June 20, 2018 - Issue: Vol. 164, No. 103 — Daily Edition115th Congress (2017 - 2018) - 2nd Session
MOTION TO DISCHARGE--H.R. 3; Congressional Record Vol. 164, No. 103
(Senate - June 20, 2018)
Text available as:
Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Pages S4257-S4261] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] MOTION TO DISCHARGE--H.R. 3 Mr. LEE. Madam President, pursuant to title X of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, I have a discharge petition at the desk and move to discharge from the Senate Committees on Appropriations and Budget H.R. 3, to rescind certain budget authority proposed to be rescinded in special messages transmitted to the Congress by the President on May 8, 2018. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to section 1017(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, there will now be up to 1 hour of debate on the motion to discharge, equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. Who yields time? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah. Mr. LEE. Madam President, over the next 10 years, our national debt is set to balloon from $21.16 trillion today to more than $33.9 trillion in 2028. With interest rates set to increase, the payments on the debt will also likely double over the next 10 years as a percentage of total economic output. Consider for a moment the fact we are paying a little more than $300 billion a year to service our debt. It is not that much more than we were paying a couple of decades ago when our national debt was roughly one-fifth, one-sixth of its current size. The only reason our debt service payments are as low as they are today is that our interest rates are at all-time historic lows. Our Treasury yield rates are artificially, historically, aberrationally, severely low. The situation gets a lot worse if our artificially, historically low interest rates increase or start to return to their historical averages at a pace quicker than has been projected, as is easily possible. For example, if interest [[Page S4258]] rates were to return just to historical norms--I am not talking about a rebound above the historical average, just a rebound to historical norms--taxpayers would soon be drowning in trillion-dollar annual interest payments just for the interest on our debt, which means just the difference between what we are paying in our debt service payment now and what we would be paying then, possibly a few short years from now. It is more than we spend on the Department of Defense. This is really frightening, and this is why it is such welcome news that there is some movement on this front. That is why it is such welcome news that on May 8 President Trump sent to Congress a request to rescind $15.4 billion worth of extraneous spending. This is something Congress used to do all the time. This is something that in decades past would occur dozens, even scores of times, during a single Presidential administration, and it was a bipartisan matter, of course. Returning unused taxpayer money isn't just good government; in a republic, it should be expected, and it should be the norm. In 1981, President Reagan and a divided Congress rescinded more than $15 billion in Federal spending and another $16 billion in 1985 and 1986. President Clinton made three rescission requests in 2000, totaling $128 million. Now we have the chance to take up the mantle again. President Trump's specific proposals draw back unused funds from expired programs, obsolete programs, and accounts that the Congressional Budget Office says are wildly, needlessly overfunded. In fact, according to CBO, none of the funds in the requested rescissions would alter current Federal programs in any way. For instance, CBO has certified that the $7 billion CHIP rescission would not affect either outlays or the number of Americans with health insurance. And I should note that Congress has rescinded CHIP funding in every enacted Labor-HHS appropriations bill since 2011, more than $50 billion in total during that time period. The spending targeted for rescission is either expired or rendered unattainable by current eligibility requirements. The $15 billion is just sitting, unused, in agency accounts. So how does it help to cut spending if this money is just sitting there? This is the real sticking point, for Congress has this cute little habit of paying for new spending by raiding these unused funds. It is a budgetary trick, a gimmick, if you will. The money may not be used this year, but it can be recycled into budget gimmicks in future years. Rescinding it now takes the $15 billion out of circulation for those kinds of shenanigans in the not-too-distant future, and, of course, that is the real reason why it will not pass unanimously. Now, to its credit, the House of Representatives has stepped up. On June 7, the House of Representatives passed its own $14.8 billion rescissions package. Now it is our chance. Now we have the opportunity to do the same. This is the Senate's chance to show the American people that we retain some modicum of attention and of seriousness when it comes to the spending habits of the Federal Government and when it comes to fiscal restraint in Washington, DC. Cutting spending that isn't actually going to be spent may not be a profile in courage, but it is at least a sign of a pulse, and in Washington that is something. That is something important that we can and we should show today. It is a step toward fiscal responsibility and away from the cynicism and the waste that has turned this city into what is known as ``the swamp.'' In