[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 206 (Thursday, December 19, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7170-S7176]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I understand there are three bills at 
the desk due for a second reading en bloc.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will read the titles of 
the bills for the second time en bloc.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 397) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to create a Pension Rehabilitation Trust Fund, to 
     establish a Pension Rehabilitation Administration within the 
     Department of the Treasury to make loans to multiemployer 
     defined benefit plans, and for other purposes.
       A bill (H.R. 1759) to amend title III of the Social 
     Security Act to extend reemployment services and eligibility 
     assessments to all claimants for unemployment benefits, and 
     for other purposes.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S7170, December 19, 2019, second column, the following 
appears: A bill (H.R. 1759) to amend title III of the Social 
Security Act to extend reemployment services and eligibility 
assessments to all claimants for unemployment compensation, and 
for other purposes.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: A bill (H.R. 1759) 
to amend title III of the Social Security Act to extend 
reemployment services and eligibility assessments to all claimants 
for unemployment benefits, and for other purposes.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


       A bill (H.R. 4018) to provide that the amount of time that 
     an elderly offender must serve before being eligible for 
     placement in home detention is to be reduced by the amount of 
     good time credits earned by the prisoner, and for other 
     purposes.

  Mr. McCONNELL. In order to place the bills on the calendar under the 
provisions of rule XIV, I would object to further proceedings en bloc.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection having been heard, the 
bills will be placed on the calendar en bloc.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is 
recognized.


                              Impeachment

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, last night, the House of Representatives 
voted to impeach President Donald Trump. It is only the third time in 
our Nation's history that the President of the United States has been 
impeached.
  The articles of impeachment charge that President Trump abused the 
powers of his office by soliciting the interference of a foreign power 
in our elections, not for the good of the country but to benefit 
himself personally. The articles also charge that the President 
obstructed Congress in the investigation of those matters. Together, 
these articles suggest the President committed a grave injury to our 
grand democracy.
  The conduct they describe is very much what the Founders feared when 
they forged the impeachment powers of the Congress. The Founders, in 
their wisdom, gave the House the power to accuse and the Senate the 
power to judge. We are now asked to fulfill our constitutional role as 
a court of impeachment.
  Now that the House of Representatives has impeached President Trump, 
the Nation turns its eyes to the Senate. What will the Nation see? Will 
the Nation see what Alexander Hamilton saw--a body of government with 
``confidence enough . . . to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the 
necessary impartiality,'' or will the Nation see the Senate dragged 
into the depths of partisan fervor?
  The Nation just witnessed how the Republican leader sees his role in 
this chapter of our history--demonstrating both an unfortunate descent 
into partisanship and demonstrating the fundamental weakness of the 
President's defense.
  Leader McConnell claimed that the impeachment of President Trump is 
illegitimate because the House voted along party lines. Forgive me, but 
House Democrats cannot be held responsible for the cravenness of the 
House Republican caucus and their blind fealty to the President.
  Leader McConnell claimed that the impeachment was motivated by 
partisan rage--this from the man who said proudly, ``I am not 
impartial. I have no intention to be impartial at all'' in the trial of 
President Trump. What hypocrisy.
  Leader McConnell accused the House Democrats of an obsession to get 
rid of President Trump--this from the man who proudly declared his 
``number one goal'' was to make President Obama a one-term President.
  Leader McConnell claimed that Democrats impeached the President for 
asserting Executive privilege. President Trump never formally claimed 
Executive privilege; he claimed ``absolute immunity,'' and the White 
House Counsel wrote a letter stating simply that the administration 
would not comply with any subpoenas.
  Leader McConnell claimed that the Democrats' ``obsession'' with 
impeachment has prevented the House from pursuing legislation to help 
the American people. Leader McConnell knows very, very well that the 
House Democratic majority has passed literally hundreds of bills that 
gather dust here in the Senate, condemned to a legislative graveyard by 
none other than Leader McConnell himself, who proudly called himself 
the Grim Reaper.
  Members of the 116th Senate have been denied the opportunity to 
legislate by Leader McConnell. We aren't even allowed to debate the 
issues that would impact the American people: healthcare, 
infrastructure, prescription drugs. We could have spent the year 
debating these issues. We weren't doing impeachment. Leader McConnell 
has chosen not to focus on these issues and to put none of these bills 
on the floor. As he reminds us often, he alone decides what goes on the 
floor.

