualified nominee to the Supreme Court was turned 
into a media circus over uncorroborated and unsubstantiated 
allegations. I had hoped that we had moved beyond this embarrassing 
chapter for the Senate and for the country, but the circus has somehow 
returned.
  This time, the wild accusations didn't play out here in the Senate 
but rather in the New York Times. That newspaper ran a story over the 
weekend that publicized more unsubstantiated allegations against the 
Justice from way back when he was in college.
  The authors and editors managed to leave out the most critical detail 
of the entire story. The woman at the center of this reported alleged 
event declined to be interviewed by the journalists, and her friends 
say she doesn't even recall such an event from occurring. But the New 
York Times printed it anyway.
  Well, the reaction was predictable and immediate. As members of the 
media began pointing out this glaring hole in the story, some Democrats 
saw an opportunity to continue their smear campaign against this good 
man. They pounced on these unsubstantiated claims as evidence of 
wrongdoing by Justice Kavanaugh and began calling for his impeachment.
  Once the paper issued its colossal correction, none of these folks 
backed down or apologized for calling for the impeachment of this good 
judge, this good man, even though the newspaper admitted their error.
  This isn't about the allegations or an investigation, or even Justice 
Kavanaugh, for that matter. This is just the latest assault on the 
independence of the Federal judiciary by a party that is struggling to 
come to grips with reality.
  From alarming court-packing calls to baseless allegations against a 
sitting Supreme Court Justice, I am not anxious to see what sort of 
reprehensible allegations and attacks they come up with next.
  I would like to reiterate the commitment made by the majority leader 
earlier this week. As long as we remain in the Senate, we will prevent 
this type of mob rule and this sort of media circus and fight to 
preserve the rule of law and the independence of our judiciary.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Romney). The Senator from Missouri.


                             Appropriations

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, later in the day--certainly today or 
tomorrow--we will have a vote on whether we want to move forward on 
this year's appropriations process. The vote would allow us to move 
forward. Frankly, it would and should allow every Member to make any 
amendment they want and to debate this bill on the floor, as bills 
should be debated. If they don't like the House bill that we will take 
up--and many of us would not like the House bill--they have a chance to 
substitute that with another bill or make amendments on that bill. I 
would like to see this process get started.
  A significant part of the House bill was the Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education portion. I chair that bill in the Senate. It is 
after the Defense bill, which would also be part of this bill, which, 
by the way, has the biggest pay increase for those who defend us, in a 
decade in it. After the Defense bill, the Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education bill is about 30 percent of all the money left. 
So just those two bills together is a significant amount of all Federal 
spending.
  It would be great if we could get this done on time again this year, 
as we did for 70 percent of the spending last year.
  I am disappointed in the bill that we actually made public as part of 
an alternative today. For the first time in 4 years, we weren't able to 
work with our friends on the other side and have a bipartisan bill. 
This was a bill that was designed not to bring a lot of controversial 
legislating into the appropriating process but to do the appropriating, 
to leave the language in the bills that had been there before that may 
have been controversial at one time but has long become part of the 
bill but not add new things.
  We agreed to and the President signed a bipartisan agreement that 
reiterated that principle and set a total amount of money to be spent. 
In retrospect, it might have been better if we had also allocated that 
money between the 12 committees. We didn't do that. We basically 
allocated the defense part and the nondefense part. Because of that, we 
were not able to reach an agreement with the minority to mark up this 
bill the way I would have liked

[[Page S5555]]

