[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 170 (Monday, October 28, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6179-S6187]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND 
  DRUG ADMINISTRATION, INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, 
  VETERANS AFFAIRS, TRANSPORTATION, AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2020

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 3055, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and 
     Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2020, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Shelby amendment No. 948, in the nature of a substitute.
       McConnell (for Shelby) amendment No. 950, to make a 
     technical correction.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.


                         Remembering Kay Hagan

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, first, I was saddened by today's news 
that our former colleague, the Senator from North Carolina, Kay Hagan, 
had passed away. During her time representing the people of North 
Carolina, Kay was exactly that--a gentle lady. She paired an earnest 
commitment to public service with a friendly and collegial approach. I 
know Members of both sides of the aisle will fondly remember serving 
alongside her in the Senate, and her perseverance in the face of 
serious illness these recent years was inspiring.
  Today the prayers of this entire body are with Kay's husband, Chip; 
their children, Jeanette, Tilden, and Carrie; and with all of their 
family and friends at this extremely difficult time.


                     Death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

  Mr. President, on a completely different matter, on Sunday morning, 
we woke up to a better and safer world because one monster was no 
longer in it. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was the founder and leader of ISIS. 
In recent years, that made him the single most important target in the 
fight against radical Islamic terrorism.
  His band of fanatics has committed heinous crimes, shed an 
unimaginable amount of civilian blood, and destabilized an entire 
region. ISIS has been party to a civil war in Syria that has claimed 
hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. They have run slave auctions 
of women and girls and effected a genocide of the Yazidi people.
  Across a swath of Syria and Iraq, ISIS established a so-called 
caliphate, imprisoned entire communities, slaughtered vulnerable 
minority populations, destroyed priceless cultural relics, and imposed 
their will through brute force on anyone they deemed insufficiently 
pious. Across the globe,

[[Page S6180]]

their message of hate has spurred further acts of violence--in Europe, 
in Africa, and even here on American soil.

  So Americans applauded President Trump's announcement yesterday 
morning that a heroic mission had eliminated the chief instigator of 
all this violence. We owe a debt of thanks to the men and women of our 
intelligence community for taking grave risks, cultivating key 
partnerships in the region, and laying the groundwork for a swift and 
precise operation.
  Of course, we are hugely grateful to the U.S. military personnel who 
executed the strike. Our Nation calls upon elite Special Operations 
units to take on missions of the utmost sensitivity. Their bravery and 
professionalism continue to make us all proud.
  My fellow Kentuckians and I are especially proud of Lt. Gen. Scott 
Howell, a Cadiz, KY native, is currently leading the Joint Special 
Operations Command and oversaw this daring mission.
  Lieutenant General Howell is a career Air Force pilot who has spent 
his career deploying with and commanding Special Operations forces. Our 
Nation is lucky to have this son of the Bluegrass serving where he is.
  I commend President Trump, Secretary Esper, and the entire 
administration team for making the tough call to act on our 
intelligence and send U.S. Forces into the breach. That decision is 
never easy, but it was the right one. It was a total operational 
success.
  This victory offers us an important strategic reminder about the 
value of our Nation's investment in advanced military capabilities, 
American military presence abroad, and deep relationships with foreign 
allies and local security partners. Without such factors, operations 
such as this become much more risky.
  The name of this terrorist is now headed straight for the trash bin 
of history. There are other names I would like for us to remember today 
instead:
  Peter Kassig, born and raised in Indianapolis, a former Army Ranger 
turned humanitarian worker in the Middle East. ISIS beheaded him in 
2014. He was 26 years old.
  Steven Sotloff, a grandson of Holocaust survivors born in Florida and 
a dual citizen of the U.S. and Israel. He was a journalist who worked 
with refugees fleeing the Syrian civil war. He was kidnapped by ISIS 
and beheaded in 2014.
  James Foley grew up in New Hampshire. He spent 4 years as an embedded 
correspondent in Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria before his capture by 
ISIS. After 2 years of captivity and torture, he, too, was beheaded in 
2014.
  Kayla Mueller from Arizona, whom ISIS kidnapped in Aleppo in 2013. 
Kayla's Christian faith had led her to humanitarian work. She was 
brutalized by ISIS leaders and then killed in 2015, at the age of 26. 
This weekend's operation was code-named in Kayla's honor.
  Today we remember these brave Americans and all the courageous U.S. 
servicemembers and DOD civilians who gave their lives to fight ISIS. In 
their memories, we are glad justice has been done. In their memories, 
we resolve not to back down but to persist in this fight until we have 
secured the enduring defeat of this dangerous and determined enemy.


                          Trump Administration

  Mr. President, on another matter, on Thursday, the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee and I introduced a resolution, which quickly gained 
dozens of Republican cosponsors. Our resolution states two things, 
which are very obvious. No. 1, any process as serious as an impeachment 
inquiry, which seeks to cancel out the American people's vote in a 
Presidential election, must adhere to the highest standards of fairness 
and due process, and, No. 2, what we have seen on display from House 
Democrats has been anything but that.
  Here is the way House Democrats have conducted their inquiry so far. 
Committees at the center of the inquiry have denied President Trump 
important rights and protections that President Nixon and President 
Clinton enjoyed. They have impeded his right to have counsel attend 
hearings and depositions, call and cross-examine witnesses, and even 
access the evidence they are producing.
  Democrats are also flouting past practices that gave minority parties 
basic procedural rights during past impeachments. House Republicans 
have not been granted subpoena power, and their participation in 
closed-door proceedings has been severely limited.
  It is no secret that Washington Democrats have been looking for a way 
to remove President Trump since his inauguration, but that does not 
remove the basic requirements of fairness and due process.
  That is what our resolution makes clear. I am proud to sponsor it, 
along with Chairman Graham.