Congress we face a lot of difficult decisions--gut-wrenching, heart-wrenching decisions--but this is not one of them. President Trump's request is as reasonable as can be imagined. Now, $15 billion may be a drop in the bucket compared to $15 trillion or $21 trillion, but that is a reason to support this legislation, not to oppose it. Congress needs to retrain its atrophied muscles in preparation for the far larger tasks that lie ahead. If we do not find the will--if we can't somehow muster the willpower necessary to reduce Federal spending ourselves now, long before the laws of mathematics and economics force us to do so--we will regret it. If we wait until those laws catch up with us, it will be a whole lot more painful later than it will be if we start making more modest adjustments now. Every day that passes without action represents more of our national debt being thrown onto our children's backs--another line item on the fiscal indictment that we are writing, however unwittingly or unknowingly, against ourselves. We have to change course. This bill provides us with a good chance to take one small step toward sanity. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the motion to discharge. Discharge Petition--H.R. 3 We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with title 10 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974, hereby direct that the Senate Committees on Appropriations and Budget be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3, a bill to rescind certain budget authority proposed to be rescinded in special messages transmitted to the Congress by the President on May 8, 2018, in accordance with title X of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act 1974. Mike Lee, Patick J. Toomey, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, David Perdue, Jeff Flake, Joni Ernst, Ron Johnson, John Kennedy, Marco Rubio, Thom Tillis, Steve Daines, Mike Rounds, John Cornyn, Ben Sasse, James Lankford, Tom Cotton, John Barrasso, Mike Crapo, James Risch. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont. Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have been in the Senate long enough to think that maybe the Senate can start to go back to being the Senate. A Senate that votes on things and debates things and reflects the will of the people--not what is dictated from the White House. Perhaps that was wishful thinking on my part, because in just the latest example of the ``cut first and ask questions later'' policies of the Trump administration, we are now going to vote on a bill that will claw back billions of dollars from children's health insurance, affordable housing investments, infrastructure, rural development, and innovative energy programs. This is the same White House that just forced through Congress a $1.9 trillion--not billion, but trillion--tax giveaway, most of which goes to billionaires and corporations. Then, they say we have to cut children's health insurance because we have to reduce the deficit. We can give billionaires and corporations $1.9 trillion, but this might increase the deficit. So we have to cut children's health insurance, affordable housing investments, infrastructure, rural development, and innovative energy programs. That goes beyond laughable. It is unconscionable. President Trump is seeking to cut $7 billion from funding for children's health insurance. If you strip this funding from the Children's Health Insurance Program, we leave children unprotected from unforeseen events like a flu outbreak or a natural disaster. This takes away the ability of Congress should be able to make critical investments in healthcare and education. Even if the money can no longer be dedicated to CHIP, we should reinvest it in other important programs as we have done in the past--programs that support our Nation's children and families. I don't think there is any Member of this body who, when they are campaigning, doesn't talk about how important children and their families are to them. I hope those same families will ask them: How much money did you take out from children and families? Earlier this year, the Congress did what they were supposed to. Republicans and Democrats came together to direct this funding to the Federal response to the opioid epidemic, the childcare and development block grants, Head Start, and the National Institutes of Health. These are investments in our country. They are not tax giveaways. They are investments in our country. If you strip this funding, it is penny wise and pound foolish. President Trump wants to claw back billions of dollars from infrastructure programs. I see so many of these photo ops he does, speaking about how we want to have better infrastructure. However, we don't want to pay for it so we will take the money back. Let's look at what the money is that he wants to take away. It is programs to do everything from supporting loans to helping factories produce more efficient vehicles to building bridges in small communities. These are programs that directly support American jobs. They are not jobs overseas. They [[Page S4259]] are jobs right here, and now they want to take the money out. For an administration that is perpetually in ``infrastructure week,'' it doesn't make sense if you are trying to cut funding for infrastructure. How do we put ``America first'' when you strip funds that support Americans jobs? In a continued push to leave rural America behind, Mr. Trump's rescission package would cut millions of dollars from rural development programs. Every single Senator in this body has rural areas in