EXECUTIVE SESSION; Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 130
(Senate - July 31, 2019)

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 S5210-S5216]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the following 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Mark T. 
Pittman, of Texas, to be United States District Judge for the Northern 
District of Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from Colorado.


                      BLM Headquarters Relocation

  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, several years back, at a committee 
hearing of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Director Neil 
Kornze of the Bureau of Land Management under the Obama administration 
was testifying before our committee on a regulation that was coming out 
of the BLM that most, if not all, of the county commissioners and 
various organizations in Colorado were opposed to. In fact, the 
opposition was so uniform in Colorado and throughout the West that I 
couldn't understand why the BLM was going forward with that regulation.
  Out of frustration, at one point during the committee hearing, I 
said: Director Kornze, if you were just located in the West, if you 
were just out west, you would understand why this rule is a bad idea.
  The response at the time, several years ago, was kind of a chuckle 
and a laugh, and, yes, well, we should talk about that.
  It planted the seeds of an idea that actually was made into reality 
just last week with the announcement that the headquarters of the 
Bureau of Land Management will be moving out west and, indeed, to Grand 
Junction, CO.
  This announcement was made on July 16, and I commend the efforts of 
Secretary Bernhardt and the Department of the Interior for listening to 
the people of the West.
  This isn't a Republican issue. This isn't a partisan issue. In fact, 
this idea to move the BLM headquarters out to the land that it 
regulates and oversees has been embraced by Democrats and Republicans 
across Colorado and throughout the West.
  They also talked about their intention in this announcement to 
reorganize the Bureau of Land Management and to relocate a significant 
number of headquarters jobs throughout the West, not just in Grand 
Junction but in Lakewood, CO, in Montana, in Utah, and beyond.
  I think it is important to talk about the reasons why it makes so 
much sense to have this particular Agency located in Colorado, in the 
West.
  Look at this map here. The red on this map is a combination of both 
mineral rights and surface lands. You can see the red. Forty-seven 
percent of all the land out west is where 93 percent of all Federal 
land is located. The Federal Government owns roughly 47 percent of this 
land out west. It is where 93 percent of the Federal land is located. 
Think about that. Ninety-three percent of all Federal land, here in the 
red, makes up 47 percent of the land ownership in the West.
  Nationwide, the Bureau of Land Management is responsible for managing 
approximately 700 million acres of Federal mineral estates located 
underground. That is the entire country, of course, but 245 million 
acres are surface acres, or Federal surface lands. All but 100,000 
acres of those surface acres--all but 100,000 of those acres--are west 
of the Mississippi River, and located predominantly in the 11 
westernmost States and Alaska.
  One of the frustrations I hear from local and county officials and 
environmental activists and farmers and ranchers is that when they deal 
with their BLM local field office, they seem to have a very good 
experience that people are working together to solve problems, and they 
like the conversations they have and the cooperation they are getting 
from the local and regional offices. But something happens when that 
decision-making process then moves to Washington, DC. Something 
happens, and all of a sudden the conversation and communication can 
stop. It changes. All of a sudden, the outcomes aren't what they 
thought they would be based on those local, productive conversations.
  We have seen directives and management decisions coming more from 
Washington, DC, lately, instead of from the local field offices, where 
people know their communities best and understand the land best. So 
what happens is that the deep pockets and special interests in 
Washington often carry the day, make the convincing arguments, 
thousands of miles removed from where the Federal and the public land 
actually is.

  That is why it is important to have this BLM move. It changes that. 
Instead of having special interests in Washington, in a community that 
has none of these public lands located in it, you are able to make that 
decision right here, in Colorado, surrounded by public lands, in a 
community that is defined by the public lands that they oversee.
  I believe government is going to work better when it is local, when 
local decision makers are closest to the land that the decisions they 
are making affect the most. That is why this decision is so important--
whether it is issues of withdrawal of locatable minerals or the 
reduction of grazing permits; the concept of multiple use over time; 
the idea that we can use this land for preservation, conservation, or 
that we can use it for energy development, or that we can use it for 
grazing. That has somehow fallen out of favor.
  My friend Greg Walcher, who is a former Senate staffer for Senator 
Armstrong, who used to head the Colorado Department of Natural 
Resources, wrote an op-ed about this point, pointing out that the 
multiple-use mandate includes managing 18,000 grazing permits, 220 
wilderness areas, 27 national monuments, 600 national conservation 
areas, 200,000 miles of streams, 2,000 miles of wild and scenic rivers, 
6,000 miles of national scenic trails, 63,000 oil and gas wells, 25,000 
mines, and 50 million acres of forests.

[[Page S5211]]