to and I think, frankly, they would have liked to. Certainly, the 
ranking member and her staff have been an important part of this 
discussion.
  This bill--the bill that would be our alternative today--includes 
funding that they would like and I like. There is a new suicide 
initiative. It increases early childhood care and education programs. 
There are new mental health workforce programs involved here. We invest 
in homeless youth education in the way that I think the Senate 
ultimately will. Those are all things that we have tried to move 
forward on in a way that I am confident the minority is not opposed to. 
I think they will find little to criticize, frankly, in the bill.
  We didn't engage in a lot of new language. Some of the Republicans 
Members, including me, would like to see some further defining language 
in the bill, but that really gets to authorizing and not appropriating. 
That gets to passing legislation that should go through other 
committees and not just deciding how much money we are going to spend 
on those activities that the Federal Government has to participate in, 
is authorized to participate in, starting with the Constitution itself, 
the principal authorization to defend the country.
  In the Labor-HHS bill, we moved forward with things we have worked 
together on now for 4 years--a $3 billion increase in our Federal 
investment in NIH, the National Institutes of Health; opioid treatment 
and recovery that follows on our earlier commitments and moves that 
number to $3.9 billion. We strengthened the workforce in this bill, 
particularly the apprenticeships, with the idea that sooner rather than 
later, people should get a sense of the kind of job they would like to 
do and understand the pathway to work, which for some people involves a 
college education and for lots of people does not.
  I think 50 percent of the people who graduated from college are 
working at jobs that don't have anything to do with their college 
degrees. That doesn't mean the college degree was bad; it just means it 
is not the universal pathway that I think for almost a generation now 
we have talked about--how that was going to lead to better incomes and 
stronger families and all of that. What leads to better incomes and 
stronger families is a good job. It is doing things. You get out of 
high school and get a job and get married. If you can do it in that 
order, you are much more likely to not have concerns about poverty than 
if you try to skip any of those or do it some other way.
  For a long time, this bill has been one of the most difficult bills 
to negotiate. It has many of the hot-button issues that the country and 
the Congress deal with. Again, for the last 3 years--and that was for 
the first time in a decade--we have had a bipartisan bill. I think at 
the end of the day, we will have a bipartisan agreement again, but 
unfortunately our friends on the minority have--I think in their 
frustration about the allocation of money--decided: Well, even though 
we have agreed not to fight about new issues--adding things to the 
appropriations bill that haven't been there before--we are going to 
fight about that. We are going to say what the President can do about 
this, and we are going to say what doctors can do about that.
  That is not what this bill does or is designed to do.
  As I mentioned earlier, one of the things we have done is one of my 
top priorities as chairman, which is to move forward at this 
unbelievably important time with health research. I can't help but 
point out that 4 years ago, NIH hadn't had a penny increase, not an 
inflationary increase, not any increase for 12 years. This was 
basically the same 12 years in which we began to figure out how 
important it was that we now understood the human genome. This was the 
same 12 years that cancer researchers were looking at immunotherapy. 
This was the same 12 years that people were beginning to talk about, 
well, maybe you can do some editing with CRISPR technology that will 
prevent a future thing from occurring, that you could look at that 
genetic makeup and know it is going to occur. There was not a penny 
increase.
  Four years ago, the research community said they were 22 percent 
below--in research buying power--where they had been 12 years earlier. 
We caught up on that. If we are able to move forward with the $3 
billion increase, we will have had a 40-percent increase over five 
budgets. Now we are probably talking about really new money beyond 
where NIH was a dozen years ago. This 40-percent increase matters.
  The House and Senate have worked together. Congresswoman DeLauro and 
Congressman Cole have worked together with Senator Murray and me to 
make this a priority. I think we want to do that again. I think the 
facts will show that.
  Why should it be a priority? The most expensive disease in America 
right now is Alzheimer's. The cost to treat Alzheimer's patients is 
anticipated to rise to $1.1 trillion by 2050 if we don't find some way 
to get what is happening headed in a different direction. And $1.1 
trillion, by the way, is essentially double the defense budget. I don't 
know about you--I don't have a very good sense of how much $1.1 
trillion is, but I have a good sense of what we spend all over the 
world, as Americans, to defend the country and help defend the world. 
We will be spending twice that amount in today's dollars--taxpayers--on 
Alzheimer's and dementia treatment in 2050 if we don't find a solution. 
So I think quadrupling the amount of money that we spend in this area 
would make more sense. We are spending a little more than 2 percent on 
research, of the tax dollars we are spending on treatment right now, 
and, again, that only gets to be a bigger problem.
  Further, the bill increases funding for the BRAIN Initiative, to map 
the human brain, to $500 million.
  I had somebody in my office this morning saying that pediatric brain 
cancer is now a bigger threat to kids than leukemia. We made a real 
effort on leukemia. We are now moving to another area that is now 
attacking the lives and ending the lives, perhaps, of more juveniles 
than leukemia has.
  We have an investment for the first time in new ways of helping 
caregivers of patients with Alzheimer's. The anticipation is that for 
every government dollar spent--and today that would be about $600 
billion a year--for every government dollar spent, there are two 
private dollars spent, almost never insured. A lot of that is somebody 
deciding in their family that they are going to give up part or all of 
their work to take care of somebody they care about.
  We are fully funding the administration's request to end the HIV 
epidemic in the next 10 years. We have confidence in NIH that this is 
possible. We have that in sight. If we could end that as a life-
threatening epidemic, it would be a big thing.
  We are moving forward with combating the opioid epidemic. Our 
committee was a little bit ahead of the authorizers in realizing this 
is a huge problem for so many people in the country today.
  We are making an additional $100 million national commitment in 
mental health. NIH says that one in four or one in five adult Americans 
has a diagnosable and almost always treatable behavioral health issue.
  Those are just some of the many things this bill does.
  There is $5 million requested by the minority to train professionals 
to provide mental health and substance abuse counseling. If you didn't 
have a behavioral health issue before you got addicted, you will 
definitely have a behavioral health issue once you have been addicted. 
This doesn't just end by saying we can give you something to get you 
off the opioid or the drug addiction you have; you have to mentally get 
away from that addiction as well.
  We also focus on education. There are workforce initiatives to 
prepare younger people for jobs that are out there and prepare our 
entire workforce for the jobs that come next. We shouldn't be in the 
business of defending just any job; we want to defend viable jobs that 
are going to be viable today and hopefully part of the future. We want 
to ensure that workers are ready for the next job.
  It maintains funding for campus-based student aid for people who are 
likely the first people in their families to ever attend college--I was 
the first person in my family to graduate from college--and the TRIO 
Programs, to get high school kids thinking about the fact that they can 
go to college as one of their options and what it would mean to them if 
they do that, to do things that help people stay in college

[[Page S5556]]

and do things that get people ready for real jobs that are out there.
  One of the things I have noticed in the last year is how many people 
in their late twenties are still trying to decide what to do. I call it 
the lost decade. I have had so many conversations that went something 
like this: Well, I went to college for a semester or a year, and then I 
was an Uber driver for a while, and I did some landscaping. I was in 
retail at the lowest level. I was a bartender. Finally, it just 
occurred to me that this is not working. I have no retirement plan. I 
have no benefits. I don't make enough money to have the kind of family 
I would like to have.
  If you missed that decade, you are lucky to ever get it back. A few 
people can somehow recover from that economically and replace that lost 
decade. But the quicker you become part of an economy that you want to 
be part of, the better off you will be.
  In this bill, we are increasing elementary and secondary education 
support programs, like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 
and there is a Pell increase for the third year in a row for people who 
have Pell assistance when they go to school.
  We prioritized programs that benefit the country. We tried hard not 
to do that in a partisan way. I believe that at the end of the day, if 
Democrats look at this bill, they might argue about the amount of money 
available, but I think they would have a hard time arguing that it is 
not a bill that tries to really meet the challenges we face as a 
country.
  I would like to see us move with this bill and all four of the House 
bills in the package we vote on today and hope to see that happen when 
that vote occurs.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.


                    Remembering Chief Standing Bear

  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the life and 
legacy of Chief Standing Bear. In about an hour, Members of the 
Nebraska congressional delegation, Governor Ricketts, and House and 
Senate leaders will gather in Statuary Hall to dedicate a statue in his 
honor. I am proud that the State of Nebraska put forth his statue 
because America needs to hear his story.
  When Joe Starita, a professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln 
and esteemed author, speaks on Chief Standing Bear's life, he often 
begins with reciting a quote from novelist, poet, and farmer Wendell 
Berry. Wendell Berry once wrote: If you do not understand where you 
are, you do not understand who you are.
  If you live in Nebraska, you understand this fully. This knowledge 
doesn't come from maps or directions. It springs from a true love of 
the land--working on it, cultivating it, raising a family, building 
strong communities, taking pride in your life's work, and the sweat and 
tears that generations of your family put into it. It means enduring 
its disasters and enjoying those cool peaceful nights full of 
stars. Chief Standing Bear and the Ponca Tribe understood this.

  Imagine his surprise when on a cold January day in 1877, he and his 
Tribe were told to leave their beloved land. His Tribe had lived on 
their reservation for more than 200 years, and now they were being 
forced to travel nearly 600 miles to the south to Indian territory in 
Oklahoma.
  Under the threat of bayonets, the young and old, men, women, and 
children packed up their possessions and began to walk. By the time the 
Tribe reached the territory, they were enduring the scorching months of 
summer.
  Harvest season had passed, and the Tribe could not grow crops for the 
winter months. Starvation was rampant, and mosquitoes swarmed the 
reservation with malaria. After a year and a half, the Ponca lost over 
one-third of their Tribe, including Chief Standing Bear's son.
  In the final moments of his life, his son made him promise that he 
would be buried in the Ponca Tribe's homeland in Nebraska.
  To give his son the sacred burial he wanted, Chief Standing Bear led 
a 600-mile quest back to Nebraska, but with only an estimated 2 days of 
travel left ahead, he was stopped by the U.S. Cavalry and arrested. 
Chief Standing Bear was thrown in prison and was forced to prove that 
he had God-given rights as a human being.
  During this time, word began to spread throughout communities about 
his journey. Suddenly, people began to rally around this devoted 
father's story. Eventually, cries for justice resulted in a historic 
trial in the U.S. District Court in Omaha.
  The lawyers made their arguments. Then the judge granted Chief 
Standing Bear the opportunity to speak. The Chief rose and stood in 
silence while the packed courtroom anxiously waited. What followed was 
one of the greatest speeches in American history.
  Turning to face the judge, he held up his hand and said:

       This hand is not the color of yours, but if I pierce it, I 
     shall feel pain. If you pierce your hand, you also feel pain. 
     The blood that will flow from mine will be of the same color 
     as yours. I am a man. The same God made us both.