[[Page S7171]]

  Leader McConnell claimed that the House did not afford the President 
due process. The leader knows well that President Trump refused to 
participate in the process, despite invitation, and blocked witnesses 
and documents from Congress in unprecedented fashion.
  Leader McConnell claimed that the House ran the ``most rushed, least 
thorough, and most unfair impeachment inquiry in modern history.'' I 
know that is the Republican talking point, but here is the reality: 
Leader McConnell is plotting the most rushed, least thorough, and most 
unfair impeachment trial in modern history. His plan to prevent House 
managers from calling witnesses to prove their case is a dramatic break 
from precedent.
  We heard a lot about precedent from the leader. Never has there been 
a Presidential impeachment trial in which the majority prevented the 
House managers from fairly presenting their case, to have witnesses 
explain their knowledge of the alleged malfeasance. Will Leader 
McConnell, breaking precedent, strong-arm his caucus into making this 
the first Senate impeachment trial of a President in history that heard 
no witnesses?
  We ask: Is the President's case so weak that none of the President's 
men can defend him under oath? Is the President's case so weak that 
none of the President's men can defend him under oath? If the House 
case is so weak, why is Leader McConnell so afraid of witnesses and 
documents? We believe the House case is strong, very strong, but if the 
Republican leader believes it is so weak, why is he so afraid of 
relevant witnesses and documents, which will not prolong things very 
long in our proposal--four hours for each witness?
  It is true, as the leader has said, that the Framers built the Senate 
to provide stability and to keep partisan passions from boiling over. 
However, their vision of the Senate is a far cry from the partisan body 
Senator McConnell has created.
  I hope America was watching the Republican leader deliver his speech. 
I really do, because most glaring of all was the fact that Leader 
McConnell's 30-minute partisan stem-winder contained hardly a single 
defense of the President of the United States on the merits. Almost 
none have defended President Trump because they can't.
  In the wake of an enormous amount of evidence uncovered by House 
investigators--much of it in the form of testimony by top Trump 
officials whom the administration tried to silence--the Republican 
leader could not rebut the accusations against the President with 
facts. The Republican leader complained about the process. The 
Republican leader made very partisan and inflammatory accusations about 
Democrats, but he did not advance an argument in defense of the 
President's conduct on the merits. That, in and of itself, is a damning 
reflection on the state of the President's defense.
  Our goal in the Senate, above all, should be to conduct a fair and 
speedy trial. I have proposed a very reasonable structure that would do 
just that: four witnesses, only those with direct knowledge of the 
charges made by the House; only those who could provide new, relevant 
and potentially illumination testimony; strict time limits on each 
stage of the process to prevent the trial from dragging out too long. 
It is eminently reasonable; it is eminently fair. A group with no 
partisan bias would come up with this type of proposal.
  I have yet to hear one good argument as to why less evidence is 
better than more evidence, particularly in such a serious moment as 
impeachment of the President of the United States. In Leader 
McConnell's 30-minute screed, he did not make one argument as to why 
witnesses and documents should not be a part of the trial.
  President Trump protests that he did not receive due process in the 
House impeachment inquiry. Due process is the ability to respond to 
charges made against you and present your side of the case. The 
President was invited to provide witnesses and provide documents at 
every stage of the process. He chose not to.
  Still, Democrats are offering the President due process again here in 
the Senate. The witnesses we suggest are top Trump-appointed officials. 
They aren't Democrats. We don't know if their testimony would exculpate 
the President or incriminate him, but their testimony should be heard. 
If the President's counsel wants to call other witnesses with direct 
knowledge of why the aid to Ukraine was delayed, we say that they 
should be able to do so. President Trump claims he wants due process. I 
suspect he would rather hide or name-call because if he really wanted 
due process, he could get it easily. One phone call to Leader McConnell 
telling him to let his aides testify, one phone call to his chief of 
staff telling him to release the documents to Congress--both of these 
actions would let the truth come out. I ask again: Can none of the 
President's men come defend him under oath?
  To my Republican colleagues, our message is a simple one. Democrats 
want a fair trial that examines the relevant facts. We want a fair 
trial. The message from Leader McConnell at the moment is that he has 
no intention of conducting a fair trial, no intention of acting 
impartially, no intention of getting the facts.

  Despite our disagreements, I will meet with Leader McConnell soon to 
discuss the rules, but each Senator will influence whether the Senate 
lives up to its constitutional duty to serve as an impartial court of 
impeachment. In the coming weeks, Republican senators will face a 
choice. Each Republican Senator will face a choice. Do they want a fair 
trial or do they want to allow the President free rein? Each Senator 
must ask himself or herself: Do you want a fair trial or do you want 
the President to do whatever he wants, regardless of the rule of law, 
regardless of the consequences to this great Nation?
  The Nation turns its eyes to the Senate. What will it see?
  The President of the United States has spent the past several months 
telling Congress that it has no right to oversight and no right to 
investigate any of his activities; that he has absolute immunity; that 
article II of the Constitution gives him the ``right to do whatever he 
wants.'' Those are the President's words. Past Senates have disagreed 
with such views and strongly, proudly stood up for the notion that the 
President is not omnipotent. Democrats have done it; Republicans have 
done it--and often Presidents of their own party.
  The Senate has said in the past that the President serves the people, 
not himself; that he is not a King. Will it do so again or will it 
shirk from that responsibility?
  If the Republicans lead with the majority leader's scheme to sweep 
these charges under the rug and permit the President to ignore 
Congress, they will be creating a new precedent that will long be 
remembered as one of the Senate's darkest chapters. It will be 
remembered as a time when a simple majority in the Senate sought to 
grant two new rights to the President: the right to use the government 
for personal purposes and the right to ignore Congress at his pleasure. 
Here I agree with Senator McConnell: ``Moments like this are why the 
Senate exists.'' If the President commits high crimes and misdemeanors 
and the Congress can do nothing about it, not even conduct a fair 
tribunal where his conduct is judged by dispassionate representatives 
of the people, then the President can commit those crimes with 
impunity. This President can; others can.
  I have little doubt that if we tell the President that he can escape 
scrutiny in this instance, he will do it again and again and again. 
Future Presidents will take note and may do worse. The most powerful 
check on the Executive, the one designed to protect the people from 
tyranny, will be erased.
  This chapter in our history books could be a lesson about the erosion 
of checks and balances in our modern age or it could be a proud 
reaffirmation of those founding principles. This chapter in our history 
books could be about the overpowering partisanship of our times or it 
could be about the Senate's capacity to overcome it. Again, moments 
like this are why the U.S. Senate exists.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Romney). The Senator from Utah.