  Not a square inch of that is in Washington, DC. It is in the 12 
Western States: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, 
Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. It has never 
made sense for leadership to work 2,000 miles away from these States, 
insulated by the inevitably different perspectives of life inside the 
beltway. That is what is so important about this decision.
  When you don't live in the communities that are among and surrounded 
by these lands, it is easy to make decisions that close off energy 
development or close cattle ranches and grazing opportunities, because 
the consequences are felt out west instead of in Washington, DC.
  But this strong push by westerners--Scott Tipton, myself, Secretary 
Zinke, and others--began the conversation about modernization and the 
organizational structure for the next 100 years of the Bureau of Land 
Management, and I appreciate Secretary Bernhardt's decision to make 
this happen.
  Grand Junction, where the new BLM will be located, is an incredibly 
beautiful place, with people who are so supportive of this decision--a 
community that knows that when these decision makers are in their 
community, they are not going to have to drive hours or take a flight 
for 4 hours out of Washington to see BLM lands. Just to look out the 
window and to see the lands they manage will result in better decision 
making.
  Mesa County, where Grand Junction is located, is the county seat. It 
is 73 percent Federal land, 46 percent of which is managed by the BLM. 
In total, the BLM manages 8.3 million acres of surface in Colorado and 
27 million acres of Federal mineral estates in Colorado.
  But we are not the only State that will benefit, obviously. There are 
a lot of other positions that will be moving across the country to the 
State and to the location where those jobs are a best fit. It makes 
sense.
  I know sometimes people think that Washington is the only place where 
people can do government's work or where people can find the kind of 
skilled workforce. That is one of the arguments that has actually been 
made against the BLM move--that only Washington has the skilled 
workforce able to do these jobs.
  Look, I am sorry, if you don't want to live in the counties and 
communities surrounded by public lands. Then, why are you working for a 
public land management agency?
  So I am excited about this. I thank the good people with the 
Secretary of the Interior who made this decision happen and the 
community of Grand Junction, which supported this from day one.
  In the same op-ed that Mr. Walcher wrote, he opened with a quote and 
said this: ``There is something more powerful than the brute force of 
bayonets: It is the idea whose time has come.''
  That is where we have finally arrived today, an idea whose time has 
come, locating the decision makers who affect our western communities 
the most out in the western United States.
  I thank the Presiding Officer for the opportunity to talk about this 
decision. I commend the Secretary of the Interior for doing what is 
right by our public lands, and I will continue to stand up for public 
lands throughout this process.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


           Transportation Infrastructure Reauthorization Act

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, an unusual event occurred yesterday in the 
Environment and Public Works Committee--a major bill reauthorizing 
America's transportation infrastructure for 5 years passed the 
committee by a 21-to-0 vote. That is the way we should be able to 
operate on a subject that I think enjoys universal support in the 
Senate; that is, making sure the Federal partnership for infrastructure 
is not only reauthorized but also increased because we know the 
infrastructure needs of this country have only gotten more challenging.
  I want to start by complimenting the leadership of the Environment 
and Public Works Committee. Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper 
worked very closely together on this bill, including the input of all 
members of the committee as well as Members of the Senate.
  The Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, chaired by 
Senator Capito, and I am the ranking Democrat on the committee, also 
worked very well in developing this Transportation Infrastructure 
Reauthorization Act.
  As I pointed out originally, the needs are urgent, and the leadership 
of the committee recognized that. In every one of our States, we know 
the unmet needs of infrastructure, maintaining our existing 
infrastructure, and replacing our bridges that are falling down, 
dealing with our transit systems, dealing with the needs to deal with 
congestion.
  We know there are so many issues out there, and it is important for 
us to give a clear signal that we intend to have a long-term 
reauthorization, 5 years, so there is predictability, so our States and 
local governments know that these projects that require longer term 
planning will have a Federal partner that is available and reliable.
  It also increases the funding, the first year by 10 percent and 
increases it by certain percentages thereafter, recognizing we need to 
do more. There are several new initiatives building on existing 
programs that I think are worthy of mentioning.
  Let me just go over a few of the real highlights of this 
infrastructure bill. First, it has a climate change title. This is the 
first time we have done this--a separate title to deal with the 
realities of climate change.
  I need only remind my colleagues of what happened this month in 
Maryland when we had 4 inches of rain that flooded Maryland roads. We 
have to deal with the realities. We have to deal with resiliency and 
adaptation in regard to what is happening with climate change. This 
title deals with that.
  Transportation is the leading source of greenhouse gas emissions. We 
need infrastructure that deals with the realities of reducing carbon 
emissions. This title provides for financial help for building an 
infrastructure for electric and alternative fuel vehicles. That is a 
reality of consumer desire as well as dealing with the realities of 
climate change.
  We give local discretion for funds to initiate emission reduction 
strategies. That could include simple things like providing 
alternatives for the use of our cars for people who want to walk and 
bike rather than having to get into their cars. It is a major 
commitment for which we are going to provide resources, in partnership 
with local governments, to deal with the realities of our 
responsibility in the transportation sector to reduce carbon emissions.
  We also deal with the realities of congestion. I can tell the 
Presiding Officer, as I told my colleagues on the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, that I face it every day twice a day. I commute 
from Baltimore here to work and have to deal with the realities of 
congestion.
  It has been estimated that the delays caused by congestion and the 
excessive fuels that are used by congestion cost our economy over $300 
billion every year. So there is not only a quality-of-life issue 
involved in our taking on congestion, there is also an economic reason 
to take on the issues of congestion.
  Of course, it is also linked to our commitment to deal with the 
climate change issues by reducing unnecessary fuel consumption, which 
adds to carbon emissions.
  The legislation provides funding for new initiatives so that we can 
get solutions to deal with the problems of congestion, the multimobile 
solutions that are available in many communities. We work and allow the 
locals to give us ideas and help fund those to reduce congestion.
  As I mentioned earlier, we have a real challenge on dealing with our 
bridges. Many of our bridges are in need of replacement. Many are in 
need of desperate repair. I can mention many in Maryland. In the 
southern part of our State, we have the Nice Bridge and the Johnson 
Bridge, both in need of replacement or repair. This legislation 
provides additional resources to deal with bridges in our country.
  There are certain highways that have been built that no longer really 
serve the function--or may never serve the function--of moving people 
from one area to another but instead are dividing communities. So the 
legislation