                             Appropriations

  Mr. President, on a related matter, Washington Democrats have been 
insisting that their 3-year-old impeachment journey will not keep them 
from attending to the people's business. Well, we will have an 
opportunity to find out later this week when the Senate votes on 
advancing funding for our Armed Forces.
  You will recall that last month, our Democratic colleagues made the 
stunning decision to filibuster legislation to fund our national 
defense. They blocked resources for our men and women in uniform. They 
blocked the funding our commanders need to keep us safe in this 
dangerous time. And that wasn't enough. They blocked a pay raise for 
the men and women in uniform. Democrats filibustered all of this for 
the sake of picking a fight with the White House. Think about that. Can 
our colleagues be so ruled by partisan politics that they would rather 
leave the U.S. military in limbo than get along with President Trump 
for 2 minutes--for 2 minutes?
  Obviously this cannot continue. Our commanders need funding. Our men 
and women in military need support. Congress needs to do its job. So 
later this week, the Senate is going to vote again, one more time, to 
advance defense funding. We will complete the domestic appropriations 
we are currently considering, including voting on certain amendments, 
and then we will turn back to defense. This will present a crystal-
clear test: Do our Democratic colleagues mean it when they say they 
want to legislate or not--there is no more important legislation than 
this--or is their impeachment obsession crowding out critical 
priorities?
  Imagine the spectacle if the same Senate Democrats who give lengthy 
speeches criticizing the administration's actions in Syria and the 
Middle East literally block the funding our commanders need to keep up 
the missions. Imagine the embarrassment if Senate Democrats filibuster 
funding for our men and women in uniform just days after this past 
weekend's heroics, just days after the whole country was reminded that 
our brave servicemembers risk everything every day, and their missions 
do not wait for Washington politics. Imagine the supreme irony if the 
same Democrats who want to impeach the President for supposedly 
delaying military assistance for Ukraine literally themselves delay 
military assistance for Ukraine by blocking the funding legislation.
  I urge my friends across the aisle to do the right thing. The whole 
country knows that Washington Democrats are not members of President 
Trump's fan club. We get that. We understand that. But there is no 
reason why money to fight ISIS, money to pay and supply our 
servicemembers, and, yes, money for military assistance for Ukraine 
ought to be used as Democrats' political pawns.
  Enough is enough. We need to move forward with the Defense funding 
bill this week.
  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. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                         Remembering Kay Hagan

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, the Scripture tells us that ``the Lord is 
close to the brokenhearted,'' in Psalm 34:18. I pray those words are 
true, because we lost a Member of the Senate family today and many of 
us have lost a dear friend. We are brokenhearted at the news that 
Senator Kay Hagan passed away at the age of 66.
  I spoke to her husband Chip a few hours ago, and I told him that from 
the

[[Page S6181]]

first moment I met Kay Hagan, she was special. She remained that way 
every day since. She was an amazing force--never loud but always 
strong, effective, hard-working, dedicated, principled, and just a 
kindhearted person.
  He told me that he and Kay had just had a wonderful weekend, a 
dinner, a wedding, surrounded by friends and family. She even got to 
spend some time with Joe Biden, who was in town. Chip said she was just 
beaming.
  I take some comfort in knowing that. In fact, it reminded me of how 
Kay lived her life. She was never one to let the sometimes painful 
realities of life in politics get her down. I knew Kay for over a 
decade, as a State senator, a candidate, a brilliant Senator, and a 
former Senator who returned to private life without an ounce of regret 
or ill-will.
  In all that time, I never heard her once--never heard her once--
complain. She was never sour, sarcastic, or dejected. She remained 
always to her last day a cheerful optimist, a happy warrior.
  It is only one of the many reasons that Kay Hagan was beloved by 
Members on this side of the aisle and I believe by a great number of 
those on the other side as well. Boy, do we miss her.
  My heart goes out to Chip, to their three kids--Jeanette, Tilden, and 
Carrie--and their wonderful grandchildren, of whom Kay was so proud and 
loved.


                     Death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

  Mr. President, on another subject, yesterday morning it was announced 
that U.S. Special Operations Forces killed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the 
leader of the Islamic State. The death of al-Baghdadi is a great 
victory for the safety of our country and the safety of our allies and 
partners. All Americans salute the Special Operations Forces who 
executed this mission, the intelligence community of professionals, 
whose work helped to enable the mission, and our allies and partners, 
particularly, the Syrian Kurds, who have contributed to the global 
coalition to defeat ISIS.
  Despite this great victory, however, we must not confuse the death of 
this one very evil man with the defeat of ISIS. There are still 
potentially hundreds of ISIS prisoners and sympathizers who have 
escaped in recent weeks as a result of President Trump's abrupt 
decision to withdraw American troops from northern Syria and green-
light Erdogan's invasion. We cannot allow ISIS to regroup or gather 
strength. New Yorkers know all too well the destruction a small group 
of terrorists can cause from half a world away.
  Make no mistake, we still need a plan for the enduring defeat of 
ISIS. They are not gone. We must include details on how we will deal 
with escaped prisoners. Nobody knows. These are evil people. They want 
to hurt us, and they can escape from the prisons, and Lord knows where 
they will go. But we know a good chunk of them will want to do damage 
to our homeland.
  So far, the administration, unfortunately, has articulated no 
coherent plan. Its top officials, Secretary Pompeo and Secretary Esper, 
seem unable to find time to even brief Congress, in all likelihood 
because they have nothing real to say, no plan. For almost a month now, 
we have been requesting an all-Senators briefing from the 
administration on its Syria policy. That is the bare minimum we expect 
from the administration when it comes to major policy decisions. Yet we 
have had two briefings scheduled and then canceled, and we still cannot 
get the Department of Defense or the Department of State to commit to a 
time for those Secretaries to brief Congress.
  According to reports, the Trump administration gave Russia and Turkey 
some kind of advanced notice of the raid of al-Baghdadi, but, 
seemingly, by deliberate choice neglected to notify the leaders of 
Congress, as is custom in this case.
  Based on the President's remarks yesterday, it seems he may have made 
a solitary exception for the chairman of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee. That is not what the Founders envisioned when they imagined 
Congress and the executive branch working together to conduct the 
Nation's foreign policy. It seems clear that the Trump administration 
is either reluctant or simply unwilling to keep Congress in the loop on 
its plan to defeat ISIS and protect American interest in the region. 
The most likely explanation, unfortunately, is that it does not have 
one.
  This needs to change. There needs to be a plan. There needs to be 
some accountability to Congress. We need to hear from Secretaries 
Pompeo and Esper in Congress this week.