  Reports tell us that when Chief Standing Bear was finished speaking, 
the courtroom was filled with sounds of sobbing. A local Omaha World 
Herald reporter recounted that he saw tears on the judge's face. GEN 
George Crook, the defendant in the case, was one of the first in the 
sea of people to shake the Chief's hand. Days later, the judge ruled in 
favor of Chief Standing Bear.
  At long last, the landmark decision extended ``equal justice under 
law'' to Native Americans.
  Nearly 75 years later, a courageous woman carried a similar message 
of equality in Montgomery, AL. Rosa Parks, whose statue is also in 
Statuary Hall, knew that standing strong for her God-given dignity was 
worth risking everything she had.
  Months after her arrest, she said she ``would have to know for once 
and for all what rights I had as a human being and a citizen.''
  I will close with this. The room we will gather in later for the 
dedication ceremony is known as Statuary Hall. Until 1857, the House of 
Representatives met there, and their business was overseen by another 
statue, Clio--the muse of history. She was the source of inspiration 
for the political leaders at the time and served as a reminder that 
they were part of history.
  She is still there above the door leading to the Rotunda, keeping 
notes, documenting who we are now and where we are going. Today she 
will turn a new page.
  In Statuary Hall, the very room where she observed Congress 
shamefully passing the Indian Removal Act, we will dedicate a statue to 
honor the life of Chief Standing Bear. It is another important lesson 
in our Nation's story that in the end, with bravery, determination, and 
empathy, human freedom will always prevail.
  It is a great honor to celebrate the life and contributions of Chief 
Standing Bear. I know his statue will inspire millions of visitors who 
visit the U.S. Capitol every year. I am proud that Chief Standing 
Bear's legacy and the message of equality lives on in our great 
cathedral of democracy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                            Constitution Day

  Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, it is typically tradition to exchange gifts 
on anniversaries, but yesterday we celebrated the anniversary of a 
truly remarkable gift given to each of us as Americans: the 
Constitution.
  On September 17, 1787, our Founding Fathers concluded the 
Constitutional Convention by proposing a new form of government based 
upon inalienable rights and self-determination of the American people. 
The Founders of our great Nation devoted incredible foresight to the 
very structure on which our country is built, with the goal of 
protecting our rights as citizens for generations to come.
  Folks, we celebrate Constitution Day with gratitude--gratitude for 
the unprecedented freedoms this document guarantees, freedoms which 
have endured more than 230 years. As the world's oldest working 
national Constitution, the U.S. Constitution continues to withstand the 
test of time and remains among the most important documents ever to be 
written. It

[[Page S5557]]

not only established our government institutions such as Congress, the 
Presidency, and the courts, but it also limited the power of each to 
protect against tyranny.
  As constructed, our government can only exercise the limited powers 
specifically outlined in the Constitution, but the freedoms that all of 
us cherish deeply and that are so often taken for granted are forever 
guaranteed by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
  These include the freedom of religion, so we may worship freely what 
we know to be true in our hearts; freedom of speech, to debate and 
openly discuss as we endlessly seek to become that ``more perfect 
Union''; a free press, to share information with every citizen from 
north to south, from coast to coast, and to and from my home in Iowa; 
the right to peacefully assemble and enact change; due process, to 
ensure justice for every individual and protection against cruel and 
unusual punishment to those who are convicted; and the right of law-
abiding citizens to bear arms.
  Folks, the words of this Constitution, our sacred Constitution, have 
endured because they work. The Constitution sets the stage for the 
generations that follow to continue to expand its ``Blessings of 
Liberty,'' including: The 13th Amendment that abolished slavery, the 
15th Amendment which guaranteed African Americans the right to vote, 
and the 19th Amendment, which was approved by Congress 100 years ago 
this past July, granting women the right to vote.
  The Constitution does more to protect liberty than any political 
document ever composed. It actively guarantees life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness that our Founders merely hoped for at the drafting 
of the Declaration of Independence.
  To tamper with any of the rights promised to us at the founding of 
our Nation is to weaken the structure upon which our liberty was 
promised. Even in polarized times, these principles continue to ring 
true and unite us as Americans.
  Before each of us in this Chamber began our service to the people of 
our own great States, we first swore an oath to support and defend the 
Constitution of the United States. Every man and woman who enlists in 
our Nation's Armed Forces, as I have, begins their service by swearing 
a similar oath.
  Folks, the political winds may blow left, and they may blow right, 
but we can rest assured that no one can take away these guaranteed 
freedoms. With every new bill we consider, we must always pause to 
ensure that it is adhering to the rights outlined in our Constitution.
  There is nowhere in the world that enjoys the constitutional freedoms 
that American citizens do today. Those rights and freedoms apply to 
each one of us equally. No one is above the law, and no one is beneath 
it.
  The Constitution is a guidepost for justice and democracy and 
encompasses the bedrock of our ideals as Americans. Most importantly, 
the Constitution keeps a promise that power shall forever remain with 
``We the People.''
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I rise in commemoration of Constitution 
Day, celebrated nationwide yesterday, the date, September 17.
  Two hundred thirty-two years ago, our Founding Fathers gathered at 
Independence Hall in Philadelphia and signed a document that remains 
the supreme law of the land today. In those 232 years, the United 
States has become the most powerful, the most prosperous Nation in the 
history of the world, and that success has come as a result of the 
framework set by our Constitution.
  The genius of the Framers was their determination to maximize the 
freedom of the individual while recognizing the need for a central 
government limited in size by our Constitution. The Founders understood 
the nature of man. The Founders understood that power corrupts.
  Under the framework of federalism, we created a divide between the 
States and the Federal Government, allowing for powers to be shared. In 
fact, the 10th Amendment states:

       The powers not delegated to the United States by the 
     Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are 
     reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

  At the Federal level, we established three coequal branches of 
government, which established a system of checks and balances to offset 
the concentration of power. To complement the laws established, our 
Founders put in place the Bill of Rights as a safeguard to protect the 
individual from the threat of government tyranny. Our sacred rights and 
freedoms endowed by our Creator are recognized as inherent and 
untouchable because of our Bill of Rights.
  As the Father of our Constitution, James Madison, stated:

       In Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by power. 
     America has set the example . . . of charters of power 
     granted by liberty.