[[Page S5212]]

has a unique section that allows us to identify those types of highways 
that are no longer needed and that are dividing and isolating 
communities so we can get those highways removed.
  I am proud that this legislation builds on the Transportation 
Alternative Program that I helped author on the reauthorization bill 
with my partner Senator Wicker. I thank him for his help. It allows for 
much more local discretion on how transportation funds are spent. It 
allows local communities to have a source of Federal support to deal 
with local safety issues, for developing trails for pedestrian and bike 
paths so that the quality of life and safety of the local community are 
taken into consideration on the use of Federal highway funds.
  It provides flexibility to local government. In the first year, we 
provide $1.2 billion for transportation alternative programs with a 
steady growth in the ensuing 4 years.
  I also want to acknowledge the section in the bill that deals with 
freight traffic. It is a growing field. We expect it to continue to 
grow. There are funds that are provided in here to deal with the 
realities of moving freight through our highway surface transportation 
system.
  In that regard, I was pleased that this past week we were able to 
announce an INFRA grant for Maryland of $125 million for the Howard 
Street Tunnel. This is a tunnel that is 120 years old and runs through 
Baltimore. The replacement of this tunnel will allow for double 
stacking of rail freight, which is what you need to do today if you are 
going to have efficiency and be economically competitive. This grant 
will help us replace that tunnel and help create more jobs in 
Baltimore, in Maryland, and in our entire region of the country and 
will provide for more efficiencies on truck traffic.
  I say that because, today, because of the inefficiencies of rail, we 
have trucks that are stacked up in the Port of Baltimore, which is 
inefficient for the truck operators and, again, adds to the climate 
problems of excessive use of fuels.
  There is a section in here that deals with safety, as we should. In 
2017, 37,000 people died in our transportation areas. We need to 
improve that. There are some important provisions in this legislation 
that deal with safety issues.
  The bill also deals with reauthorizing the Appalachian Regional 
Commission. I particularly thank Senator Capito for her leadership on 
this issue. Reauthorization is important for the entire region, 
including the western part of the State of Maryland.
  This is the first step--and I hope a successful step--for the 
completion of the reauthorization of surface transportation by this 
Congress before the end of this year. I hope we can get it moving. I 
hope we can get it enacted, certainly, in time, so there is no lapse in 
Federal partnerships dealing with transportation.
  I know we have other committees that need to act on a comprehensive 
transportation bill. Many of us serve on those other committees. If we 
follow the example of the Environment and Public Works Committee--21 to 
0--if we listen to each other, if we do that, we can succeed in passing 
a strong reauthorization of surface transportation that will help 
modernize America's transportation needs, which will be good for our 
economy, good for our environment, and good for the quality of life of 
all Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to follow that example, and let's get this work 
done.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.


                           Election Security

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as those who are following on C-SPAN have 
probably noted, we are not overwhelmed with business on the floor of 
the U.S. Senate, nor have we been during the course of this year.
  We have considered several bills--you could count them on one hand--
including the Defense authorization bill, and, of course, the 
momentous, historic legislation 2 weeks ago, the tax treaty with 
Luxembourg, which had been pending before the U.S. Senate for 9 years. 
It finally made it to the floor of the Senate. That was the highlight 
of the week, as we have watched the U.S. Senate ignore some of the most 
important issues of our time.
  Let me tell you one that strikes at the heart of our democracy, which 
we should be focused on today and until it is resolved. Last week, 
former FBI Director and Special Counsel Bob Mueller testified before 
the House Judiciary Committee about his report on Russian interference 
in the 2016 election. The hearing clarified several important things. 
For example, President Trump loves to claim that the Mueller report 
completely exonerated him. Trump's tweets, one after another, talk 
about how he was exonerated by that report. Director Mueller made clear 
that is ``not what the report said.''
  When asked by the House Judiciary chairman ``Did you actually totally 
exonerate the President?'' Director Mueller answered ``no.''
  President Trump likes to say the Mueller investigation was a witch 
hunt. He has said that about 1,000 times. But the investigation 
actually led to 37 indictments and over $42 million in assets forfeited 
to the government. If this were a witch hunt, it certainly found a lot 
of wealthy witches.
  Some Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee tried to 
attack Director Mueller's credibility, but Mueller has a lifetime 
record of being a straight shooter, by-the-book investigator, and 
prosecutor. He did this country a service when he took on the role of 
special counsel.
  One thing Director Mueller tried to remind the American people of is 
the reason the investigation was necessary. He said:

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

  Mueller went on to say: ``This deserves the attention of every 
American.''
  One of the most important takeaways from the Mueller report is that 
Russia did successfully attack our democracy in 2016. Page 1 of the 
Mueller report says: ``The Russian Government interfered in the 2016 
presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.''
  The report detailed numerous examples, including an ``intelligence-
gathering mission'' that employees of the Internet Research Agency, 
known as the IRA, took in June of 2014.
  The IRA was the Russian troll farm that waged information warfare 
against the 2016 election by using stolen identities, fake social media 
accounts, and fake campaign events.
  The Mueller report and the earlier indictment of several IRA 
employees noted that two of the Russians arrived in the United States 
for a 3-week trip ``for the purpose of collecting intelligence to 
inform the [IRA's] operations.''
  The report also detailed the Russians' attack on my own home State 
board of elections. In July 2016, the Illinois State board of elections 
discovered that it was the target of a malicious, month-long cyber 
attack that enabled the intruder to access confidential voter 
information and view the registration data of approximately 76,000 
voters in my State of Illinois.
  These efforts to influence the election and attack campaign 
organizations and State and local election administrators and vendors 
continue to this day. What are we going to do about it?
  What has been the response so far of the U.S. Senate, the body sworn 
to uphold the Constitution and to protect against enemies, foreign and 
domestic? Nothing. We are too busy with the trade treaty with 
Luxembourg to deal with Russian interference in our elections. In the 
face of Russia's threat to our elections, this Senate has been quiet as 
a graveyard.
  Let's start in 2016. Top officials from the administration's national 
security and intelligence community came and warned congressional 
leadership of Russia's ongoing attack on our elections, rightly asking 
for a bipartisan statement to tell Russian dictator Putin to stop. What 
was Senate Majority Leader McConnell's response to this obvious request 
to protect our Nation? He said: No thanks. I am not going to do it.
  History will no doubt look back in infamy at that decision.
  What about the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a historically 
recognized body with key jurisdiction over Russian attacks on the 
United States? That committee did not even conduct an investigation 
into Russia's actions in the last Congress.

[[Page S5213]]

  Republicans were silent when Trump repeatedly accepted Russian 
dictator Vladimir Putin's brazen denials over American intelligence 
experts and all of the evidence to the contrary.
  They were silent again after the Mueller report's devastating 
findings of Russian interference. And they were silent when President 
Trump subsequently said he would gladly accept election help from a 
foreign power again.
  Now look at the current Congress. Several bipartisan bills have been 
introduced to respond to this Russian threat, including the Election 
Security Act. This is a critical, comprehensive bill that would provide 
States with much needed resources and establish a robust Federal effort 
to protect our democracy.
  Unfortunately, Republican Senate Leader McConnell is blocking all 
efforts to bring this important legislation to the floor for a debate 
and vote. This legislation could thwart Russian interference in the 
2020 election. Senator McConnell refuses to bring it to the floor.
  I end with the questions I have asked before here on the floor: How 
can the party of Ronald Reagan continue to sit by while this President 
pursues policies aligned with the former KGB agent, Vladimir Putin? Why 
didn't the first bills in this new Senate under Republican control deal 
with this threat to the election process in our democracy? Why isn't 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee holding urgent hearings on these 
stunning dalliances between an American President and a Russian 
dictator? Why isn't the Senate Foreign Relations Committee moving 
bipartisan legislation that would protect U.S. membership in NATO?
  Quite frankly, we barely do anything in this legislative graveyard of 
the Senate under Republican control. You would think we would at least 
focus, on a bipartisan basis, on making certain that the outcome of the 
next election is not influenced by a foreign power, whether it is 
Russia or some other malicious force in the world today.
  But because it bruises the President's ego and it may invoke a nasty 
tweet, the Republican-controlled Senate prefers to do nothing. It is 
time for the Republican majority to stop protecting President Trump at 
all costs.
  There reaches a point when the Senate Republican leadership needs to 
put the country before fear of the President's tweets.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.