                          Trump Administration

  Mr. President, now on another matter, as the House of Representatives 
continues to do its constitutional duty to conduct oversight of any 
wrongdoing by the executive branch, our Republican colleagues in both 
Chambers have made great pains to make its ``process'' an issue. A 
group of House Republicans stormed the secure facility in the Capitol 
to highlight the purported secrecy of the process. It was later 
revealed that fully one-third of those Members were already allowed in 
the closed hearings. Here in the Senate, Senator Graham introduced a 
resolution with a list of trumped-up complaints about the House 
process, and I just heard my friend the Republican leader talk about 
the process in his opening remarks.
  Now, I am going to say something that might surprise everyone 
listening out there. I actually agree with what President Trump said 
this morning about the impeachment inquiry in the House. The President 
said, ``I'd rather go into the details of the case rather than the 
process,'' adding, ``I think you ought to look at the case.'' The 
President--the President--himself is saying all this stuff about 
process is a diversion.
  Look at the substance. We want to look at the substance. That is what 
the House is doing. That is what our Republican friends--those who in a 
fit of rage or whatever stormed the House committee room, that is what 
so many of our colleagues on this side of the aisle are doing, just 
focusing on process because they are afraid to focus on substance and 
how wrong it was--what the President did, if the facts prove he did it, 
which I believe the House is looking at.
  So let's not forget the impeachment inquiry stems from a very serious 
allegation that President Trump pressured a foreign leader to 
investigate a domestic political rival. Allegations were deemed 
credible and an urgent concern by a Trump appointee. Allegations have 
been further corroborated by the memorandum of conversation released by 
the White House, testimony gathered by the House, and public comments 
made by no one less than the President's chief of staff.
  We have a responsibility--a responsibility, a constitutional 
responsibility--to grapple with the facts in the public record and 
ultimately make judgments based on the merits of the case. So the 
President of the United States, in this case, happens to be right. 
Congressional Republicans in the House and Senate should focus on the 
details of the case rather than the process.


                         Health Insurance Plans

  Mr. President, another subject, later this week, Senate Democrats 
will again use their authority under the Congressional Review Act to 
force a crucial vote on the future of healthcare protections for 
Americans with preexisting conditions. The Trump administration has 
done nearly everything imaginable to undermine these protections over 
the past 3 years, including by suing to repeal our healthcare law in 
its entirety. This vote concerns the administration's expansion of junk 
insurance plans, which offer ways around the requirements to cover 
Americans when they need healthcare most. This rule gives States the 
green light to use taxpayer dollars to buy junk insurance plans.
  Oftentimes, the plans are so skimpy they hardly cover anything at 
all. They are barely worth the paper they are written on. Imagine you 
are the mother or father of a child with cancer and you sign one of 
these plans, and the insurance company says we don't have to take care 
of your kid for something as devastating and as life-threatening as 
cancer. Imagine how you would feel.
  Yet our Republican friends and this administration want to give 
insurance companies the green light to make a ton of money and write 
this junk--junk insurance--and have hundreds of thousands--millions of 
Americans not covered for even the most important and vital of 
coverages.

[[Page S6182]]

  Well, that is what is at stake this week. The Senate will vote. 
Republicans will have to go on record to either defend the 
administration's actions or protect Americans who have preexisting 
conditions.
  I know several of my Republican colleagues publicly declared their 
support for these protections when they have their campaign ads going. 
That hasn't been the case here in Congress where Republicans have 
repeatedly voted against the same protections. Wednesday will be 
another important test for Senate Republicans.


                             Climate Change

  Finally, Mr. President, on climate. On Friday, I announced a new 
proposal to rapidly phase out gas-powered vehicles and replace them 
with clean vehicles like electric cars. The goal of the plan, which 
also aims to spur a transformation in American manufacturing, is that, 
by 2040, all vehicles on the road should be clean.
  We need a plan of this scale and ambition to fight one of the largest 
drivers of carbon emissions--transportation--which account for over 
one-third of America's carbon output. Scientists now tell us that, to 
avoid the most devastating effects of climate change, the world needs 
to be carbon neutral by mid-century. At the moment, we are not on track 
even remotely to meet that target.
  So we must act urgently and ambitiously, which requires building 
diverse coalitions of support. What distinguished my proposal is not 
only its scale, but its ability to unite the American environmental 
movement, the American labor movement, and large automakers. Listen to 
who is supporting this proposal: the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources 
Defense Council, the League of Conservation Voters, and labor unions 
like the United Automobile Workers, the International Brotherhood of 
Electrical Workers, the AFL-CIO, and car manufacturers like Ford and 
General Motors. When have we ever seen the car manufacturers and the 
unions and the environmentalists agree on a major proposal that will 
stop carbon from poisoning our atmosphere? Well, here it is.
  How would this plan work? First, it would provide a large discount on 
an American-made vehicle when drivers trade in a gas-powered car. 
Second, it would provide grants to States and cities to build charging 
stations with a particular emphasis on low-income, rural, and 
underserved communities. Third, the plan aims to establish the U.S. as 
the global leader in electric vehicle and battery manufacturing by 
providing grants to retool existing manufacturing plants in the United 
States and build new ones in this country that specialize in those 
technologies.
  It will clean our atmosphere, save families money; the cost of these 
cars will be less than the cost of maintaining a gasoline-driven 
vehicle, and it will establish America once again as the preeminent 
automobile power as electric cars become the way of the future.
  Critics say that acting on climate change has cost us jobs and money. 
It is simply not true. My plan is actually estimated to create tens of 
thousands of new jobs, good-paying jobs right here in the U.S. Much as 
America experienced a revolution in auto manufacturing at the outset of 
the 20th century, America under this plan will experience a revolution 
in clean auto manufacturing at the beginning of this century, but if we 
are to reach our goal, we have to move fast. China now accounts for 
more than half the world's electric vehicle market, and if we don't 
match the level of China's commitment, we are going to miss a 
tremendous opportunity. We have missed too many already.
  If Democrats win control of the Senate in 2020, I as majority leader 
will introduce bold and far-reaching climate legislation. This proposal 
for clean cars would be a key element of that bill.
  This is about American jobs, American global economic leadership, and 
protecting our dear planet. Nothing, nothing could be more worthy of 
pursuing.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ernst). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           National Security