                             Appropriations

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is December, so America's attention turns 
once again to the great debate of our times: What is the best Christmas 
movie? Is it ``White Christmas,'' maybe ``Elf,'' ``A

[[Page S7172]]

Christmas Story,'' ``Home Alone,'' or ``Die Hard''? That is a good one. 
A lot of people are partial to ``It's a Wonderful Life'' or 
``Braveheart.'' Now, ``Braveheart,'' of course, has nothing to do with 
Christmas, but it is about freedom. Nothing says freedom quite like 
Christmas.
  We have to debate, you see, the best Christmas movie out there for 
the simple reason that we also have to watch every year the worst 
Christmas movie. The worst Christmas movie is the one that runs every 
single year from this Chamber right here in this city on C-SPAN just a 
week before our Lord's birthday. It is called omnibus. Critics and fans 
have loved to hate it for years. As is always the case in these money-
grabbing sequels, the actors and the writers and the directors are just 
mailing it in. They know they can do this every year, and it works for 
them, so they mail it in. The only plot twist this time is that instead 
of a continuing resolution or a single omnibus, leaders and 
appropriators have cleverly put the negotiated spending agreement into 
two bills so that we can all pretend it is better than just one.
  Even though they were negotiated at the same time, released to the 
public at the same time, and will be voted on within only minutes of 
each other, we have had different formulations of this over the years. 
Sometimes it is a continuing resolution. Sometimes it is an omnibus. 
Sometimes it is a couple of minibuses capped off with another 
continuing resolution. Sometimes we call it a CRomnibus. This time I 
think we can call it a double-decker minibus, but whatever you want to 
call it, it is the same movie. It is a rerun, and it is not very good. 
In fact, it is really, really bad. The secretive, undemocratric, 
irresponsive, and ultimately irresponsible process that produced this 
bill is nothing short of a sham, but then, again, so is the substance 
of the bill. It has been like this for years now. Instead of actively 
setting and passing budgets within which we intend to stay, as we 
expect from any other organization, we make it up as we go along in as 
abusive and dysfunctional a fashion as the American people will 
possibly let us get away with because that seems to be our aim--do 
whatever they let us get away with.

  In fact, the last time Congress passed all of its respective 
appropriations bills in each of the dozen or so categories in which we 
spend money--and we pass each of those bills unbundled and on time--was 
back in 1997. For this fiscal year, we have already passed two 
continuing resolutions.
  An omnibus bill in and of itself doesn't have to be a bad thing. In 
fact, one could make it a relatively good thing. You see, in theory, an 
omnibus could be a decent legislative vehicle if--and only if, that 
is--Members of the House and the Senate were given time to read it, to 
debate it, and to offer, consider, and vote upon amendments to offer 
improvements to that legislation. So I really don't care whether it is 
a dozen individual spending bills or a small handful of minibuses or 
whether it is a single bill; what I want is consideration on the floor 
of the Senate in front of the American people so they can be aware of 
what is happening, so we can exercise the election certificates we 
fought so hard for. Each one of us is made more relevant when we get 
that opportunity and less relevant when we are denied.
  Unfortunately, it is just never the case anymore that we have those 
kinds of opportunities to debate, discuss, and consider amendments, and 
to receive the underlying legislation in enough time for any of us to 
make a difference. These bills are written entirely behind closed doors 
by a small handful of leaders from two parties--thousands of pages of 
spending trillions of dollars and released to public scrutiny for the 
first time within only hours of what would otherwise become a 
government shutdown.
  You see, this is a feature, not a bug. For those in charge of this 
process, this is a good thing because this is what allows them to write 
it on their own. The law firm, as I sometimes describe it--the law firm 
of McConnell, Schumer, Pelosi, McCarthy, and a small handful of 
staffers and a few other Members around them write this bill, and then 
it is presented to us as a single, binary, take-it-or-leave-it package. 
You fund this and everything in it or you fund nothing. You vote for 
this package or you are blamed for a government shutdown. It is not 
right.
  This, we somehow manage to call rather euphemistically, is 
bipartisanship. Like too much of what Washington calls bipartisanship 
these days, these spending bills are a fiscal dumpster fire. You see, 
they are masquerading under the banner of bipartisan compromise, when, 
in fact, they are collusion--collusion just by a small handful of 
Members of Congress who don't have to have their provisions debated and 
discussed and subject to amendment.
  On the merits, and not just on the procedure, this bill is a dumpster 
fire. Discretionary spending will be set at record-high levels in 
nearly every category of government spending.
  This omnibus--or double-decker minibus, as I sometimes call it--will 
add $2.1 trillion to the national debt over the next 20 years. By that 
time, we will be spending more on interest on the debt than we do on 
national defense.
  This is embarrassing. It is embarrassing to the American people, and 
it ought to be especially embarrassing to those of us elected to 
represent our respective States in the U.S. Senate. What has 
historically called itself the world's greatest deliberative body has 
become something substantially less glorious than that.
  When we had a trillion-dollar deficit after the 2008 financial 
crisis, everyone admitted it. Everyone admitted it was a problem; that 
it was reckless and out of control. President Obama admitted it. Now we 
are borrowing just as much, and we are doing so at the top of the 
business cycle. With wages up and unemployment at record lows, it is an 
awful, corrupt cycle on repeat. Congress breaks its own spending rules, 
creates new ones to spend more, and then breaks the new ones and tries 
to hide the evidence, racking up ever more national debt all the while.