  Our constitutional system of government is the envy of the world and 
has served as a model for countries worldwide that are seeking to 
create representative governments. That is why it is so important for 
us to observe days like Constitution Day. Americans of all ages should 
be learning and should be studying our Constitution. They should be 
taking in what makes our Constitution so uniquely successful in 
nurturing a free and a prosperous society. Our grand experiment has 
stood the test of time, yet we must continue to be vigilant in the 
preservation of this most important part of our American legacy.
  So, today, I encourage every Montanan and every American to read the 
Constitution. Discuss it at the dinner table. Discuss it with your 
family members. Discuss it in your classrooms. Discuss it with your 
friends. Discuss it with your neighbors.
  As the preamble states, ``We the People'' established our 
Constitution, and it remains up to ``We the People'' to ensure its 
success.
  May God continue to bless this great Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, on September 17, 1787, this great 
experiment was finalized to try to form what they considered a more 
perfect Union, and the birth of our Constitution happened. This was a 
radical experiment in self-government, and most of the rest of the 
world at the time stared at those whom we now call our Founding Fathers 
and thought, that will never work.
  It wasn't a parliamentary system. It wasn't a monarchy. It was a 
representative republic, and it was pulling something out of the 
thoughts and the hearts of people to say: This is inherently what we 
think would work.
  It began with the simple concept of checks and balances--that one 
person would check another person who would check another person. They 
were able to put that into a governmental structure that had three 
coequal branches--an executive, a legislative, and judicial branch--so 
that we don't have one over the other. The three stand on equal 
footing. Each of them watches the other.
  It was a unique system of putting a legislative branch together that 
had one body made up of the House of Representatives that would be 
large, boisterous, and up for election every two years.
  The most painful parts of government--that are required of 
government--are put into the hands of the people who are closest to the 
people. Those are the power of impeachment, the power of the purse, and 
the power of things that need to be done by government but can be done 
only by people who are closest to the government.
  Then they were able to create a Senate with longer terms, closer to 
the States, and a larger perspective on how we would structure together 
to make sure that we protect the rights of the individual States and 
the uniqueness of, at that time, those 13 States all joining together. 
It was a radical idea and a complete shift from where we had just been.
  As Americans, occasionally we forget that this wasn't our first time 
to try to

[[Page S5558]]

put a government together. Prior to 1787, we had Articles of 
Confederation that basically had 13 different States that were very 
loosely connected to each other, that continued to spar with each 
other, and that didn't cooperate together. Eventually, they determined 
that we had to do something different.
  After our practice round of the Articles of Confederation, we put 
together this Constitution. But even after the Constitution was put 
into place, when the very first Congress came into session, they 
immediately began work on 12 amendments that, at that time, they called 
the Bill of Rights. That is right; there were 12 amendments. We are so 
used to hearing about the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights, but they 
started with 12. They debated and they edited and they worked it 
through, and those 12 ended up becoming 10. Those 10 amendments were 
added as our Bill of Rights, but we continue to be able to edit and to 
be able to work together as a country.
  Eventually, we fought a civil war--one of the most tragic parts of 
the entire history of our Nation. Yet this Constitution still kept us 
together at the end, and we still function together.
  Since the original 10 Bill of Rights, we have added 17 different 
amendments to the Constitution. This enduring document, after more than 
two centuries, continues to be the foundation of every single law in 
the United States. It is unlike many parts of the world even still 
today.
  In much of the world, they change constitutions every time their 
Monarch changes. They change constitutions every time their government 
changes. And when an executive branch decides they don't particularly 
like what is happening in the legislative branch, they just demand a 
new constitution and shift the laws of the entire country.
  We don't. We started with a Constitution and started with the simple 
principle that the law matters. We continue to build on that basic law. 
When our preferences change, the law still exceeds our preferences. And 
if there is a change that we need to make in law, we agree together to 
make a change in law.
  We still continue to respect the uniqueness of, now, all 50 States 
and of local authorities. We still have counties and cities and 
parishes and municipalities. They oversee school boards. They make day-
to-day decisions. They provide local first responders, garbage 
collection, recycling, public transportation, parks and recreation. 
They manage utilities. They decide street names, deal with local roads, 
street signs, and zoning laws. It is all done locally; it is not done 
federally. The Federal Government has nothing to do with that.
  Then, larger than the local municipalities, we have the States. They 
establish local governments. They establish public schools, issue 
teaching certificates, and licenses for professionals like doctors, 
lawyers, psychiatrists--as many types of professions as they choose. 
They decide the time, manner, and places of elections because those are 
the responsibilities of the States. They determine motor vehicle 
registrations, driver's licenses, marriage licenses, business licenses. 
They regulate commerce within their State.
  Our simple system is not only broken up into three different branches 
of government, but it is also broken up into local governments, State 
governments, and unique responsibilities for the Federal Government. 
That begins with our national defense, which is uniquely a role that we 
can do together as a Federal Government. Then there are interstate 
commerce and managing treaties with foreign entities. It is the 
responsibility of the larger government.