  Mr. GRASSLEY. In March of 2015, I began our long investigation into 
Secretary Clinton's use of nongovernment email for official business. 
Since then, I have written hundreds of letters, held hearings, and 
discussed my findings and concerns right here on the Senate floor. 
After all, the public's business ought to be public.
  Today, we can add more findings to that ongoing list of Secretary 
Clinton's and her associates' wrongful conduct.
  The other week I released a report from the State Department that 
finalized their administrative review of how Secretary Clinton's 
private server setup caused hundreds of security violations. That 
review found five things I am going to mention.
  First, 91 valid security violations were identified and attributable 
to 38 individuals. That means 38 individuals mishandled classified 
information and were punished for it. The sanctions for a violation 
included suspension or revocation of their security clearance, 
suspension without pay, or termination, among other forms of 
punishment.
  Second, an additional 497 valid violations were identified. However, 
the State Department was unable to determine who was culpable. The 
State Department was unable to identify culpability because some former 
Department employees didn't sit for interviews or because Secretary 
Clinton kept her server secret from government officials, so it was 
impossible for the Department to monitor security protocol in realtime.
  The review also noted that there was a 5- to 9-year gap between the 
beginning of Secretary Clinton's State Department tenure when the 
security incidents began and when she finally turned over the emails, 
which she initially refused to do.
  This many yearslong gap made it very challenging to determine who was 
culpable for every violation of regulation and law covering national 
security issues and the need for classification.
  In total, Secretary Clinton's use of a nongovernment server for 
government business caused 588 security violations for mishandling 
classified information. Some of that classified information was 
classified at the very highest levels, including Top Secret/Special 
Access Program information.
  According to the FBI, Secretary Clinton sent and received emails that 
contained highly classified information. It is hard to fathom how this 
wouldn't undermine our national security. If the average American did 
that, they would lose their clearance, their job, and might even go to 
jail.
  That is what happened to Navy sailor Kristian Saucier. He took six 
photographs inside his submarine that exposed information classified at 
the confidential level. He mishandled classified information. He pled 
guilty and was sentenced to 1 year in Federal prison.
  So people ask me: How come some people go to prison for violating 
classification and other people don't?
  Let's go to the third point. The review found Secretary Clinton's 
nongovernmental server increased the risk of unauthorized disclosures.
  Fourth, the review found that the nongovernment server increased the 
risk of security compromises.
  Clinton's private server setup had been described as being so badly 
secured that it was almost impossible to detect who had attempted to 
attack it and gain access to it. Anyone could have done it.
  Fifth and last, the review found that some classified information was 
deliberately transmitted via unclassified emails and resulted in 
adjudicated security violations.
  Many in the press, as well as partisan Clinton defenders, have hung 
their hats on the State Department's finding that there was ``no 
persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified 
information.''
  Take, for example, the Washington Post. Their headline was ``State 
Department probe of Clinton email finds no deliberate mishandling of 
classified information.''
  Well, that headline was entirely wrong. The State Department report 
said: ``Instances of classified information being deliberately 
transmitted via

[[Page S6183]]

unclassified emails were the rare exception and resulted in adjudicated 
security violations.''
  That statement clearly says some individuals deliberately transmitted 
classified information on unclassified systems. Those individuals were 
subject to security sanctions, but the State Department failed to 
describe who the violators were and what the sanctions were.
  Those answers ought to be forthcoming. Consequently--you know my 
reputation--I intend to follow up. Ensuring the proper handling of 
highly classified information is an issue that should garner bipartisan 
support. This may sound like history, but there is a lesson to be 
learned from this history that classified information should be 
classified for protecting national security.
  Furthermore, if government officials deliberately expose classified 
information on an unclassified system, why didn't the FBI find the same 
during their investigations?
  We all know then-Director Comey refused to recommend any charges 
related to the Clinton investigation because the FBI could not identify 
the requisite criminal intent. It seems to me that deliberately sending 
classified information on unclassified channels is intentional conduct. 
Again, if the average American did that, they would be in big trouble, 
as I pointed out about the Navy sailor spending 1 year in prison.
  During the course of my oversight activities, I acquired drafts of 
Comey's July 5, 2016, public statement exonerating Clinton. Comey's 
initial draft stated the following. This is the initial draft.

       There is evidence to support a conclusion that Secretary 
     Clinton, and others, used the private email server in a 
     manner that was grossly negligent with respect to the 
     handling of classified material.

  Comey also said this:

       Similarly, the sheer volume of information that was 
     properly classified as Secret at the time it was discussed on 
     email (that is, excluding the up-classified emails) supports 
     an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in 
     their handling of that information.

  Gross negligence--the words used by Comey--is a criminal standard 
under title 18, section 793.
  He later dumbed-down his statement to a noncriminal standard:

       Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary 
     Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing 
     the handling of classified information, there is evidence 
     that they were extremely careless in their handling of very 
     sensitive, highly classified information.