  What is worse, we are literally putting the brunt of the cost of all 
of this on future generations, on those who are not yet here and not 
able to vote for or against the politicians who are doing this to them. 
Gorging ourselves on debt to the tune of another trillion dollars a 
year means we are saddling our children and our children's children 
with the cost of this bill, and we are setting ourselves up for a 
disaster come the next inevitable recession.
  John F. Kennedy famously said ``to govern is to choose,'' but 
Congress's defining dysfunction is that it doesn't choose. It chooses 
not to choose rather deliberately. We don't budget. We don't reform. We 
don't prioritize. We just spend, and we hope we are retired or--let's 
face it--dead when the bill for our negligence and recklessness finally 
comes due.
  Not only does this package feature reckless spending, but it includes 
many bills it should not, with Congress funding broken, inefficient, 
and, in many cases, downright harmful programs.
  For instance, this bill reauthorizes the National Flood Insurance 
Program--a program that might sound nice, but it subsidizes beachfront 
properties right in the middle of dangerous flood plains, which is 
already in more than $20 billion of debt to American taxpayers, for a 
full year, without a single reform. By the way, after every single time 
it has been reauthorized, for years running, I and others have been 
promised that the next time around, we will have an opportunity to 
offer amendments, and we will have an opportunity to reform the Flood 
Insurance Program. It can be reformed, and it must be reformed. We have 
been promised reforms for years, but this bill just reauthorizes it for 
a full year, without a single reform--not one.
  This bill also maintains the broken status quo for overseas 
contingency operations. For those Americans who aren't familiar with 
this term--or OCO, as it is sometimes described--this is the Pentagon's 
increasingly unaccountable and widely abused slush fund, insulated from 
scrutiny by unchecked budget caps. The deal appropriates another $71.5 
billion for OCO, a $4 billion increase just from last year alone. This, 
only days after America learned that civilian and military leaders have 
been lying to the American people for years across multiple 
Presidential administrations about our failures in Afghanistan.
  Instead of reform or oversight, these bills would put another $4.1 
billion into

[[Page S7173]]