their State, and they know that these programs help to ensure that the same basic services are offered in rural areas that we see in urban areas-- things that we rely on, like schools or healthcare, for instance, or police stations. Are we saying that only urban areas can have that but rural areas can't? In the Appropriations Committee, Senator Shelby and I have been focused on moving forward through the fiscal year 2019 process. We are trying to return the committee to regular order--something that most Republicans and Democrats in this body say they want. We have successfully kept poison pill riders and controversial authorizing language out of the appropriations bills, whichever side of the aisle they came from, and we passed, by an overwhelming margin, seven bipartisan bills out of our committee. It has been years since we have seen that happen. Here we have seven bipartisan appropriations bills come out of committee, and almost all Republicans and all Democrats voted for them. Even with the Interior appropriations bill--that is a bill that has been historically bogged down with poison pill riders and usually forced into a massive omnibus appropriations bill because we could not reach an agreement. In the past we had to put it in an omnibus bill because we couldn't agree on it--guess what happened. We passed it out of committee unanimously. I don't recall that happening in nearly a decade. Now, if we go forward with this rescission package, it is going to derail the process. The rescission bill undermines the bipartisan budget deal that Republicans and Democrats struck just four months ago. If we go forward with this package, another will fall, and another, and another, even further undermining the agreement. I will remind everybody that if they haven't gotten around to reading the Constitution, it does grant Congress the power of the purse, not the executive branch. Congress decides spending priorities, not the President. We ought to actually do our job. We should exercise our right. We should reject this rescissions package. We should uphold the bicameral, bipartisan budget agreement. So I urge all Senators to reject this rescissions package and to oppose the motion to discharge. Madam President, I don't see any other Senator seeking the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Tax Reform Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise in celebration of the 6-month anniversary of passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. I know there were a lot of remarks about the benefits of tax cuts right out of the gate, but many of the benefits from the reform of the old, broken, and outdated Tax Code will accumulate over the long run. I rise to talk about some of the benefits from the new Tax Code that can be witnessed by hard-working families right now. For example, the typical family of four making the median family income of around $75,000 a year is right in the middle of the first year of our cuts. Those typical families are going to see their taxes cut by more than half. We also doubled the child tax credit and expanded its refundability to benefit more working families. The Tax Code also makes filing taxes easier and more straightforward for the typical middle-class family. That is because the standard deduction was nearly doubled. Taken all together, provisions like these are the reason the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation found that the overall distribution of the new tax bill is directed toward the middle class. This is happening everywhere. Take my home State of Utah, for example. According to some recent numbers from the Tax Foundation, citizens of Utah can expect, on average, a tax cut of nearly $1,500, or 2.4 percent of their income. Take advantage of those hundreds of dollars and start paying off your car a little sooner. Maybe go out to see a baseball game or take your family on a road trip to see some of the beautiful national parks around our country and especially throughout the State of Utah. All of those things are now that much more possible because of our tax reform. Those direct tax cuts are just a part of the larger picture ushered in by tax reform. More broadly, tax reform has provided a shot in the arm to a long-ailing economy. After cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, businesses have been able to reinvest, build new facilities, hire new workers, and start innovating now more than ever. Recent polls by the National Association of Manufacturers, the Business Roundtable, Gallup, and the National Federation of Businesses show that optimism, and plans to expand hiring and growth for businesses of all sorts and sizes are at alltime highs. This optimism, along with lower costs of increasing investments and doing business, has already started to result in real changes for the middle class. Take, for example, the list of more than 100 different utility companies that have cut their rates across the country. According to one compilation, the American people are on track to pocket more than $2.8 billion just this year off those savings. Some might also argue that this is a normal period of expansion and growth in the economy. As one journalist recently noted, tax reform has poured ``jet fuel'' on a growing economy. According to the most recent reports in June, the total number of workers receiving unemployment benefits is running at the lowest levels in 44 years, and that is just in terms of numbers of people drawing unemployment benefits, not even taking into account the massive population growth since December 1973. For the