  This unique experiment that was radical in its day is still the envy 
of the world to this day, and there is a reason we pause each year in 
September and remember Constitution Day.
  I think about how often we celebrate the Declaration of Independence 
every Fourth of July and think about Thomas Jefferson--his writing and 
all of the editing that then happened with his document after he wrote 
it. We sometimes lose track of a day in September when we can pause and 
think of that second document in our founding after the Declaration--
the U.S. Constitution--that remains the foundation of every law that we 
still continue with today. We could not be more grateful for a stable 
foundation for our Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I join my two colleagues who were just here 
and spoke while I was here--my friend from Montana and my friend from 
Oklahoma--to talk about, really, the uniqueness of the government we 
have and of the unbelievable coming together of ideas in Philadelphia 
in 1787. They were ideas, frankly, that nobody had ever thought of in 
quite the same way before, starting with the first three words. This 
was the only document that had ever been devised up until that time 
that had suggested that the source of government was the source of 
government that the Constitution recognizes immediately.
  When the Magna Carta talked about the relationship between the King 
and the barons of England, that was even a big step in a new direction 
because, up until then, under monarchies, there was only one source of 
government, which was God. God's ordained, chosen Monarch was viewed by 
country, after country, after country as the way this should be done, 
and there would be a succession, and it would be understood. It had, 
really, nothing to do with you or me or anybody else. It was all some 
greater plan that was left up to somebody else.
  The Articles of Confederation that Mr. Lankford mentioned was a weak 
form of government that just simply, after a little more than a decade, 
had been proven not to work. It was just not a workable structure. Yet 
it looked to the States. It was sort of ``we the States of the United 
States enter into this agreement as States.''
  Yet it was this brand new concept in the Constitution that was put on 
paper at least for the first time--that of ``we the people.'' In 1787--
in reality, when the Constitution was adopted and the government was 
formed in 1789--the people became the source of government. The people 
became the responsible party. The people became the party by which, if 
the government weren't doing what you wanted it to do, it was up to you 
to do something about it because the government was only there because 
of you.
  Now, is ``we the people'' a totally inclusive, perfect document or 
was it even a perfect idea in 1787? Not at all. In fact, the 
Constitution goes on to read that we are doing this to form a more 
perfect union. It doesn't even suggest the forming of a perfect Union. 
It just suggests forming a more perfect Union with the understanding of 
a range of vision of what might happen. There were people who were 
advocating for women to be able to vote as Abigail Adams had advocated 
during the Revolution itself. There were people advocating that slavery 
be ended. There were many things that were evidenced in that room as 
part of the debate that didn't happen, but they didn't wait to have a 
perfect Union. They said they were going to form a more perfect Union, 
and you have to believe they assumed it would get more perfect as time 
went on.
  Here we are 200-some years later. Is it perfect yet? No, but it is, 
hopefully, more perfect than it has been and is less perfect than it 
will be because we the people are going to come together in this 
Convention and then, later, adopt it in a bigger setting to form a more 
perfect Union. That more perfect Union would include ideas that nobody 
had ever thought about before.

  If the people are forming the government, what kind of controls do 
you put on the government? Not too many controls.
  I remember, with the Bicentennial of the Constitution, Warren Burger 
was the Chairman of the Bicentennial Commission and the Chief Justice 
of the United States. He said, when he was a boy, you measured the 
value of a horse by how little harness you could put it on and still 
get it to do the work you wanted done. You didn't totally handicap the 
horse by piling all kinds of harnesses and all kinds of reins and all 
kinds of bits. A valuable horse was a horse that didn't need to take 
all kinds of structure but had all the structure it needed. That is 
what the Constitution tried to put together, not a government that 
would overwhelm itself but a government that had enough to control 
itself.
  They came up with this idea of a balance of power. As all of us would 
believe, they started describing the most

[[Page S5559]]

important part of the government in article I. That is why it was 
article I that set up the Congress--the House and the Senate. They then 
came up with an executive who would execute the will of the article I 
body--the body that decided how to spend the money and the body that 
would decide what laws could get on the President's desk and the body 
that had the ability, if the President didn't sign the law, to override 
the President's decision not to sign the law.
  All of that was there in that balance of power. It was where the 
Congress had strengths, where the executive had strengths, and where 
even the Court comes in to serve often as a referee between the two. It 
is sometimes to tell the President what the President can do and what 
the Congress can't do. Sometimes it is just the opposite and says: No, 
you can't do this. You can appropriate the money, but you can't 
appropriate it conditionally. You can't appropriate the money and say, 
to get the money, the President has to do things that don't have 
anything to do with the appropriations process. We just want the 
President to behave differently. We can't do that, and the President 
shouldn't be able to do it either. The courts are often the group that 
decides that.
  Again, in not having too many obligations in the Constitution, what 
does the Constitution say about the courts? It does not say a lot.
  It reads there will be a Supreme Court and such other courts as the 
Congress decides are necessary. That is not a very complex structure. 
It doesn't say how many people are going to be on the Supreme Court. 
There have been different numbers over time. It doesn't say how many 
other courts there will be. Yet the courts are there, and the judges 
serve for life. Outside of the normal concerns that they might have 
that one of the other groups would decide whether they could continue 
to serve or not, that may be their greatest power--that they are there 
no matter what they decide unless their decisions are so extraordinary 
that somehow the other power decides to remove them.
  So here we are. It is a living document. It is amendable. It is a 
living document through its amendments, not through its interpretation.
  The Founders and those who believe the Constitution continues to 
serve a constitutional purpose never thought, well, we will decide 
later what the Founders would have thought that sentence meant. This 
has divided our country, by the way, for a while. Many people, along 
with me, think the Constitution means what it says it means and what 
you would have thought it would have meant in the context of the time. 
If you want to change that, there is a process to change it. The 
amendment process works beyond just the first 10 amendments and the 
other amendments that Senator Lankford talked about, and it is still 
there to do that.
  Here we are, celebrating this unique moment when people came together 
with ideas that were put on paper and were approved. Even if they had 
been talked about before, they had never formed the basis for a 
government before. Yet here we are--well over 200 years beyond 1787 and 
the first year of the government, 1789. The Constitution has been the 
model for all kinds of constitutions by all kinds of countries. 
Interestingly, many of them have almost the same Constitution we have, 
but they have just not been able to figure out how to live with it or 
to let the balance of power or the power of people work.
  Again, the most important part is that of the first three words--the 
most important in understanding the forming of a more perfect Union. It 
has not yet been accomplished and maybe never will be accomplished, but 
it always gives us a goal for things to be better than they have been. 
In our country, we have the opportunity to live under the Constitution, 
which provides a unique set of liberties and freedoms that others can 
only hope for.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                               H.R. 2740