the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund and limit our ability to negotiate 
peace and bring the war in Afghanistan finally to an end. In an era of 
rampant fake news, even the media is outperforming Congress on this 
issue.
  These bills include $495 million for the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund, a 13-percent increase from the last fiscal year, and the highest 
appropriation it has had in 17 years--all for a program that has been 
of particular detriment to my State of Utah. The LWCF has been used as 
a tool for the Federal Government to gradually acquire more and more 
land, even as it is failing to care for the lands that it already owns, 
with a current maintenance backlog of $19.4 billion.
  Worse, in addition to funding broken programs, it funds blatant, 
abusive cronyism. The bill reauthorizes the Export-Import Bank--
Washington's favorite among favored banks--which doles out taxpayer-
backed loans to help American exporters, and it does so for a full 7 
years, without even so much of a word of debate. This, notwithstanding 
the fact that the Export-Import Bank has been the subject of very 
intense debate in this body for many years, and with good reason.
  Why? Well, among other things, the biggest recipient of Export-Import 
Bank funds is Pemex--Mexico's infamous, corrupt, state-owned oil 
company. It is so corrupt, in fact, that its own employees collaborate 
with Mexico's drug cartels to facilitate the theft of their best oil 
and their refined petroleum products.
  In fact, that theft has become so rampant in Mexico that there is a 
term coined to refer to that kind of theft. Those who engage in it are 
called ``huachicoleros''--``huachicoleros.'' We are funding, and we are 
insulating from the ramifications of that theft, Pemex, a corrupt 
institution. It doesn't operate well, in part, because it is the victim 
of theft and in part because it is being backed up by the U.S. 
Government.
  Ranked right after Pemex is the People's Republic of China, whose 
state-owned enterprises are granted generous taxpayer-backed financing 
for purchases they could fund through their own Communist government.
  Say what you want about China, about U.S.-China relations on trade, 
about military issues related to China, whatever national security 
issues we might be concerned about with China, but I don't know many 
people--in fact, I don't know anyone outside of this town--who think 
the U.S. Government should be propping up China, should be giving up 
money for the Export-Import Bank, or otherwise, to China. That is not 
our job. That is not the role of the U.S. taxpayer, who works hard 
every day to earn money which then might be sent to a Communist 
government in China.
  The reauthorization even includes provisions instructing the Export-
Import Bank to pretend it is helping Americans to compete against China 
at the same time it is sending that very government billions of 
dollars.
  Then there is the extension of the Brand USA Act--a 7-year 
reauthorization of a government-chartered nonprofit Brand USA--to use 
tens of millions of Federal dollars to advertise for tourism.
  To top things off, a last-minute tax extender's deal was added to the 
package late Monday night, diverting billions of dollars on central 
economic planning and picking winners and losers in the marketplace. 
Over the next 10 years, this package provides about $2.7 billion in tax 
benefits through programs that use the Tax Code to incentivize 
businesses to invest in government-selected neighborhoods, seeking to 
control the flow of investment instead of relying on the free market to 
make those decisions, and it includes naked handouts to cronyist 
special interests.
  For example, it spends over $2.1 billion for subsidies in the energy 
sector--not energy generally but to specific winners within the energy 
industry that this small handful of purported leaders in Congress have 
decided would benefit from the hard-working taxpayer dollars that would 
be doled out.
  The bill, among other things, engages in awarding $113 million for 
coal production on Indian land, $331 million for facilities to refuel 
alternative fuel vehicles, and $1.5 billion for biodiesel and renewable 
diesel tax credits, for instance. As if the Federal Government weren't 
already mired sufficiently in this area, this bill devotes even more.
  Beyond these, it hands out $187 million in writeoffs for owners of 
motor sport entertainment complexes, $18 million in tax breaks for the 
production of movies and TV shows, and $3 million in tax credits for 
the purchasers of two-wheeled, plug-in electric vehicles, just to name 
a few examples.
  Not only that, but it features new levels of absurdity too. This deal 
actually includes a special interest bailout to make up for the 
failures of a faulty pension plan, while, at the same time, authorizing 
another pension plan to follow in its same footsteps.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for an additional 3 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEE. Congress authorized a group of coal miners' multiemployer 
pension plans under problematic rules, allowing them to underfund the 
plans by over 70 percent, but all the while, those pensions still 
promised their workers full benefits, setting up unreasonable 
expectations for their return on investment. Inevitably, they have not 
made up the shortfall, and now the taxpayers are being asked to bail 
them out.

  In the very same bill in which we are bailing out the coal miners' 
pensions, we are authorizing a select group of community newspapers--
not all newspapers and not all media enterprises; just a select group 
of handpicked community newspapers--to follow the same practice, 
allowing them, once again, to underfund their workers' pensions while 
again promising them a full return on benefits.
  With this bill, we are rubberstamping the expectation that employers 
are free to raid their workers' promised retirement benefits for their 
own short-term gain and setting the precedent that the government will 
reward this bad practice by bailing them out when that inevitably 
becomes a problem.
  This bill, however, does include some good measures that I support, 
like repealing the medical device tax, fixing a tax provision that 
would unfairly subject churches to more taxes, and making retirement 
account reforms that allow Americans to access these funds in times of 
a particular need.
  Sadly, I, like many of our colleagues, will be forced to vote against 
these measures because they have been lumped into this massive, 
stinking package where the only choice we have is a binary one. We have 
no option to vote for the things we like. This is wrong. There is no 
finite cap on our ability to debate these things other than the 
artificial ones we have created rather deliberately within this body, 
and that is wrong.
  The thing about these omnibuses is they put us in a take-it-or-leave-
it position. We were given no choice but to support or oppose the whole 
thing, good and bad measures alike. Unfortunately, just like every 
other episode in this squalid saga--I call this one omnibus 2--this 
one, too, will come to a predictable, sad, sorry ending. Congress will 
pass the mess, indulging in a process, substance, and long-term result 
that are all an affront to the viewers, because at the end of the day, 
the audience members are real live victims. We can do better. We can, 
we must, and we will.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here with my good friend 
the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Shelby from 
Alabama. We worked hard on this bill, he as chairman and I as vice 
chairman. We reached a bipartisan, bicameral agreement that will fund 
the Federal Government in fiscal year 2020.
  The agreement rejects some devastating and shortsighted cuts proposed 
by the President. It makes historic investments in the American people 
and working families. It fully implements the bipartisan budget 
agreement and allows us to invest an additional $27 billion in 
nondefense programs to benefit our Nation's children, improve our 
educational institutions, protect our environment, combat the opioid 
crisis, promote and grow our economy, invest in our infrastructure, and 
protect our elections. There is a lot in here.