first time since record-keeping began in 2000, the number of available positions exceeded the number of job seekers, according to the information from the Department of Labor. This is just the initial boost. I tend to think positive economic outcomes are most often created by hard work and good policy, like our tax reform package. That is why activity in the labor market has been especially robust, with more than 1 million jobs already created in this year alone. That is why wage growth has been trending upward, and that is why business investment has been robust. More Americans now have access to more of their own hard-earned money. As Republicans predicted, we are already seeing the middle class and the economy generally benefit. Mark my words, there is a lot more growth we should anticipate coming down the pike as more and more people start to realize how much tax reform actually does, and will, affect their families, their businesses, their communities, and our country as a whole. As business investment and productivity pick up due to higher expected aftertax returns from investment, wage growth, too, will continue to pick up. All told, these changes are creating a paradigm shift. More than ever before, Americans can expect things to be better tomorrow than they are today. Personally, I am more excited than ever for my great-grandchildren, my grandchildren, and my children. I am grateful to everyone who has made this possible. After all, major tax reform like this is truly a once-in-a-generation opportunity for all of us. Just 6 months in, we have seen so many positive results from the tax reform that the list is too long to cover in just one speech. Make no mistake, the list of positives from tax reform for [[Page S4260]] American families and businesses will continue to grow larger and longer. With that, I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee. Tariffs Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I rise to talk about the abuse of authority that is taking place with the administration's use of section 232 of the Trade Act to implement taxes on the American people. Let me say this one more time. The President, and the administration, abusing section 232 of the Trade Act, have decided on their own accord to tax the American people. They have put in place a 25-percent tariff on steel and aluminum and are getting ready to do so on some other products. Yet, this is Congress's responsibility--Congress's responsibility--to generate tariffs or deal with taxes. The administration, by citing section 232--a national security issue--is taxing goods coming into America from Canada, from Europe, and our allies on a national security basis. Today I wrote a letter to Secretary Ross, our Secretary of Commerce, because it is my understanding--actually, today, in a hearing with the Finance Committee, he said there were 22,506 requests from companies in the United States asking for exclusions--exclusions--from being taxed for goods that come in to support their companies. I will say to my friends here, on what basis do we think these exclusions might be granted? We have already had an abuse of authority in using 232. I guess my question to Secretary Ross is, on what basis is he going to be granting these exclusions? Are they going to be friends of the administration who get exclusions? Are they going to deny exclusions to opponents of the administration or are they going to use the national security reason, if you will, to grant exclusions? I want to say, again, I think this is our responsibility. I realize that when additional tariffs go in place in July--when these other countries retaliate, which is their plan on July 1--my guess is this issue may become more ripe for action, not unlike what is happening at the border right now where people are seeing what is occurring and action is being promoted to solve the problem. I think, once the tariffs by these other companies kick in against us on July 1--because we, in a most unusual way, the administration citing national security against Canada, Mexico, many of our NATO allies and the European Union--I think this issue is going to become ripe. I think it is going to become ripe for Senate action and House action. Again, I will ask people in this room, knowing they cited 232, which again is an abuse of that authority, are we comfortable with the criteria that the administration is going to be using on the 22,000-- actually, let me see here. Maybe that is a low number. It is 26,977 issues that have been dealt with, but 22,506 exclusions have been asked for. In other words, we have companies that are coming to the administration which is abusing its authority. We have companies that are going to the administration, asking that they not be impacted by the taxes that are being placed on their companies, unilaterally by this administration, with no congressional input. I say to my colleagues, do we not want to know on what basis they unilaterally are going to decide not to tax certain companies? In other words, most companies are being taxed 25 percent. They just decided to do that themselves. Yet they are going to grant exclusions. I think this issue is going to wreak havoc on our country. It already is wreaking havoc on our relationships with friends that have been with us for many years in defense that have to come our aid, and we have come to their aid. We have had alliances. Again, I challenge the Senate to take action on this. There is an amendment that is broadly supported by people on both sides of the aisle, with a wide range of ideology, that would say, if we are going to invoke 232, a national security section, we would vote on that. My sense is, as this moves along, people are going to want to vote on that, and I look forward to that day occurring. With that, I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania. Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Forced Family Separation Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise to address the issue that I know folks in both parties of both Houses, and, of course, across the country, are concerned about; that is, the issue of child separation at the border. This is, unfortunately, an issue that because there is so much outrage, there is, in fact, substantial unity against the policy that is in place right now. I am, like a lot of Americans, vehemently opposed to the policy of what, in essence, amounts to ripping children away from their parents. I, like a lot of Americans, have demanded that the President and his administration end this cruel policy immediately. We are hearing some reports that there may be an action taken. I don't know what that action will be, but I hope it is an action that will end the policy. Until we know that, we have to continue to urge the President to do the right thing. Earlier this week, the Department of Homeland Security released data showing that between May 5 and June 9--just a little more than a month--2,342 children were taken from their parents at the border. That is about 70 children per day taken from their parents. I have received thousands of emails, letters, and phone calls from concerned Pennsylvanians who are demanding an immediate end to the policy. I never imagined that I would have to stand here today, nor should anyone, to talk about a scenario where the U.S. Government is separating children from their parents at the border. That seems incomprehensible that would ever happen, but it has. I am reading part of a statement that reads as follows: Our government is forcibly separating children--including toddlers--from their parents and sending them to detention facilities as a means of sending a message and influencing Congress. That was a statement not made by a Democratic Senator or a Democratic House Member or a Republican or any politician; that was part of a larger statement made by Thomas Donahue, the president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--not someone who is very often lined up on the same side as Democratic Senators. I think that is an understatement. To say this policy is cruel, inhumane, and an insult to the values of our Nation is to utter an understatement. This is a policy that is straight from the pit of hell, and there is probably worse that we could say about it. It is hard to comprehend that any administration at any time would propose, let alone implement, a policy that would result in children being separated from their parents. Unlike what the administration has tried to argue, this is not about following the law or securing the border. Neither of those statements is relevant here. This is a conscious decision by this administration, which is contrary to the decisions by the last two administrations--one a Republican administration, the other a Democratic administration-- that decided not to separate children from their parents. Unfortunately, this administration decided to do just that. Many people have heard the statements attributed to the American Academy of Pediatrics. There were several different folks who were quoted on this, depending on which medical organizations they belonged to. One of the most compelling statements was by Dr. Colleen Kraft, the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics. She is obviously an expert about children and is from an expert organization. Dr. Kraft visited a children's immigration detention facility in Texas earlier this month. She called what she saw there, in the systemic separation of children from their parents, ``a form of child abuse.'' According to Dr. Kraft, once young children are separated from their caregivers or parents, they are likely to develop toxic stress in their brains. The toxic stress disrupts children's brain development and increases levels of flight-or-fight hormones in their bodies. This kind of emotional trauma could eventually lead to children having health problems, such as heart disease and substance abuse disorders. [[Page S4261]] There is well-documented scientific evidence of the long-lasting harm that policies like this have on children. In the Washington Post yesterday, in an article entitled ``What Separation from Parents Does to Children,'' a professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Dr. Charles Nelson, said: The effect is catastrophic. There's so much research on this that if people paid attention at all to the science, they would never do this. It goes on and on and on. I could quote more detail for a long time about what he has said and about what other experts have said, but we don't have time today. Suffice it to say the research that shows the damage that is done to children when they are forcibly separated from their parents explains why more than 9,000 mental health professionals and 172 organizations signed a petition to urge the President to end the policy of separating families. In this petition, the mental health professionals wrote: From decades of research and direct clinical experience, we know that the impact of disrupted attachment manifests not only in overwhelming fear and panic at the time of separation, but that there is a strong likelihood that these children's behavioral, psychological, interpersonal, and