  And that was before he finished the investigation and interviewed 17 
witnesses, including Secretary Clinton.
  Director Comey never once said that some individuals deliberately 
sent classified information on an unclassified system. According to the 
State Department's findings, Comey should have come to that conclusion 
and made that statement.
  Clearly, deliberate conduct rises beyond gross negligence. So who 
deliberately sent classified information on unclassified channels, and 
has the Department communicated this new finding to the FBI?
  Just last week, I spoke on the floor about how the FBI pulled its 
punches during the Clinton investigation. I talked about how the FBI 
agreed to limit the scope of review to her time as Secretary of State. 
That decision eliminated potentially highly relevant emails before and 
after her tenure that could have shed light on why she operated the 
nongovernment server. It also eliminated emails around the time of the 
conference call between Clinton's attorneys and the administrator of 
her server that led to the deletion of her emails. That limitation of 
scope defies reason.
  Lastly, the FBI agreed to destroy records and laptops of Clinton's 
associates after reviewing them. That is an astonishing agreement in 
light of the fact those records could have been relevant to ongoing 
congressional inquiries that the FBI knew about.
  Secretary Clinton's actions caused 588 security violations and highly 
classified information to be exposed to an unclassified system. Some of 
those violations were very deliberate, but that is the first we have 
heard of it.
  The public ought to know whether those folks involved were punished 
according to the letter of the law or were given special treatment. 
Equal application of the law without regard to power, party, or 
privilege ought to be the norm. With what we know up to this point, the 
Clinton investigation failed to hit its mark.
  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.
  Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                 Amendment No. 961 to Amendment No. 948

  Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 961, as 
provided for under the previous order, and I ask that it be reported by 
number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Ms. Cortez Masto] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 961 to amendment No. 948.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To require a report relating to the challenges that food 
    distribution programs face in reaching underserved populations)

       At the appropriate place in title VII of division B, insert 
     the following:


 report on food distribution programs reaching underserved populations

       Sec. 7__. The Secretary of Agriculture shall conduct a 
     study on the challenges that the food distribution program on 
     Indian reservations established under section 4(b) of the 
     Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2013(b)) and other 
     food distribution programs administered by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture face in reaching underserved populations, with an 
     emphasis on the homebound and the elderly, to better capture 
     data on the population of people unable to physically travel 
     to a distribution location for food.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I rise to support this amendment, 
which is an amendment that supports our Native-American communities who 
face food insecurity.
  The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, commonly known 
as FDPIR, provides food assistance for 90,000 people in 276 Tribes 
across this country. Often, on Tribal lands--and certainly in the rural 
parts of my home State of Nevada--people live miles from a SNAP office 
or a grocery store. So FDPIR provides a crucial source of nutrition.
  But many enrollees in the program still have to pick up the FDPIR 
benefits in person, and for elderly or disabled Tribal members, it is 
too difficult to make that trip. So I urge my colleagues to vote for 
this important amendment to study ways to improve access to the program 
for the homebound and the elderly.
  I thank my colleague and fellow member of the Indian Affairs 
Committee, Senator Lankford, for his support on this important effort. 
We want to ensure that no one is going hungry when there is food 
waiting for them just a few miles away.
  I thank the Senate leadership for allowing open debate and discussion 
of the issue facing Indian Country on the floor of this Chamber.
  I look forward to continued conversations on how to help members of 
Tribes to thrive and to grow their communities and to chart a more 
vibrant future.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to pass this 
amendment that has been called up and that we are going to vote for 
here in just a few moments. Senator Cortez Masto and I worked together 
on this. She has been the lead on this whole issue. I am proud to 
cosponsor it with her.
  This is a basic study of how we can make sure that the food benefits 
the USDA is choosing to provide and that together we are providing as 
Federal taxpayers to Indian reservations is actually getting to people 
who need it the most.
  At this point, the USDA program is set up so that people have to come 
to a central distribution area to get access to food. Many elderly and 
disabled cannot go to a central distribution area to get access to 
food. If we are going to have a food program like this, let's make sure 
we are actually getting food to where people need it the most.

[[Page S6184]]

  There are other programs that are in the Federal program right now, 
like Meals on Wheels and other programs that are designated, where we 
can partner with groups to make sure food gets there, but there are 
other programs, like this program, the Food Distribution Program on 
Indian Reservations, that may not be getting to where food is needed 
the most for the most number of people.
  I think other programs will need a study like this as well. We have 
other child nutrition programs, for instance, that happen in the 
summertime, where children, just as in this program set up on Indian 
reservations, have to come to a central location to get access to food. 
Many children don't have the ability to get transportation to get food. 
So those individuals and those families who need the most help are 
facing yet another hurdle to get help.
  This is a study, and I think it is the first step to make sure that 
what we do is done well, is done efficiently, and that the intended 
outcome to help people is accurately occurring.
  I thank Senator Cortez Masto for stepping up and for her leadership 
for this. I am proud to be a cosponsor with her.
  I look forward to our colleagues voting for this, getting the results 
of this study, and actually making sure that in the days ahead, food 
assistance is getting to places where people need it the most.
  With that, I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.