[[Page S7174]]

  There are 12 appropriations bills put into 2 minibuses. The first, we 
refer to as the domestic minibus bill. That is a strong bipartisan bill 
that makes real and historic investments in the American people and our 
communities.
  It rejects anti-science and know-nothingism proposals by making 
record-level investments in science and research programs. We all know 
that you have to invest in science and research, and you cannot turn 
this on and off year by year. We have to think long term.
  We also have to invest in our children's education. We have increases 
in programs with proven success, such as Head Start, the child care and 
development block grant, child nutrition programs, 21st-century 
learning grants, Pell grants, and others.
  For the third year in a row, it continues the historic level of 
funding to combat opioids that we began in fiscal year 2018. This 
funding is critical for State and local governments because they are at 
the frontlines of this battle.
  The agreement provides over $5 billion more than the President's 
budget to protect national parks and public lands and fund critical 
environmental protection and conservation programs. These national 
parks are an important part of our heritage. The Presiding Officer has 
some of the most beautiful ones in the country in his State, but all of 
our national parks are beautiful. I think about the brilliance of 
people like President Theodore Roosevelt who said: Let's preserve them.
  Even though the administration denies that climate change exists, the 
agreement includes significant resources to combat this threat in the 
new fiscal year.
  It rejects the President's proposal to totally eliminate key Federal 
affordable housing and economic development programs.
  For the first time in decades, Congress has come together to fund $25 
million for gun violence research by the Centers for Disease Control 
and the NIH. That is a significant step to combat the gun violence 
epidemic and rash of school shootings facing our Nation.
  It is a good bill. It is certainly going to improve the lives of 
Vermonters. It improves the lives of millions of Americans in all the 
States. It provides support for working families and supports and 
promotes our economy. In a few moments, we are going to vote on the 
motion to invoke cloture on this bill, and I will urge an ``aye'' vote.
  The second package of bills, we refer to as the national security 
minibus bill. It is critical funding to support our troops, invest in 
our military, and protect our Nation from ongoing threats, both foreign 
and domestic.
  Importantly, it includes $425 million for election security grants. 
While the administration has not requested anything, I heard from 
secretaries of state--Republicans and Democrats alike--throughout the 
country, including our own, Jim Condos of Vermont, of the need for 
these election security grants. It is a matter of national security to 
preserve our democracy, and we have to maintain full faith in our 
elections.
  We also fund the constitutionally mandated 2020 Decennial Census. 
That is in the U.S. Constitution. It not only determines congressional 
apportionment, but it also is relied on to distribute $900 billion in 
Federal funds. We have to have a fair and accurate count, and the money 
provided in this bill will help us achieve that.

  We have significant investments to fight crime and terrorism, 
implement criminal justice reforms, combat violence against women, and 
keep communities safe.
  We also have funding for the Department of Homeland Security.
  I would note that we have one area that has been a lightning rod in 
both Chambers. We tried to get a bill that would receive the required 
number of votes to pass. The reason it has been difficult is because of 
the President's insistence that we waste taxpayer money on an 
ineffective and foolish wall on the southern border. We all want secure 
borders. A wall that can be easily cut with a $100 power saw you can 
buy at a local hardware store is not security, and we worry about the 
cruel and ineffective immigration policies of the Trump Administration.
  Last year, the President plunged us into a 35-day government shutdown 
when Congress refused to fund his anti-immigration agenda. That cost 
the taxpayers of this country billions of dollars that could have been 
spent on better things. But we reached a resolution. Again, I 
compliment Senator Shelby and Congresswomen Lowey and Granger because 
we met for hours in my office and worked our way through that.
  In this bill, the President will receive $1.375 billion for barriers 
on the southern border, which is what he would have received if we had 
a continuing resolution and far less than the $8.6 billion he 
requested, $5 billion of which would have come from the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  I would have preferred no funding for the wall. President Trump's 
wall will negatively impact communities in which it is built, rob 
people of their property--in some cases, ranches and farmland that have 
been in families for generations--and destroy critical habitat on the 
border. But the Republicans were clear: They would not support a bill 
that contained zero for the wall. They stood with the President on the 
wall, as they seem to do time after time.
  I am disappointed that we did not further restrict the President's 
ability to steal money from our troops to pay for the wall. If the 
President decides to once again steal money from our troops and their 
families for the wall, he will have to answer in court and to the 
American people. Our position on this is clear: It is wrong. No one 
should interpret silence in this bill or the domestic minibus on this 
issue as condoning the President's actions or as an agreement that what 
he has done is lawful. It simply reflects a sad political reality that 
the Republican Party refuses to stand up to this President and protect 
the Congress's exclusive power of the purse and clarify the law.
  One court has already correctly concluded that the President's raid 
on military construction money was unlawful. That conclusion is based 
on a long-standing provision of appropriations law, section 739 of the 
financial services bill, that prevents the administration from 
increasing funds for a program or activity requested in the budget 
above and beyond what was provided in an appropriations act. This 
provision is included again in the underlying bill, and we believe it 
was correctly interpreted.
  We denied the President's request to increase the number of ICE 
detention beds to 54,000. This request was cruel and unjustified. 
Instead, we provided funding to support the same level of beds as 
fiscal year 2019. There is no need for a higher number.
  President Trump is misusing ICE detention facilities for the mass 
incarceration of asylum seekers and immigrants who have no criminal 
history and pose no threat to our communities. There are more 
effective, less expensive, and more humane ways to enforce our 
immigration laws while immigrants go through judicial proceedings. That 
is why I fought for and secured a significant increase in alternatives 
to detention, like the Family Case Management Program.
  I also fought to include restrictions on the President's ability to 
increase the bed number by transferring money from other accounts. But 
again, Republicans stood with the President and refused to negotiate on 
this issue, and those critical reforms were not included.
  Not every part of the DHS bill is controversial, however. The bill 
provides critical funding for the Coast Guard to support their missions 
to keep our country safe. It provides an increase for the 
Transportation Security Administration, which ensures our safety and 
security at our Nation's busy airports, and it provides increased 
funding for FEMA whose mission is critical for communities struggling 
to recover in the wake of natural disasters.
  While I do not agree with everything included in this bill, on 
balance, the security minibus provides funding important to keep our 
Nation safe, to support our troops, to improve election security, and 
ensure an accurate count for the Census. Later today, we will turn to 
this bill, and I urge an aye vote.
  I do thank Chairman Shelby for his hard work in negotiating the 
bills. The hours were long. We didn't always agree. We had a lot of 
weekends and evenings that we worked quietly out of