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, later today, we are going to vote on 
whether to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 2740, the 
House Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, Defense, State, 
Foreign Operations, and Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Act. I must say I have to strongly urge Senators to vote no.
  I am not urging a ``no'' vote because the House bills are not good 
bills. The underlying House bills are good bills. If we were going to 
vote just to consider these bills, that would be easy. I and 
practically everybody in this Chamber would vote yes, but that is not 
what we are doing.
  Senator McConnell has made it very clear that he will bring up H.R. 
2740 not to vote on the bills that have been passed by the House of 
Representatives but for the consideration of the Senate's Defense 
appropriations bill, which was a partisan bill that was reported along 
party lines out of the Appropriations Committee. He is going to offer 
that as a substitute once we proceed to the underlying bills.
  On top of taking a totally partisan bill as a substitute for 
legislation that could have easily passed, as part of the substitute, 
Leader McConnell is going to offer the Energy and Water Appropriations 
bill as well as the State, Foreign Operations, and Labor-HHS and 
Education bills. Now, those last two bills have never been considered 
by the committee. They have not been voted on by the subcommittees, and 
they have not been voted on by the full committee. They were pulled 
from the committee markup last week because the Republicans were afraid 
to vote on amendments that would have received the support of both 
Republicans and Democrats.
  Is that how we operate? Just because things get complicated and 
difficult, do we just skip parts of the legislative process? Do we say, 
``Oh, my goodness gracious, I am afraid to have to vote on something 
either yes or no''? That is no way to proceed.
  Not one Democrat on the Appropriations Committee voted for the 
Defense bill--not one--including me, and I have voted for more money 
for the Department of Defense than any Senator who is serving in this 
body today.
  The way the Defense bill was written, it does nothing to prevent the 
President from stealing billions of dollars more from our troops to pay 
for his cynical campaign promise of building a gigantic wall across our 
southern border. He will steal this money from our troops and their 
families even though he promised us that Mexico would pay for it.
  In fiscal year 2019 alone, the President has already raided $6.1 
billion from the Department of Defense's accounts for his border wall. 
He did that without having congressional approval. He first diverted 
$2.5 billion from the fiscal year 2019 Defense Appropriations Act for 
the wall by using standard transfer authority. We provide this 
authority to the Department of Defense to ensure that the DOD has the 
flexibility it requires to meet the needs of the troops in an evolving 
threat environment. It is not intended to be used by the President as a 
piggy bank for a campaign promise or for a pet project that Congress 
has refused to support.
  He took $3.6 billion more from military construction projects for a 
southern border wall. This was the wall he gave his word that Mexico 
would pay for. He, instead, is taking the money from projects like 
military schools, childcare centers, and improved training facilities 
that would improve the lives of our troops and their families to pay 
for his wall. We cannot let that happen again.
  I offered an amendment during committee markup of the Defense 
appropriations bill that would protect the money we appropriated for 
our troops by prohibiting the President from using it to build a border 
wall, but that amendment was defeated on a party-line vote.
  Now the Republican leader accuses Democrats of not standing with the 
troops by voting against this bill, but it is exactly the opposite.
  We are the ones saying we want funds that should go to support the 
troops and their families to go to them, and we should not allow the 
President to take the money from the troops and their families for the 
wall.
  Taking that money is tantamount to telling military families: You may 
serve loyally, but we care more about a failed campaign promise--a wall 
in the middle of the desert that the President promised Mexico would 
pay for--than we do about providing schools and

[[Page S5560]]

daycare for their children or weapons training or a fire station. I am 
not going to sign up for that.
  We have to stand up for the Constitution. The President has contorted 
the law beyond all recognition by raiding defense dollars for his wall. 
He has undone congressional funding decisions by fiat. If we let that 
go unanswered, we are surrendering Congress's constitutional power of 
the purse.
  Last year, we were able to move appropriations bills on the floor 
because the leaders agreed that only bills that had bipartisan support 
would move forward. I commend my colleague, the senior Senator from 
Alabama, Senator Shelby. We showed the right way to proceed then and it 
is the right way to proceed now. We passed those bills, but the package 
of bills before us today does not have such support.
  I was hopeful that once we secured a bipartisan budget agreement, we 
would be on a bipartisan path to consider Senate appropriations bills 
that reflect the best of our country. Unfortunately, the Republican 
leadership started out the process on a partisan note by refusing to 
rein in the ability of the President to take the defense dollars meant 
to help our troops and using them to build his wall and by 
shortchanging the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations so they could put 
$5 billion of it in the Homeland Security bill for the President's 
wall.
  Now I wonder how many more of our tax dollars we are going to spend 
on this boondoggle. If you put it to a vote to this country, they would 
say: No more.
  In the bipartisan budget agreement, nondefense funding was given a 
$27 billion increase. That was roughly a 3-percent increase. If all 
things were equal, the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, which 
is our largest domestic funding bill, should receive a 3-percent 
funding increase in fiscal year 2020, but the Republican bill only 
gives 1 percent, while the Department of Homeland Security receives a 
7-percent increase to pay for the wall. That is not right.
  The result is a bill put forward by the Republicans today that fails 
to cover even the annual cost of inflation in public health and Head 
Start, childcare, special education, education for the disadvantaged, 
veterans' training grants, and dozens of other programs.
  So robbing from the funds that were meant for education, childcare, 
and healthcare programs that have a real positive impact on the lives 
of all American people to pay for President Trump's wall is just as 
unacceptable as robbing from these funds from our military. Members on 
our side of the aisle are not going to support that.
  Last year, the President shut down much of the government for 35 days 
in a tweet tantrum over his wall. This strategy of border wall above 
all else, border wall above any interests of this country, has already 
failed once, and it will fail again.
  The majority leader has said there is no education in the second kick 
of a mule. I agree, but now we find ourselves in this position again. 
We have been down this road. It was the President's failed strategy 
that led to the longest government shutdown in the history of our 
country just 9 months ago and cost Americans billions of dollars.
  It was the President's failed strategy to hold the government of the 
American people hostage to pay for a wall that he gave his word Mexico 
would pay for.
  There is a bipartisan path forward. We have bipartisan bills that 
have gone through the Appropriations Committee with overwhelming 
support of Republicans and Democrats. The majority leader ought to just 
bring those bills up while we sort out these other issues.
  The Energy and Water Appropriations bill was reported out of 
committee last week on a unanimous vote; every Democrat, every 
Republican voted for it. Tomorrow the Appropriations Committee will 
consider the Agriculture appropriations bill and the Transportation, 
Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill.
  I expect that most Democrats and most Republicans will vote for them, 
and we could bring these bills to the floor. Instead, we are forced 
today to vote cloture on a partisan defense appropriations bill, a 
partisan state-foreign operations bill, and a partisan labor-HHS-
education bill, the last two of which were never even considered in 
committee.
  The State-Foreign Operations bill continues the President's 
discriminatory Mexico City policy, which prohibits funding for private 
organizations that support family planning and reproductive health, and 
it caps funding for family planning at an arbitrarily and unacceptably 
low level. It eliminates all funding for the U.N. population fund. That 
is a fund that provides lifesaving assistance to women and girls in 
Yemen and dozens of other countries where USAID does not have programs.
  For the past 30 years, I have been either chairman or ranking member 
for the State, Foreign Operations Subcommittee. That subcommittee has a 
long record of producing bipartisan bills. That was true when the 
majority leader, Senator McConnell, was chairman, when former Senator 
Judd Gregg of New Hampshire was chairman, while Senator Graham has been 
chairman, and during the years I was chairman. We were ready to mark up 
that bill last week, but because one Senator wanted to offer an 
amendment related to family planning--an amendment that had both 
Republican and Democratic support of a majority of members of the 
committee--the markup was canceled.
  We were not allowed to vote on it. Rather than vote, the majority 
canceled the markup. What kind of process is this? What kind of 
democracy is that? We are better than this. We are the 100 Members of 
the U.S. Senate--100 men and women--who represent 325 million 
Americans. That is an awesome responsibility.
  Senators should not be afraid to vote. Senators should show courage, 
not hide behind procedural actions so they never have to take a 
position. That is not why people come to the U.S. Senate. That is not 
what is expected of the 100 people here to represent this great 
country.
  So I would urge Members to vote no on the cloture motion. It is 
nothing more than a political stunt.
  We have bipartisan bills with overwhelming support of Republicans and 
Democrats. Bring them up. Let's not waste time on show votes.
  I will continue to work with my good friend Chairman Shelby and the 
majority and Democratic leader to find a way forward, but let's not 
have show votes. Let's have real votes. Let's have all 100 of us stand 
up and say what we stand for.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I listened to some of the remarks of the 
distinguished Senator from Vermont and friend. I think we are both 
trying to find a path forward to move our appropriations bill, but we 
are not there yet.
  This afternoon, I urge my colleagues to invoke cloture on the motion 
to proceed to H.R. 2740, the first package of appropriations bills sent 
over by the U.S. House of Representatives. This package includes the 
Defense; Energy and Water; Labor, HHS, and Education; and State-Foreign 
Operations appropriations bills.
  My Democratic colleagues have said they are opposed to proceeding to 
this package because we must pass domestic spending bills before we 
pass the Defense bill, but this package before us right now does both. 
In fact, it accounts for more than 40 percent of domestic spending. As 
I said before, it mirrors the package sent to us by Speaker Pelosi and 
the Democratic-controlled House. So this excuse, I believe, for 
delaying consideration of this package doesn't hold water this 
afternoon. We need to move the process forward.
  I want to make a few points about the Senate versions of these bills 
that we will bring up if we invoke cloture today.
  Last week, the Appropriations Committee reported the Defense and 
Energy and Water bills. The Energy and Water bill, as Senator Leahy has 
just remarked, garnered unanimous support. My Democratic colleagues 
similarly praised the bipartisan nature of the Defense bill. Yet they 
voted against it in the committee. They did so because the bill, as I 
understand it, from what they tell me, does not restrict the 
President's ability to transfer funds to secure our southern border.
  The terms of the bipartisan budget deal governed the fiscal year 2020 
appropriations process. That is why they