                Amendment No. 1019 to Amendment No. 948

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, we are set to borrow nearly $1 trillion this 
year. Our overall debt is over $22 trillion.
  In my office, I have a debt clock. You can see it at debtclock.org. 
It is spinning out of control. The numbers are mind-boggling. In the 
next decade, just the interest on the debt is set to exceed $1 
trillion. That is $1 trillion simply wasted because we are not fiscally 
responsible enough to balance our budget.
  There are ramifications to having so much debt. When we monetize the 
debt or the Federal Reserve creates money to pay for the debt, what 
ends up happening is it dilutes the value of our current dollars.
  We have been doing that for a long period of nearly 100 years or over 
100 years, since the Federal Reserve was created, and the vast majority 
of the dollar's value has been lost over time.
  Inflation is not what it used to be, but there are still other 
problems. As interest grows on the debt, it crowds out other spending. 
So when we get to spending $1 trillion on the interest of the debt, 
what it is going to do is it is going to crowd out other spending. 
Whether you are on the right and you want more military spending or you 
are on the left and you want more welfare spending, it is being crowded 
out by the debt growing so much that interest is pushing out other 
projects.
  What I have offered is a commonsense approach to this. Everybody has 
their sacred cow. Everybody has some money they want to spend 
somewhere. Why don't we cut every program by 2 pennies? We have a 2-
percent across-the-board cut, and so what we would do is we would spend 
98 percent of what we spent last year.
  It is interesting that groups come in to see me in the office, and 
they say ``Well, we have this dramatic program, and it is to cure AIDS 
or Alzheimer's or diabetes, and it is going to be this wonderful 
project,'' and I say ``Well, last year you got $100 million; could you 
deal with $98 million this year?'' Interestingly, whether they are 
conservative, liberal, or independent, they look at me and say ``Well, 
gosh, yes, I think I can deal with $98 million instead of $100 million; 
I think we could deal with a 2-percent cut if we get 98 percent of what 
we got last year.''
  Most of the groups that are actually invested in this and have a 
family member with one of these diseases think they can deal with it. 
Do you know the only people in the whole country who think we couldn't 
do it? The people you have elected. They have become so distant from 
you that they will not vote for any cuts. They think: Oh, woe is me. It 
will be so much money.
  The media will say that even a freeze in spending for 10 years is a 
$10 trillion cut. How could that possibly be? If we spent the same 
amount of money next year as we spent this year, how could that be a 
cut?
  But the media controls the narrative. The left has aided and abetted 
them. They say: Well, we were going to spend 5 percent more, so you cut 
5 percent by not increasing the spending from last year.
  That is ridiculous. They call a freeze a spending cut. If your salary 
is going to be the same next year as it was last year, is that a cut or 
is it getting the same salary?
  What I am proposing is that we cut it by 2 percent. Why? Well, we 
would like to balance the budget, ultimately. This is just the annual 
budget. This isn't getting rid of the debt--not the $22 trillion debt. 
It is just so we quit digging the hole deeper.
  For the first several years I proposed this, we called it the penny 
plan. We would cut 1 percent a year for 5 years and the budget would 
balance in 5 years. Nobody listened.
  Not one Democrat cares at all about the debt. Not one of them will 
ever vote to cut any spending. Now, on the Republican side, they 
profess to care, but over half of them will not vote to cut any 
spending. There is a lot of hypocrisy to go around.
  When I first started introducing the penny plan, a 1-percent cut 
would have balanced the budget in 5 years. But since we didn't do it, 
government spending kept exploding and growing and growing, so now it 
takes a 2-percent cut. This would be a 2-percent cut of everything but 
Social Security.
  The problem is, though, nobody has introduced a bill in decades and 
nobody has had a vote in decades on a bill to fix the real problem, 
which is entitlements. So many of the people will bemoan: Oh, we could 
never fix it by cutting the discretionary spending, so I am not going 
to cut any. But that is the only thing we get to vote on, so that is 
what we are putting forward, a 2-percent cut. Still, in order to 
balance it, you would have to have a 2-percent cut of the entitlements, 
as well, but we might as well start with what we are doing.
  Some people say: Well, government is so essential. We would cut 
government, and what would happen to the people who depend on it?
  Let me give you an example of some of what your government is 
spending your money on. The National Science Foundation probably gets 
the award for some of the most ridiculous spending in all of your 
government. Even since the times of William Proxmire, in the early 
1970s, they would get the Golden Fleece Award.
  One of his first awards gave them an award for spending $50,000 to 
determine what makes you happy. It was thought to be ridiculous at the 
time, and then, for the last 50 years, we have continued to do it. In 
fact, just this last year, the National Science Foundation is still 
concerned about what makes you happy. They spent $500,000 this time. I 
guess that is inflation. They spent $500,000 studying whether it makes 
you happy if you take a selfie of yourself while smiling. If you will 
keep looking at the picture of yourself smiling--the selfie you took--
is that worth $500,000? Do we not have something better we could do? 
Maybe we can reduce the deficit by cutting the National Science 
Foundation.
  They also studied what Neil Armstrong said when he landed on the 
Moon. Did he say ``one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind'' 
or did he say ``one small step for a man''? They spent $700,000 of your 
money studying whether Neil Armstrong said ``a man'' or ``man.''
  Guess what the experts said after they listened to the tape crackle, 
crackle, crackle, over and over again, for $700,000. They don't know. 
Experts still disagree on whether he said ``a man'' or just ``man''--
$700,000.
  We spent $1.2 million studying online dating. Look, they seem to be 
successful. I think it must be working. The websites are making a ton 
of money. Millions of people use them. Why in the world would 
government study whether dating sites work?
  They spend $1.5 million trying to make tomatoes taste better. I don't 
know where that came from. They funded a book on appreciating the 
metric system for $188,000. There was a conference sponsored on balding 
for $22,000.
  The Department of Commerce got into the game. They developed a 
digital down marker for football games for

[[Page S6185]]