[[Page S7175]]

sight of the press and everything else, but knowing that we can take 
each other's word, we worked in good faith to reach a resolution on 
difficult matters. He made compromises necessary to get us a deal, as 
did I. And I thank my friend Senator Shelby for his leadership on the 
Appropriations Committee.
  I say this as Dean of the Senate and as somebody who has served with 
almost 20 percent of all the Senators in this country's history--I 
thank him for his friendship.
  I thank the Appropriations Committee staff on both sides of the 
aisle. I might go home at 9 or 10 o'clock at night; they are still 
there until 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning. They are hard-working, and 
there were sleepless nights. We could not have done this without them.
  Obviously, I thank my full committee staff--Charles Kieffer, Chanda 
Betourney, Jessica Berry, Jay Tilton, and Hannah Chauvin--for their 
work, as well as Shannon Hines, Jonathan Graffeo, and David Adkins on 
Senator Shelby's staff. I thank all the subcommittee. It is a long 
list, and I ask unanimous consent the entire list be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      Vice Chairman Leahy List for Senate Amendment to H.R. 1158 
    (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020) and H.R. 1865 (Further 
      Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020) Staff for the Record

       Charles E. Kieffer, Chanda Betourney, Jay Tilton, Jessica 
     Berry, Hannah Chauvin, Shannon Hines, Jonathan Graffeo, David 
     Adkins, Margaret Pritchard, Dianne Nellor, Adrienne 
     Wojciechowski, Teri Curtin, Bob Ross, Morgan Ulmer, Patrick 
     Carroll, Elizabeth Dent, Anna Lanier Fischer, Jean Toal 
     Eisen, Jennifer Eskra, Blaise Sheridan, Elisabeth Coats, 
     Hamilton Bloom, Amber Beck, Allen Cutler, Matt Womble, Sydney 
     Crawford, Erik Raven, Brigid Kolish, Rob Leonard, John Lucio, 
     Andy Vanlandingham, Mike Clementi, Colleen Gaydos, Katy 
     Hagan, Chris Hall, Hanz Heinrichs, Kate Kaufer, Rachel 
     Littleton, Jacqui Russell, Jeremiah Van Auken, Doug Clapp, 
     Chris Hanson, Kathleen Williams, Tyler Owens, Jen Armstrong, 
     Adam DeMella, Meyer Seligman, Molly Marsh, Ellen Murray, 
     Diana Gourlay Hamilton, Reeves Hart, Andrew Newton, Brian 
     Daner, Sophie Sando, Scott Nance, Chip Walgren, Drenan 
     Dudley, Peter Babb, Chris Cook, Justin Harper, Thompson 
     Moore, Kamela White, Christian Lee, Rachael Taylor, Ryan 
     Hunt, Melissa Zimmerman, Faisal Amin, Emy Lesofski, Lucas 
     Agnew, Nona McCoy, Alex Keenan, Mark Laisch, Kelly Brown, 
     Kathryn Toomajian, Meghan Mott, Laura Friedel, Michael 
     Gentile, Ashley Palmer, Jeff Reczek, Sarah Boliek, Alley 
     Adcock, Michelle Dominguez, Jason McMahon, Patrick Magnuson, 
     Jennifer Bastin, Joanne Hoff, Tim Rieser, Alex Carnes, Kali 
     Farahmand, Paul Grove, Katherine Jackson, Sarita Vanka, Adam 
     Yezerski, Dabney Hegg, Jessi Axe, Christina Monroe, Virginia 
     Flores, Clare Doherty, Gus Maples, Rajat Mathur, LaShawnda 
     Smith, Jason Woolwine, Courtney Young, Valerie Hutton, Elmer 
     Myles, Penny Myles, Karin Thames, Robert Putnam, Clint 
     Trocchio, Christy Greene, Blair Taylor, Jenny Winkler, Hong 
     Nguyen, Christy Greene, George Castro.
  Mr. LEAHY. I have often said that we Senators are merely 
constitutional impediments to the staff who do such great work, and I 
applaud them all on both sides of the aisle.
  I yield the floor to my distinguished chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). The Senator from 
Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to finish my remarks prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, just a few weeks ago right here, Congress 
passed a continuing resolution to fund the government through December 
20. At that time, few if any of us predicted that we would pass all 12 
appropriations bills in such a small window of time. Yet today we are 
poised to do just that in a few minutes.
  Bipartisan cooperation has made this possible. Chairwoman Lowey and 
Ranking Member Granger on the House side and my friend Vice Chairman 
Leahy and I on the Senate side worked together to change things. I 
believe that the four of us have shown once again that, if given the 
opportunity, we will find a bipartisan path forward to get the job 
done. It is very important that we do this.
  I would be remiss right now if I did not recognize all members of the 
Appropriations Committees, Democrats and Republicans, committees on 
both sides of the aisle and the Capitol, our subcommittee chairs, our 
ranking members in particulars, and, of course, our staff. We would not 
be here without their diligence and willingness to work night and day 
with very little sleep.
  I thank the leaders on both sides, Senator McConnell and Senator 
Schumer.
  I especially want to take a moment here to acknowledge the role 
played by the Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary Mnuchin, in these 
negotiations on behalf of the administration. Together, everybody 
negotiated the budget agreement that paved the way for these bills, and 
they helped guide them down the stretch. Secretary Mnuchin in 
particular has been a voice of reason and a driving force in our 
ability to get to yes, and we should be grateful for that.
  I believe these bills are good bills that my colleagues can be proud 
to support. I do not have time here today to go into all the 
particulars of such a complex piece of legislation, but I want to hit a 
few high points as I see them. First--always first to me--is America's 
military, our national security, the security of our Nation. Defense 
spending here has increased by $22 billion over the previous year. Our 
men and women in uniform will receive the largest pay increase in 10 
years at 3.1 percent, which they deserve. Our veterans can rest assured 
that they will get the healthcare they earned and deserve through the 
funding of the VA MISSION Act. These are victories for America and for 
the American people.