                     Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, can you hear it? Can you hear the somber 
notes, the feet shuffling, and the solemn tones? Can you hear it? It is 
a dirge, a funeral march, and it is the death of a movement--a once 
proud movement with hundreds of thousands of people gathered on the 
National Mall. It is the death and it is the last gasp of a movement in 
America that was concerned with our national debt.
  Today is the final nail in the coffin. The tea party is no more. The 
budget deal today allows unlimited borrowing for nearly 2 years--
unlimited, no limits--and the government will borrow what they wish 
without limit for 2 years. It abolishes all spending caps. Adoption of 
this deal marks the death of the tea party movement in America. Fiscal 
conservatives--those who remain--should be in mourning for Congress. 
Both parties have deserted you.
  The national debt now stands at $22 trillion. This year, we will add 
over $1.2 trillion. We are approaching record deficits, and neither 
party cares. Both parties have deserted, have absolutely and utterly 
deserted America and have shown no care and no understanding and no 
sympathy for the burden of debt they are leaving the taxpayers, the 
young, the next generation, and the future of our country.
  The very underpinnings of our country are being eroded and threatened 
by this debt. The interest on this debt will be over $400 billion next 
year--precisely, $455 billion. Interest will surpass all welfare 
spending in the next 2 years. Interest on the debt will surpass defense 
spending by 2025.
  Social Security is $7 trillion in debt. Medicare is over $30 trillion 
in debt. Yet a parade of candidates on national television last night 
said they want to double and triple the government's expenditures where 
the government is already trillions of dollars short. Whose fault is 
this? Both parties.
  The media completely doesn't get it. The media says: Oh, there is not 
enough compromise in Washington. That is exactly the opposite of the 
truth. There is too much compromise in Washington. There is always an 
agreement to spend more money. There is always an agreement to spend 
money we don't have. There is always an agreement to borrow your kids' 
and your grandkids' money and to put this country further at risk.
  Admiral Mullen put it this way. He said the most significant threat 
to our national security is our debt. Yet all around me on my side of 
the aisle are those who clamor and say: Our military is hollowed out 
and can't complete its mission. Well, perhaps the mission is too big 
for the budget. Maybe it is not a problem of having enough money; maybe 
it is a problem of making our mission to be everything to everyone 
around the world, to have spent $50 billion a year building roads and 
bridges in Afghanistan for the last 20 years and to continue that 
forever.
  When the President put forward a proposal, a thought that we might 
try to end and to declare victory in Afghanistan, this body--both 
parties rose up as one, and the vast majority said it would be 
precipitous to leave Afghanistan after 19 years.
  This is the problem. It isn't acrimony. It isn't both parties 
fighting each other. It is both parties agreeing to increase the debt. 
They increase the debt for different reasons, but the only way they get 
theirs--``give me mine, give me mine'' is what both sides say. The 
right wants for the military. Yet we spend more on the military than 
the next 10 countries combined. We spend more on the military--the 
United States spends more than all of NATO combined. All of the NATO 
countries combined spend less than we do on the military.
  People say we are hollowed out and we can't complete our mission. 
Well, maybe the mission is too big. It isn't that the budget is too 
small; it is that the mission is too big. Maybe we don't need to have 
troops in 50 of 55 African countries. Maybe we need to rethink our 
mission. Maybe the mission of the military should be to defend our 
country, not to intervene in every civil war around the world.
  Admiral Mullen said the most significant threat to our national 
security is our debt. Yet we are piling on more debt, saying we need 
more military. Maybe we need to discuss the mission of our military. We 
are piling on more debt, some in the name of national security. Yet I 
think it weakens us with every moment.
  The vote today will be on a 2-year debt ceiling with no limits. The 
details do matter. Raising the debt ceiling with no limits would be 
like telling your kid: OK, you can have a credit card, but there will 
be no limits on what you spend. Just spend it on whatever you want, in 
whatever amount, and in 2 years, I will just pay the bill for you.
  Nobody would do that with their family money, and no country should 
act that way. We can't keep going on like this.
  Where are all the fiscal conservatives? What happened to the tea 
party movement, which was bipartisan and was concerned citizens rising 
up and saying: I don't want something from government. What I want is a 
government that is responsible, a government that spends what comes in, 
a government that doesn't keep borrowing and borrowing and borrowing 
and putting us further at risk.
  What happened to that movement? That movement elected some of these 
people. You heard these people. Don't you remember, when President 
Obama was President, the Republicans all clamoring and saying 
``trillion-dollar deficits'' for multiple years. Every year, they would 
say: President Obama wants to spend and borrow and spend and borrow. I 
heard it in my State. I heard it from the very people who today will 
vote for this monstrosity.
  Some of them will actually vote for my amendment to give themselves 
cover. They will say: Oh, yeah, I was for the Paul amendment. But then 
they are also going to vote for the deal that will bankrupt our 
country. What happened to these people? They all thought debt was bad 
when it was President Obama's debt, but they are

[[Page S5214]]

not ecumenical, and they are not very much into self-examination. They 
are not interested in the debt now that Republicans are complicit.