$130,000. I think that had existed already. They spent $500,000 on a 
movie about the kilogram. Raise your hand if you are going to stay up 
tonight to watch the documentary by the Department of Commerce on the 
kilogram.
  The Department of Agriculture provides marketing assistance for 
specialty crops, including Christmas trees. It turns out there are more 
specialty crops than regular crops. There was $50,000 given to the 
State of Georgia for marketing Christmas trees.
  The Department of the Interior studied people's experiences with sea 
monsters in Alaska--$150,000. I thought sea monsters were fake news, 
but I guess in an era of fake news, it is difficult to determine what 
is really fake news. Your government spent $150,000 studying sea 
monsters in Alaska.
  They built a parking lot at an Indian casino for $500,000. These 
casinos apparently make multiple millions of dollars a year, and we 
spent $500,000 paving a parking lot for a for-profit enterprise.
  We built a self-cleaning toilet in a New York City park.
  We gave $1 million to subsidize Lyft rides. I thought Uber and Lyft 
were doing quite well without our help.
  We gave $153 million to D.C. Metro, which apparently is one of the 
most mismanaged metros in the country.
  Let's see. National Endowment for the Arts--we spent $25,000 on a 
museum to Hollywood. If there is any person in the country who really 
does not need any more adoration--and the taxpayers to pay for 
adoration--it is Hollywood, but you spent $25,000 building a museum, so 
I guess they can appreciate themselves even more.
  In order to combat homelessness in LA, we paid to put on plays. 
Apparently, if you are homeless, it must make you feel better to watch 
street performers performing a play in front of you.
  We also paid to put on dances with the Cars. While that may sound 
entertaining, it might be that we might have other things we might want 
to spend that money on.
  We were told every year that we couldn't possibly cut any spending. 
There is no way we could do it.
  I put forward these spending proposals because I ran for office and 
said that we should balance the budget. I actually believed what I ran 
on. I thought I would get here, and I thought there would be momentum.
  The Republicans all talked about the debt. They don't care. The 
Democrats are not going to vote for it. No Democrat will vote for a 
spending cut--never have and never will. But the Republicans will at 
least tell you they will, and then they don't.
  What I am putting forward today is a 2-percent cut across the board. 
They get to spend 98 percent of what they spent last year, and we could 
be serious about actually bringing our budget into line. I have yet to 
meet someone at home who doesn't think it is a good idea, and I have 
yet to meet very many people here who are willing to entertain the 
idea.
  There is a disconnect between Washington and the people. If you were 
to ask the people in any of the States that are represented at least by 
the Republican side--and I venture to say by some on the Democratic 
side--if you were to ask any of the people in those States ``Do you 
think we could live with 98 percent of what we spent last year?'' I 
think the people would say that we ought to do it. Most businesses or 
families in our country have had to deal with less money and have often 
had to deal with a lot less than 98 percent of their previous salary, 
and people do. Businesses recover all the time by having to clamp down 
and watch their costs, but government never does. Government just keeps 
spending and spending and spending.
  The vote on my amendment will come up in the next few minutes, and it 
will be a 2-percent cut across the board, and I urge the other Senators 
to vote in favor of it.
  At this time, Mr. President, I call up my amendment 1019 and ask that 
it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1019 to amendment No. 948.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To reduce the amounts appropriated to be 2 percent less than 
             the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2019)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. REDUCTION IN AMOUNT OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Each amount made available under division A, B, C, or D of 
     this Act (in this section referred to as a ``fiscal year 2020 
     amount'') shall be reduced by the amount necessary for the 
     fiscal year 2020 amount to be equal to the amount that is 2 
     percent less than the amount made available for fiscal year 
     2019 for the purposes for which the fiscal year 2020 amount 
     is being made available.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.


                Amendment No. 1067 to Amendment No. 948

  Mr. JONES. Mr. President, I rise today on one issue, and I promise, 
out of deference to my friend, who is the Presiding Officer right now, 
not to bring up anything about college football this past weekend. That 
would be for another discussion.
  I rise today to urge my colleagues to take an important step to 
correct one of the great injustices in America, an injustice that many 
in this body may not have a full appreciation for because it just might 
not affect too many of their particular constituents. I am speaking of 
the injustices faced by real property owners known as heirs' property 
owners.
  These landowners, who are typically African-American farmers and 
producers in the Deep South, own land that has been informally passed 
down within families, often for several generations, without any clear 
title. Sadly, that has often led to costly legal complications, 
prevented landowners from qualifying for Federal assistance, and, in 
many cases, resulted in actual loss of land ownership. This issue 
overwhelmingly impacts African-American land ownership, of which an 
estimated 60 percent is heirs' property and has created barriers to 
building generational wealth.
  It is no coincidence that this has impacted Black landowners when you 
consider the challenges faced by previous generations of African 
Americans just to purchase their land, the obstacles they faced to 
obtain legal services and to have their wills prepared.
  The heirs' property challenge that is facing these families today is 
yet another vestige of the Jim Crow era that, with some exceptions, has 
lasted far too long and that we must seek to correct.
  These injustices have had long-lasting consequences for the families 
who have struggled to prove their land claims, including the untold 
emotional cost for those who have seen their family land taken or sold 
out from under them.
  Because a significant portion of minority-owned rural land was passed 
down through generations as heirs' property, these farmers and ranchers 
have been unable to obtain farm numbers and, thus, access to a 
multitude of USDA programs. These programs are vital to these 
landowners, who already face significant risk and uncertainty in their 
work.
  That is why, when I came to the Senate last year, I teamed up with my 
friend from South Carolina, Senator Scott, to work together to initiate 
changes that will start to help these farmers gain access to Federal 
aid and help us better understand the full spectrum of challenges they 
face as a result of their heirs' property status.
  I am very proud of the fact that we secured several provisions in the 
final 2018 farm bill that address heirs' property. I thank Senators 
Roberts and Stabenow for their assistance. One of the biggest 
components that was included will allow heirs' property owners, with 
the appropriate documentation, to obtain USDA farm numbers so that they 
can gain access to the Department's programs, such as crop insurance 
and disaster relief.
  However, that is just one of the obstacles they face today. Another 
provision focuses on consolidating land ownership. Heirs are often 
faced with issues of ``fractional'' ownership among relatives. Their 
own family had the fractional shares of the land that has been passed 
down for generations, and that increases the chances of one heir 
partitioning the land or causing the land to be lost due to a tax 
default.
  Some States even require the entire property to be sold if the courts 
find that dividing the land would prejudice one owner.
  Under these circumstances, it is no wonder that between 1910 and 
1997, an

[[Page S6186]]

estimated 90 percent of land owned by African Americans in this country 
was lost due to heirs' property issues. That statistic bears repeating 
and emphasizing. Between 1910 and 1997, an estimated 90 percent of land 
owned by African Americans in the United States was lost due to heirs' 
property issues.
  Last year, together we embarked on the journey to right these wrongs. 
The 2018 farm bill gave authority to the USDA Secretary to make loans 
to eligible entities such as cooperatives and credit unions that have 
experience helping minority farmers so they can relend funds to assist 
heirs with undivided interests to resolve ownership and succession on 
farmland.
  My amendment that we will be voting on shortly will provide $5 
million to help get this program off the ground. That is the same 
amount of money that is included in the House version of the 
appropriations bill.
  This is an important next step to fulfill the intent of last year's 
farm bill and to help these families maintain land that is rightfully 
theirs. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment 
and continuing our efforts together to remove these barriers and right 
these wrongs.
  Mr. President, I would like to call up Amendment No. 1067, as 
provided for under the previous order, and I ask that it be reported by 
number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment by number.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Jones] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1067 to amendment No. 948.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To provide funding for the relending program to resolve 
                 ownership and succession on farmland)

        On page 141, line 8, insert ``, and of which $5,000,000 
     shall be available to carry out section 310I of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1936c)'' after ``2021''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.