cognitive trajectories will also be affected. The National Child Traumatic Stress Network notes that children may develop post traumatic responses following separation from their parents and specifically lists immigration and parental deportation as situations of potentially traumatic separation. To pretend that separated children do not grow up with the shrapnel of this traumatic experience embedded in their minds is to disregard everything we know about child development, the brain, and trauma. That is from the petition that was signed by mental health professionals across the country--9,000 of them. Those professionals and the professionals at the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, and the American Psychiatric Association have also issued statements against the policy. Together, these organizations represent more than 250,000 doctors across the country. To support this policy, you would have to assert that a quarter of a million doctors in the United States of America are somehow wrong and that you know better. If we were to ask the administration, ``Before you put this policy in place, did you talk to the American Academy of Pediatrics? Did you talk to child psychologists? Did you talk to the American College of Physicians or other professionals who know something about children and trauma and long-term damage to their brains and to their development?'' I am afraid the answer to that question would be no. Yet I await the answer from the administration. I hope the answer will be yes. I have more here, but I know we have to go, so I will not use all of it. Over the next couple of hours and days, we have to keep insisting that the administration take action to end this policy today, which it could--which the President could, which the Attorney General could. I realize that sometimes here in Washington, people say: Do something right now. Take action today. Take action this week or this month. Yet, in this case, today matters; hours matter; days matter in the lives of those children--more than 2,300 or more, and the projections are just going through the roof about what will happen over the next couple of weeks and month. Ending the policy today and reuniting child and parent matters a lot because every day that goes by makes it worse for that child. Unfortunately, for some children, it might be too late. That traumatic event and the aftereffects--the hours and the days and even weeks now that they have been separated--might result in permanent damage. I hope I am wrong about this, but days matter here, and even hours matter. We are hoping that the administration will reverse course on a policy--I will say again and keep saying--that is straight from the pit of hell. It should end today. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah. Mr. LEE. Madam President, our national debt stands at about $21 trillion. The interest costs on this alone are more than $300 billion every single year. That is money that can't go toward shoring up our national defense or shoring up Social Security or Medicare or some other Federal program. That is money that goes to our creditors. Now, it has to, but the scary part is that that is just a drop in the bucket compared to what it could be just a few years from now. The only reason it is even this low is that our Treasury yield rates--the rates at which we pay interest on our national debt--are at an alltime, historic low. As soon as they return to their historic averages, we will see that interest payment increase manyfold. If we wait until that moment arrives, this will be a very difficult process not just for the Federal Government, not just for Congress, but for the entire country. It is time for us to start taking gradual steps in the right direction now. This opportunity--this rescissions package that has been proposed by the President--provides us with a meaningful step in that direction. I applaud President Trump for proposing these rescissions. It is time for Congress to get back in the practice of taking these things up, of considering them, and of passing them. I respectfully urge all of my colleagues to vote for this measure. Mr. President, I yield back all time. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. LEE. 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 question is on agreeing to the motion to discharge. The clerk will call the roll. The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain). Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) is necessarily absent. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 50, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 134 Leg.] YEAS--48 Alexander Barrasso Blunt Boozman Capito Cassidy Corker Cornyn Cotton Crapo Cruz Daines Enzi Ernst Fischer Flake Gardner Graham Grassley Hatch Heller Hoeven Hyde-Smith Inhofe Isakson Johnson Kennedy Lankford Lee McConnell Moran Murkowski Paul Perdue Portman Risch Roberts Rounds Rubio Sasse Scott Shelby Sullivan Thune Tillis Toomey Wicker Young NAYS--50 Baldwin Bennet Blumenthal Booker Brown Burr Cantwell Cardin Carper Casey Collins Coons Cortez Masto Donnelly Duckworth Durbin Feinstein Gillibrand Harris Hassan Heinrich Heitkamp Hirono Jones Kaine King Klobuchar Leahy Manchin Markey McCaskill Menendez Merkley Murphy Murray Nelson Peters Reed Sanders Schatz Schumer Smith Stabenow Tester Udall Van Hollen Warner Warren Whitehouse Wyden NOT VOTING--2 McCain Shaheen The motion was rejected. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The Senator from Vermont. Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________