  But before we make this about Republicans, remember that there is not 
a Democrat in Washington who cares about the debt. The difference 
between the parties is that the Democrats are honest. They are very 
honest. They don't care about the debt. Look, they are all over the 
stage, falling all over themselves, trying to give free healthcare to 
illegal aliens. They are all on the stage trying to talk about giving 
Medicare for All when we can't even afford the Medicare for Some. So 
Democrats don't care. The country should know that Democrats do not 
care about the debt. But here is the problem: The only opposition party 
we have in the country is the Republican Party, and they don't care 
either. They just come home, and they are dishonest and tell you they 
care, and then they vote for a monstrosity.
  Today's vote will be a vote for a monstrosity, an abomination, the 
ability to borrow money for over 2 years until guess what intervenes. 
Why are we going to wait 2 years with no limits on borrowing? There is 
this little thing called an election. They don't want to be in public 
voting to raise the debt ceiling an unlimited amount or a vast amount 
again, so they are putting it off to beyond the election. Both parties 
are complicit, though. Nobody wants to vote on this again.
  People talk about draining the swamp. You can't drain the swamp 
unless you are willing to cut the size and scope of government. That is 
the swamp. The swamp is this morass that is millions of people up here 
organized to involve themselves in the economy. Most of them could 
disappear from government, and no one would notice. The only thing you 
would notice is less money coming to Washington and more money 
remaining in the States.
  It is a little bit of what happened with the tax cut. But in addition 
to the tax cut returning to people their own money, we should also quit 
spending money we don't have up here. During the tax cut, I, for one, 
said: You have to cut spending. I offered amendments during the tax cut 
to cut spending. Do you know what happened? I got four votes. Four 
people in the Senate cared about the debt on that particular vote.
  After we passed the tax cut, there is a provision that says there 
will be automatic spending cuts if the taxes were to bring in less 
revenue. Guess what. I forced a vote to keep that rule in place. I got 
nine votes because most people don't care.
  No Democrat cares about the debt. The Republicans falsely tell you 
they care, and the vast majority will vote for this monstrosity today.
  Today, I will offer an alternative. Some say: Well, you conservatives 
won't vote to raise the debt ceiling at all, and we will go bankrupt, 
there will be turmoil in the markets, and it will be a disaster. So 
what I am offering for conservatives today is that we will raise the 
debt ceiling under a couple of conditions. We will raise the debt 
ceiling if you adopt, in advance, significant spending cuts, caps on 
spending, and a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
  See, here is the road, and here is, I guess, the beginning and the 
end of the dishonesty around here. If we had a vote today, we would 
have some people saying: Why don't we vote on the balanced budget 
amendment?
  We all love to vote for it. We don't really mean it. We don't really 
care about balancing the budget. We are not for it because we are Big 
Government Republicans. But we love to vote for the balanced budget 
amendment because I can go home and tell people: Yeah, I voted for the 
really crazy, monstrous budget deal to expand the debt, but I also 
voted for the balanced budget amendment.
  Well, here is our deal. We don't want to vote on the balanced budget 
amendment; we want adoption of the balanced budget amendment. So if you 
will cut spending, if you will cap spending, and if you will pass a 
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, I will vote to raise the 
debt ceiling--but only if those things are done.
  People say: Well, if we don't raise the debt ceiling without any 
reform, the country--the markets will go into turmoil. Well, guess 
what. We bring in $3 trillion, and we spend $4 trillion. What does that 
mean? We can pay for $3 trillion on a daily basis without borrowing. So 
if tomorrow we didn't raise the debt ceiling, what would happen? We 
would spend $3 trillion. Every Social Security check could go out, 
every soldier could be paid, and everybody on Medicare could be taken 
care of. That is probably about it, to tell you the truth, because we 
spend too much damn money. We spend money we don't have. But you could 
provide the essentials to people--Social Security, Medicare, pay our 
soldiers, and maybe a few other things--if you just spent what came in.
  Isn't that what we should do? Isn't that what responsible people do? 
Does any American family routinely spend a third--25 percent more than 
comes in? Does anybody spend $4 for every $3 that comes in? Nobody does 
that. Nobody in their right mind does that, but your government does 
it. And who is at fault? Both parties. They are complicit. They scratch 
each other's backs. They both are terrible on the deficit. Both parties 
are bad. Both parties are ruining our country.
  My amendment is called cut, cap, and balance--cuts spending, puts 
caps back in place that they can't exceed, and says that if we vote now 
on a balanced budget amendment and if it passes and if it is sent to 
the States, then we would raise the debt ceiling.
  Most people around here don't want any linkage. It is not that they 
will just complain that my budgetary reforms are too harsh; they will 
complain that they don't want any. So there won't be any alternative. 
There won't be someone saying: Well, those are too much, and we would 
rather have just a little bit. No, they don't want any restraint. The 
budget monstrosity, the deal, the abomination we will vote on today 
will have no limits--no dollar limits.
  I was arguing this last week on another particular issue, and from 
across the country, I got reamed by the leftwing mob who says: Why are 
you doing is this? Why couldn't you do it on another matter?
  We do it on every matter. Those of us who are fiscally conservative 
are saying that we shouldn't spend money we don't have. I am doing it 
again this week, saying that we should not spend money we don't have, 
that it is irresponsible, and that we are eroding the very foundation 
that has made America great.
  I will vote against this budget deal. I will present cut, cap, and 
balance. Cut, cap, and balance is a responsible way to raise the debt 
ceiling by cutting spending, capping spending, and also passing a 
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I hope my colleagues 
will consider that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The Senator from South Dakota.


                              South Dakota

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I love the month of August, and I think I 
have always loved the month of August going back to the time when I was 
a kid because, obviously, growing up in South Dakota, August is a great 
month of the year. It is hot. There are a lot of activities. Of course, 
it is the month before or, in some cases, it is the month of returning 
to school, but it is a time in which there are lots of things going on 
in my home State of South Dakota, and especially since becoming a 
Member of Congress, I really love August.
  I head back home to South Dakota almost every weekend to meet with 
South Dakotans, but August is wonderful and different for two reasons. 
One reason is, August gives us an extended work period, a time when we 
get a chance to visit the farthest corners of our State, places that 
might be hard to visit on just a weekend--places such as Bison, 
Milbank, Clear Lake, Huron, and Mobridge. I get to talk to people who 
make their living in production agriculture in some of the most rural 
parts of South Dakota. There is nothing more valuable than getting to 
talk to these South Dakotans firsthand and to hear the challenges they 
face and what we can do here in Washington to help out--not to mention 
how wonderful it is to spend time in these beautiful parts of our 
State. If you haven't taken in the rugged beauty of the Badlands or the 
rivers and prairies of Central South Dakota, then you are missing out.
  The other thing I like about heading back to South Dakota in August 
is

[[Page S5215]]