                           Order of Business

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 
minutes equally divided between each vote in this series and that all 
votes after the first be 10 minutes in length.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


             Vote on Amendment No. 961 to Amendment No. 948

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the amendment No. 961, offered by the Senator from Nevada, 
Ms. Cortez Masto.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 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 Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), 
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 
the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Rhode Island 
(Mr. Reed), 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 result was announced--yeas 90, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 334 Leg.]

                                YEAS--90

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McConnell
     McSally
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--1

       
     Blackburn
       

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Booker
     Cassidy
     Harris
     Isakson
     Reed
     Sanders
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Warren
  The amendment (No. 961) was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 1019 to Amendment No. 948

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 1019, offered by 
the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Paul.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I don't see the Senator from Kentucky on 
the floor, but I will speak briefly in opposition to it as I know many 
others feel the same.
  His amendment will slash spending below the Bipartisan Budget Act, 
which we all negotiated, by over $14 billion.
  To give you some examples, the U.S. Census Bureau would be $3.8 
billion below the fiscal year 2020 bipartisan level, making it 
impossible to hold an accurate and complete count. It would severely 
compromise the Federal Government's ability to fight wildfires and 
safeguard people's lives and property. All you have to do is look at 
the tens of thousands of acres in California, Arizona, and Colorado to 
see what that would do. We have $3.6 billion to fight wildfires. He 
would reject those increases and then cut them by $1.6 billion. It 
would cut available funding for our Nation's roadways and bridges by 
over $1.5 billion. It would eliminate the potential of there being 
19,500 new jobs and a whole lot of other things.
  Mr. President, the Paul amendment would slash spending below the 
Bipartisan Budget Act by over $14 billion.
  Under the Paul amendment, the Bureau of the Census would be $3.8 
billion below the fiscal year 2020 funding level in the Senate bill. At 
this funding level, it would not be possible to hold an accurate and 
complete count.
  The Paul amendment would also severely compromise the Federal 
Government's ability to fight catastrophic wildfires and safeguard 
people's lives and property at a time when tens of thousands of acres 
in California, Arizona, and Colorado are ablaze. The fiscal year 2020 
Senate bill provides $3.6 billion to fight wildfires and access. The 
Paul amendment would reject those increases and reduce the amounts 
provided for fire suppression by $1.6 billion.
  The Paul amendment would cut available funding for our Nation's 
roadways and bridges by over $1.5 billion, eliminating the potential 
for 19,500 new jobs and exacerbating the $123 billion backlog of bridge 
repairs and replacement of 47,000 structurally deficient bridges.
  These are just a few examples of the real world implications of the 
Paul amendment. I urge all members to vote no.
  Mr. President, if nobody seeks time, I yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.


            Vote on Amendment No. 1019 to Amendment No. 948

  The question is on agreeing to the Paul amendment, No. 1019.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), 
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 
the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Rhode Island 
(Mr. Reed), 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?

[[Page S6187]]

  The result was announced--yeas 24, nays 67, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 335 Leg.]

                                YEAS--24

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Braun
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Paul
     Perdue
     Risch
     Romney
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (SC)
     Sullivan

                                NAYS--67

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

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Booker
     Cassidy
     Harris
     Isakson
     Reed
     Sanders
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Warren
  The amendment (No. 1019) was rejected.


                Amendment No. 1067 to Amendment No. 948

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 1067, offered by 
the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Jones.
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. President, this amendment will continue a process that 
was started last year in the farm bill to correct one of the grave 
injustices to the African-American population here.
  This bill deals with heir property--property that has gone down 
through generations without clear title. These landowners have been 
denied access to USDA programs and other instances. This amendment 
deals with heir property. African Americans have long been denied 
property based on the fact that so much of it has been passed down 
through the generations without clear title.
  They have been denied access to the USDA programs and also have lost 
property. Between 1910 and 1997, an estimated 90 percent of land owned 
by African Americans in this country was lost due to heir property 
issues. Last year we began the process in this Senate with the farm 
bill to correct that, part of which was creating a program at USDA to 
loan money to help get these folks back on their feet, to get them into 
the programs they need. This amendment provides $5 million to start 
that program. It is the same amount of money that is in the House bill.
  I urge my colleagues to continue this opportunity to correct this 
wrong and right this injustice.
  Mr. President, I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. CRAPO. I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is yielded back.
  The question occurs on agreeing to amendment No. 1067.
  Mr. JONES. I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.
  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 Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), 
the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  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 (Mr. Sullivan). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 336 Leg.]

                                YEAS--91

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McConnell
     McSally
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--1

       
     Blackburn
       

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Booker
     Cassidy
     Harris
     Isakson
     Sanders
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Warren
  The amendment (No. 1067) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for 
the Shelby substitute amendment No. 948.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  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 amendment No. 
     948 to H.R. 3055, a bill making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related 
     Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, and 
     for other purposes.
         Richard C. Shelby, Mike Crapo, John Cornyn, Roy Blunt, 
           Thom Tillis, Shelley Moore Capito, Roger F. Wicker, 
           Lisa Murkowski, Mike Rounds, Pat Roberts, John Boozman, 
           Marco Rubio, John Barrasso, Kevin Cramer, Richard Burr, 
           James E. Risch, Mitch McConnell.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for 
the underlying bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  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 Calendar No. 
     141, H.R. 3055, a bill making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related 
     Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, and 
     for other purposes.
         Richard C. Shelby, Mike Crapo, John Cornyn, Roy Blunt, 
           Thom Tillis, Shelley Moore Capito, Roger F. Wicker, 
           Lisa Murkowski, Mike Rounds, Pat Roberts, John Boozman, 
           Marco Rubio, John Barrasso, Kevin Cramer, Richard Burr, 
           James E. Risch, Mitch McConnell.

                          ____________________