[[Page S5561]]

entered into this agreement. They were agreed to by Republican and 
Democratic leaders, all the way up to the President, the Speaker of the 
House, the majority leader, the minority leader, and so forth. Those 
terms expressly prohibit restrictions on the President's ability to 
transfer funds. It is plain as day.
  Our Democratic colleagues may now regret having agreed to those 
terms, but that does not change the fact that they did agree to them, 
and we want to go by them.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to place this term sheet into 
the Record
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Bipartisan Budget Agreement for Fiscal Years 2020 and 2021

       1. The 2019 Bipartisan Budget Agreement for fiscal years 
     2020 and 2021 (``Agreement'') is agreed to by the bipartisan 
     leadership of Congress and the administration of Donald J. 
     Trump. The bipartisan Congressional leadership and the 
     administration agree to cooperate in the Agreement's 
     implementation.
       2. The Agreement modifies the discretionary spending caps 
     imposed by the Budget Control Act (``BCA'') for fiscal years 
     2020 and 2021 pursuant to the table below. The spending cap 
     adjustments are intended to reflect the elimination of the 
     BCA sequester for two years, plus a slight increase in 
     spending for both defense and non-defense programs.
       3. The parties agree to partially offset the Agreement's 
     modifications to the discretionary spending caps legislation 
     by extending the BCA mandatory sequester and customs user 
     fees to achieve a total offset level of $77.4 billion as 
     scored by the Congressional Budget Office.
       4. The debt limit will be suspended for two years, through 
     July 31, 2021. No additional restrictions will be placed on 
     the Secretary's extraordinary measures authorities. The debt 
     limit suspension, spending cap adjustments, offsets, and any 
     necessary procedural matters, will be included as part of a 
     single piece of legislation.
       5. Appropriations bills: Specific spending decisions shall 
     be left to the members of the Appropriations Committees, with 
     302(b)s set through the regular process of the committees. 
     Congressional leaders and the administration agree that, 
     relative to the FY 2019 regular appropriations Acts, there 
     will be no poison pills, additional new riders, additional 
     CHIMPS, or other changes in policy or conventions that allow 
     for higher spending levels, or any non-appropriations 
     measures unless agreed to on a bipartisan basis by the four 
     leaders with the approval of the President. Current transfer 
     funding levels and authorities shall be maintained, and any 
     modifications must be agreed to on a bipartisan basis by the 
     four leaders with the approval of the President. Any 
     emergency spending levels must be agreed to on a bipartisan 
     basis by the four leaders with the approval of the President.
       6. The agreement also establishes a new cap adjustment for 
     FY 2020 to help ensure the necessary resources for the 
     decennial Census are provided.
       7. Senate Leaders agree that if a bill has been reported on 
     a bipartisan basis from the Senate Appropriations Committee 
     and is consistent with the BCA spending caps, and has the 
     support of the Chairman and the Ranking Member, they will 
     work together to minimize procedural delays. The Majority 
     Leader will continue to consult with the Democratic Leader to 
     sequence bills in a bipartisan way, and acknowledges that 
     bipartisan concurrence is required to expedite the 
     consideration of any appropriations bill.
       8. The President, Congressional leaders and the leadership 
     of the Appropriations Committees shall work together to reach 
     bicameral and bipartisan agreement on the orderly and timely 
     consideration of FY 2020 appropriations bills to avoid a 
     government shutdown, and a 12-bill omnibus. The President, 
     Congressional leaders and the leadership of the 
     Appropriations Committees shall also work together to reach 
     bicameral and bipartisan agreement on the orderly and timely 
     consideration of FY 2021 appropriations bills to avoid a 
     government shutdown, and a 12-bill omnibus.
  Mr. SHELBY. Lack of adherence to the terms of the budget deal also 
explains why we are unable to mark up the other two bills in this 
package: Labor, HHS, and Education and State-Foreign Operations.
  Just like the Defense and Energy and Water bills, these bills were 
crafted in a bipartisan way. Yet some of my Democratic colleagues 
threatened to amend these bills with abortion-related poison pills.
  Poison pills, as we all know--just like restrictions on transfer 
authority--are expressly--expressly--prohibited by the terms of the 
budget deal that we all agreed to just a few weeks ago. Again, both 
parties agreed to those terms.
  Regardless, I am interested in moving the appropriations process 
forward, and I believe Senator Leahy is too. I am interested in doing 
so consistent with the budget agreement we agreed to.
  That is why the chairman of the Labor-HHS and Senate Foreign 
Operations Subcommittees, Senator Blunt and Senator Graham, have 
released the versions of these bills that the Appropriations Committee 
intended to consider last week.
  Both bills were crafted with bipartisan input, and both are free of 
poison pills. We are proud of the work that went into those bills and 
want to be transparent about how we intend to proceed, but before we 
vote on cloture, I want to remind my colleagues of our shared success 
last year and our common interest in moving the process forward this 
year.
  In fiscal year 2019--last year--we achieved more success in passing 
appropriations bills than we had done in 20 years. The linchpin of that 
success was an agreement between me and Senator Leahy, the vice 
chairman of the committee, to ban poison pills from appropriation 
bills. Both sides upheld that agreement right here on the floor, and we 
funded 75 percent of the government on time.
  That is the framework the bipartisan budget deal was modeled after so 
we could replicate what we did last year. The purpose of the budget 
agreement is to replicate the success we had last year, as I just said, 
to ensure that we do not revert to the dysfunctional appropriations 
process of years past. That is why it is so important that we adhere to 
it now. I think the American people want us to do it and do it now.
  It is all the more important considering what we are trying to fund 
with this package. It contains critical investments, not just in 
health, education and energy projects but in national security, our 
military.
  I believe the situation unfolding in Saudi Arabia should serve as a 
grave reminder to all of us that we must set aside partisan politics 
and do our job to provide our military the resources it needs to keep 
America safe. It should also remind us that our main adversaries--China 
and Russia--never relent in their efforts to destabilize us anywhere in 
the world. That is why we must do our part to ensure that they fail. We 
cannot do that without stable funding for our military and for 
certainty for our soldiers.
  Failure to prioritize funding for our national defense would 
undermine the Pentagon's planning process, hinder our commanders' 
ability to counter threats to America, and threaten the safety of our 
Nation. That is unacceptable.
  We have the opportunity today to move forward together to bolster our 
national security. We have a framework for success that we have used 
last year. Let's use it now.
  I hope my Democratic colleagues will recommit to the terms of the 
budget deal that they agreed to in spirit and in fact. I hope they will 
set aside partisan politics and do right by our military, the numerous 
agencies that would receive funding in this package, and our 
constituents--the American people--and let us get on with the business 
of the people.
  Again, this afternoon I urge my colleagues to vote yes on cloture.