that it is fair season--the Sioux Empire Fair, the Turner County Fair, 
the Brown County Fair, Central States Fair, Yankton Riverboat Days, and 
powwows in Tribal communities around the State. The list literally goes 
on. You would be hard-pressed to find better events, better people, or 
better food. I often joke that in the month of August, I am basically 
eating my way across South Dakota: ice cream at the fair in Parker, 
pork sandwiches with the pork producers, milkshakes at Dakotafest, 
cheese curds at the State fair, and I can go on.
  I vividly remember the year I had a Tubby Burger plus a big fries, 
plus to go with it a malt at the Brown County Fair, and got up early 
the next morning to run the 5K at Riverboat Days in Yankton. Needless 
to say, it was not my best run time, but it was worth it for the Tubby 
Burger.
  There is really nothing better than a South Dakota road trip. Our 
State has so much to offer, an incredible range of scenery, from 
rolling prairies to the heights of Black Elk Peak, and hundreds of 
miles of wide-open country. There is nothing better than a summer 
afternoon driving down a South Dakota highway. You feel like you can 
see, literally, forever.
  We have an incredible number of outdoor opportunities, from fishing 
and hunting to hiking, biking, rock climbing, water sports. You name 
it; in South Dakota, we have it.
  South Dakota is an affordable place for families to visit as well. 
You are not going to break the bank on meals or lodging. Of course, we 
have unforgettable road trip stops like the Corn Palace in Mitchell or 
Wall Drug. Make sure, if you get to Wall Drug, that you grab a homemade 
doughnut or a glass of free ice water and take a picture on Instagram 
with the giant jackalope outside.
  As for South Dakotans, well, they are the nicest people you are ever 
going to meet. A South Dakota road trip is worth it for the people 
alone. In addition to the wonderful memories I made traveling across 
the State as an adult, I cherish my memories of the trips to the Black 
Hills as a child with my parents and siblings. We used to go out there 
for Labor Day, stay in this little non-air-conditioned cabin, and enjoy 
the outdoors. We would hike and visit the caves, go to Mount Rushmore, 
or visit the lake.
  I still love visiting Sylvan Lake in the Black Hills. I loved being 
there with my parents and siblings, and I love taking my daughters 
there on trips like the ones I took growing up. Nobody who visits South 
Dakota should miss the Black Hills. I am not sure there is a more 
beautiful place on Earth--the interplay of light, shadow on the trees 
and rocks late on a summer afternoon, the endless South Dakota sky 
reflected in the clear blue of Sylvan Lake. People in Washington, DC, 
don't know what the Milky Way looks like on a clear night in the Black 
Hills or on the prairies of South Dakota. It is as if the sky had been 
carpeted with millions of diamonds.
  I am lucky to be a son of South Dakota. I am looking forward to 
getting out of Washington, DC, this week and heading back to my home 
State of South Dakota for some of the best weeks of the year.
  Brown County, if you are listening to this, please save me a Tubby 
Burger.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Medicare for All

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the past several months, we have 
heard a lot of talk about Medicare for All. Its Democratic supporters 
claim this is the panacea that will solve all of America's healthcare 
woes. They say it will guarantee every person's access to healthcare 
and simplify our healthcare system, but it doesn't take much effort to 
see the flaws in their proposal and in their argument--something we are 
obligated to do, to examine these proposals to see whether they will 
work or not.
  Our Democratic friends proudly own the fact that Medicare for All 
would completely end employer-based health insurance as we know it. We 
heard that a lot last night during the debates of the Democratic 
candidates running for President. It would literally force every 
American into one government-run plan modeled after our current 
Medicare system.
  Part of the problem is, seniors have paid into the Medicare system 
for many years, and we know it is on a path to insolvency unless 
Congress does something. Medicare for All would only make that worse, 
expanding it to every eligible American.
  According to a Kaiser poll released yesterday, more than three-
quarters of Americans favor employer-sponsored health insurance, and 86 
percent of people with employer coverage rate their insurance 
positively. That would include, again, as we heard last night, many 
union members who have been part of the collective bargaining agreement 
with their employers, with management, to negotiate outstanding, 
quality private health insurance. That would go away under Medicare for 
All.
  We know that about 83-percent of the people polled support our 
current Medicare system for our seniors, and a whopping 95 percent of 
people with Medicare coverage are happy with it, but if Medicare for 
All becomes the law of the land, those numbers would plummet because 
Medicare would be unrecognizable to the seniors who paid into the fund 
and who have earned that coverage.
  Families would lose all freedom when it comes to making their own 
healthcare choices. You see a government-selected doctor at a 
government-selected facility. We know what that looks like in the 
United Kingdom and in Canada, where people have to wait in long lines 
just to get seen by their doctor, much less elective surgery. You get 
the coverage the government says you deserve at the time, when the 
government says you can have it. It would completely hollow out the 
existing Medicare Program and inject unfathomable instability into 
America's healthcare system.
  If you get past all of that, which is hard to do, you certainly will 
not be able to stomach the price. Medicare for All, it is estimated, 
would cost taxpayers $32 trillion over the first 10 years alone. Now, 
credit Bernie Sanders, our colleague from Vermont. He is honest enough 
to acknowledge that he is going to have to raise taxes on the middle 
class to pay for that, but $32 trillion is a lot of money, especially 
when our current debt exceeds $20 trillion already and is growing. When 
it comes to how they would pay for it, the only answer we hear from 
everybody other than Bernie Sanders is, ``Let's just tax the rich.''
  This is part of their usual talking points and part of the Democratic 
Party's incredible sprint to the left and their shocking embrace of a 
socialist agenda.
  We saw the start of their move toward socialized medicine in 2009 
with ObamaCare. We famously recall President Obama trying to reassure 
people that if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it, and if 
you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor--none of which proved to 
be true.
  Now Democrats want to make these extravagant promises about Medicare 
for All, which we know they cannot keep. It is clear ObamaCare was just 
the beginning. Medicare for All, or the public option, so to speak, 
which some people try to tout as an alternative, is nothing but a 
government competition for private health insurance, and you can't beat 
the Federal Government, especially when it is paid for by Federal tax 
dollars. That is a march toward the elimination of private health 
insurance, including that provided through your employer, which now 
benefits about 180 million Americans.
  Last night, we saw candidates defend these radical policies during 
the Democratic debate. Two of our Senate colleagues who are running for 
President sparred over what another candidate called ``fairytale'' 
promises. They fought to defend their plan to remove all choice from 
Americans' healthcare. They tried to convince their fellow Democrats 
and the American people that they are writing a check that, if elected, 
they can cash.
  We know that is not true. The American people are not going to be 
fooled. They don't want socialized medicine; they don't want to run up 
government