  Turning to Homeland Security, which is very important, as well, 
$1.375 billion is provided for the border wall system, and the 
President will have some greater flexibility on where he can build 
along the southern border. Not only that, but the President retains 
critical transfer authorities that will allow him to devote additional 
resources to border security and immigration enforcement. Again, the 
objective here and, I believe, the outcome is to make America strong.
  The last thing that I will mention before wrapping up is that these 
bills will maintain all legacy policy riders to protect life and the 
Second Amendment. These provisions have long been foundational to the 
strength of America and I am proud to assure my colleagues that we can 
carry them forward.
  All in all, these bills accommodate countless Members' priorities on 
both sides of the aisle. I want to thank all of my colleagues, again, 
for the input they provided at the outset of this process.
  I also want to take a moment to thank my chief of staff and the staff 
director of the Appropriations Committee, Shannon Hines, and her staff 
for all the work they have done, as well as Senator Leahy's staff, 
working together. As we approach the finish line, I ask for their 
support. As the clock winds down, let's come together and do what 
seemed so unlikely just a month ago--to fund the entire Federal 
Government before the Christmas break.
  Before I yield the floor, I want to quickly thank, again, all of the 
staff for their hard work and dedication to make this happen today. 
Without them, it wouldn't happen and we know this. They have worked 
tirelessly on our behalf and on behalf of the American people, and we 
should all be grateful for their efforts.
  I yield the floor.


                             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 
     concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 
     1865, a bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint 
     a coin in commemoration of the opening of the National Law 
     Enforcement Museum in the District of Columbia, and for other 
     purposes.
         Mitch McConnell, Susan M. Collins, Richard Burr, David 
           Perdue, Pat Roberts, John Cornyn, Shelley Moore Capito, 
           John Thune, John Boozman, Rob Portman, Richard C. 
           Shelby, Roy Blunt, Jerry Moran, John Hoeven, Roger F. 
           Wicker, Thom Tillis, Lisa Murkowski


[[Page S7176]]


  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 concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 
1865, a bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint a coin in 
commemoration of the opening of the National Law Enforcement Museum in 
the District of Columbia, 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 
the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Minnesota 
(Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator 
from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. 
Warren) are necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 71, nays 21, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 413 Leg.]

                                YEAS--71

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

                                NAYS--21

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Braun
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Gillibrand
     Hawley
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     Paul
     Risch
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Toomey

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Booker
     Cotton
     Harris
     Isakson
     Klobuchar
     Sanders
     Udall
     Warren
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 71, the nays are 
21.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The motion to refer falls.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to thank everybody for joining 
Senator Shelby and I on this vote. It is going to help us move forward, 
and, as I said in my earlier remarks, Republicans and Democrats came 
together and worked extraordinarily hard on these appropriations bills, 
and it shows what can be done when we work together. I think the vote 
here is an indication of that.
  If nobody is seeking recognition, 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. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________