                             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 senior assistant 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 H.R. 2740, a bill making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2020, and for other purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, Roger F. Wicker, John Cornyn, Richard C. 
           Shelby, John Barrasso, Johnny Isakson, Richard Burr, 
           Thom Tillis, Mike Rounds, Jerry Moran, Mike Crapo, 
           James E. Risch, John Boozman, Roy Blunt, John Thune, 
           David Perdue, John Hoeven.

  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 H.R. 2740, a bill making appropriations for the 
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,

[[Page S5562]]

and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2020, 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 senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Roberts) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Rounds).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 
the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), and the Senator from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted----yeas 51, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 292 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--44

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Reed
     Rosen
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Booker
     Klobuchar
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sanders
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are 
44.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having not voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The majority leader.


                     Motion to Reconsider the Vote

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
  The Senator from Tennessee.


                            Constitution Day

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, one of the occasions that we celebrate 
every year is Constitution Day, and that actually took place yesterday. 
It was so exciting to visit with students, talk to constituents, and 
celebrate Constitution Day and the fact that we have this document.
  Our Constitution is a disarmingly short document to read. When you 
sit down to read it, it doesn't really take a lot of time to digest it. 
When you are done with it, you might easily walk away thinking: That 
wasn't that hard after all. It is pretty simple, right? We all know 
that is not necessarily the case. It is easy to understand, but it is 
so important that we look at it in its entirety.
  There is an entire body of law dedicated to tearing apart that 
Constitution. It is mind-boggling when you think about that. We have 
this document. It puts this foundation in place, and there is law that 
would rip it apart. There are those who would rip it apart, who are 
looking for answers to problems our Founders never dreamed of.
  There has been a lot of talk lately concerning the Founders and how 
their backgrounds and status in society informed the document that 
eventually became what is known as the Constitution of the United 
States. But I think it is even more important to think of the Founders 
as human beings who came to the Constitutional Convention harboring 
ambitions and goals equal in gravity to our present passions--their 
desire to have a United States of America.
  They wanted freedom from their oppressors on the other side of the 
world and from a system of government that would inevitably lead to 
oppression. They said: No more. Let's write this into the fiber of this 
Nation--freedom; freedom from our oppressors. They wanted to reforge 
the chains that broke during the Revolution into ties that would bind 
the several States together under a common goal--bound together, united 
in purpose and in freedom. After years of blood and uncertainty, they 
desperately wanted control over their own lives and over their futures, 
individual freedom--freedom to choose.
  Because they were human, yes, they wanted power, and so they argued. 
They argued about everything. They argued about States' rights. They 
argued about a nation having a debt. They argued about the Confederacy 
and compacts versus the Federalists' vision of ``a more perfect 
Union.'' But through all that, the Founders still managed to create a 
document that set forth a new standard of government--a government of 
the people, by the people, and for the people. It is a form of 
governance that is responsible not to the government but is responsible 
to the people.

  They gave us a framework, but there are a great many things that they 
declined to set in stone. They made a conscious choice, which is why we 
continually find ourselves engaging in philosophical combat. 
Unfortunately, as part of that battle, many of my friends on the other 
side of the aisle have gone so far as to undermine the very 
institutions that define this country.
  Supreme Court confirmations have turned into a circus. Policy debates 
devolve into personal attacks. Distinguishing between news and opinion 
is all but impossible on many days of the week. Many of my friends on 
the other side of the aisle like to describe the Constitution as a 
living document, but I don't really follow that line of thinking. 
Describing our Constitution as a living document is really just a 
prelude to changing the rules to fit the circumstances, and, in my 
opinion, that is a dangerous concept.
  As our Founders signed on the dotted line, the rest of the world 
looked toward America's shores with skepticism, and, at times, 
derision. They didn't understand how a government by the people and for 
the people could possibly fit into the existing mold.
  After over 200 years of progress, there are still those who remain 
skeptical of the country that broke the mold and transformed from a 
struggling cluster of Colonies into a shining city on a hill.
  I urge all of my colleagues to respect the Constitution. It is not an 
intellectual straitjacket. Not once has the sum of its contents acted 
as a barrier to progress. The Constitution is not the source of the 
freedoms it guarantees, but it does state definitively that its 
execution secured the blessings of liberty to those who bore witness to 
America's beginnings and to those who would come after. It is a legacy 
worth fighting for. Happy Constitution Day.
  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 (Mr. Alexander). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________