[[Page S5216]]

spending; they certainly don't want to have to pay $32 trillion in 
additional taxes to pay for it; and they certainly don't want 
Washington bureaucrats dictating their families' healthcare choices.
  In a speech last week, the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare 
and Medicaid Services, Seema Verma, spoke about these radical 
healthcare ideas. She said: ``These proposals are the largest threats 
to the American healthcare system.''
  Let me say that again. Seema Verma, head of CMS, the Centers for 
Medicare and Medicaid Services, called these proposals ``the largest 
threats'' to America's healthcare system. So you better believe we will 
keep fighting to resist this socialist agenda and this evermore liberal 
wish list.


                     Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019

  Mr. President, on another matter, we will soon be able to vote on a 
bipartisan, 2-year budget agreement to provide some certainty and 
stability to the Federal Government and Federal spending. The President 
and Speaker Pelosi have reached this deal in order to avoid the 
possibility of another government shutdown and instead leave time and 
space for a wide-ranging debate on our government spending habits.
  I know the Presiding Officer believes as I do; that it is past time 
to have a genuine, far-ranging debate about government spending habits 
that is not just focused on discretionary spending, which is what this 
budget caps deal does, but on all the money the Federal Government 
spends, which includes the 70 percent of spending which is on 
autopilot, which this deal does not discuss or deal with.
  I will be the first to admit this budget agreement isn't perfect. It 
never is. Anything negotiated means both sides have to give up a little 
bit in order to find common ground. As I indicated, I certainly wish it 
were more aggressive. I wish it did something to deal with our 
entitlement programs as we continue to face growing deficits, but I am 
glad to see that the agreement offsets roughly a 1-year increase for 
nondefense discretionary spending above current law and allows our 
government to be funded on time and on budget.
  It also avoids 30 poison pill policy riders on everything from 
taxpayer funding for abortion to immigration law, keeping them from 
reaching the President's desk.
  Above all, this agreement delivers on our most fundamental 
responsibility, which is to provide for our common defense. When our 
friend, the senior Senator from Oklahoma, first came here, he said: I 
am a conservative, which means there are really two things that take 
priority when it comes to the Federal Government. One is national 
defense, and the other is infrastructure. He said everything else comes 
below that on the priority list. I found a lot of wisdom in those 
words. Providing for the common defense is the most important thing 
Congress does, along with the administration.
  We know under the previous administration, the Pentagon and our 
national defense were underfunded dramatically. It operated without any 
kind of stability or predictability, and this took a serious toll on 
our military readiness.
  After nearly a decade of neglect, President Trump and Senate 
Republicans are working to rebuild our military and rebuild that 
readiness and modernize our force.
  Let's look at the Army Future Vertical Lift--or FVL--as an example of 
why this investment is so very important. FVL is a cross-functional 
team within Army Futures Command headquarters in Austin, TX, that aims 
to develop two new helicopters for the Army in the 2020s. These next-
generation aircraft will replace aging military helicopters and provide 
our servicemembers with the capabilities they need today and tomorrow.
  But right now, these programs are progressing without timely funding. 
It is hard to make plans when you don't know how the money is going to 
flow. Without a budget deal and on-time appropriations, the Army has no 
choice but to significantly delay these programs for years to come, 
meaning that the Army will continue to operate helicopters built in the 
seventies and eighties.
  The same goes with our artillery. Those years of underfunding have 
allowed Russia and China to surpass our capabilities in a number of 
areas, including long-range precision fire. In this and other areas, 
the military must develop longer range weapons to provide an advantage 
over our adversaries and maintain our qualitative edge.
  As a newer program, the Army would not be able to continue research, 
development, and testing under a continuing resolution or without a 
budget deal, putting us another year behind in modernizing our force in 
an era of great power competition. That means China and Russia continue 
apace while we are slow to try to catch up.
  That is why this deal is so important. It provides stable and 
reliable funding so that our military leaders can plan for the future 
and provide for the common defense.
  Our newly confirmed Defense Secretary, Mark Esper, talked about this 
at length when testifying before the Armed Services Committee a couple 
of weeks ago. He talked about the Department of Defense receiving 
funding on time last year and said that it really allowed us to 
accelerate the readiness gains we have made to advance our 
modernization efforts and to do all of the things the national defense 
strategy tells us we need to do.
  You would think there would be broad bipartisan support for providing 
America's military with the necessary resources to keep the American 
people safe. Somehow, though, some of our Members believe that this 
critical national security mission is optional.
  Unfortunately, there are some in our midst who look to reduce 
military funding at every possible turn. Fortunately, we have a 
President who shares our commitment to national security. Thanks to the 
Trump administration's tough negotiating, this deal provides the 
stability the Pentagon needs, including critical investments in 
military readiness. Compared to current law, it provides a larger 
increase in discretionary funding for defense than nondefense 
discretionary programs and would allow us to regain the ground lost 
under the Obama administration.
  I appreciate the President's work, along with that of the House and 
the Senate, to deliver a budget deal that supports America's military, 
and I look forward to supporting this agreement later today and 
certainly later this week.

                          ____________________