Floor Statements

Mr. President, we yield back all time.

Mr. President, our intelligence community unanimously agrees that Russia interfered in the 2016 elections and that there is an imminent threat to the 2018 elections. Our country, our democracy, is under attack, and we should respond. Let's heed the warnings of our intelligence agencies. The lights are blinking red. Let's listen to our State attorneys general and Secretaries of State.

My amendment does provide $250 million for State election security grants to protect our upcoming election. It helps States improve election cyber security, replace outdated election equipment. We did provide, as the distinguished Senator said, $380 million in fiscal year 2018. That was the first new funding for election security in years, but more is needed.

The President is not going to act. The duty has fallen to us. Let's not, after an election, find out that this country was defenseless against attacks from Russia, and then say: Oh, gosh, we should have done something.

This is not a partisan issue. Republicans and Democrats have to be concerned. I urge an ``aye'' vote on my amendment to secure our elections.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, Senator Shelby and I both worked hard through this process to keep out poison pill riders. This amendment is a partisan poison pill.

We talk about repealing the Federal mandate, but of course, by doing that, we saw a direct premium increase as a result of that repeal. The District of Columbia and States like Vermont passed their own mandates to keep premiums down. Just like Vermont, DC should have the authority to make its own laws. Instead of telling all of those people who claim we must have States' rights, here we are telling the District of Columbia: We will tell you what to do. That is not democracy.

So I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

I yield to the Senator from Alabama.

Madam President, I thank the senior Senator from Alabama for his kind words. I also thank our two leaders for their kind words. Senator Shelby and I met with Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer earlier this year, and we said that we want to get the Senate back to what it should be and what it has been. What better way than to do it on the appropriations bills. I have served here longer than anybody in this body. I have seen it when it has worked and when it hasn't worked. Senator Shelby and I felt we could do it.

I urge an ``aye'' vote on this final passage, second minibus package. Each of these were reported by the Appropriations Committee unanimously, Republicans and Democrats voting together. Some of us said we couldn't agree on the Sun rising in the East, but we agreed.

Incidentally, my dear friend, the Senator from Alabama--I wish to note that the tie I am wearing is one that he and Dr. Shelby gave me for my birthday this year. I thought that might be a good touch.

I thank what both Senators McConnell and Schumer said. They worked very hard with us.

The Agriculture bill continues strong support for our country's farmers. It abandons the Trump budget's proposal to leave rural communities behind and instead invests in rural development and housing programs.

The Financial Services bill supports regulatory agencies that the American people rely on to protect them from unfair, unsafe or fraudulent business practices.

The Interior bill rejects the anti-science know-nothing agenda proposed by the Trump administration by protecting the Environmental Protection Agency from the President's proposed reckless and slashing cuts. It preserves investments that ensure our children and grandchildren will enjoy clean air and water. It supports our National Parks, which are treasures that must be protected for future generations.

Finally, thanks to the bipartisan budget agreement, the Transportation bill contains $10 billion in new funding compared to fiscal year 2017 to invest in our Nation's housing and infrastructure. Every Member in this body knows of the urgent need to address the crumbling infrastructure that plagues each of our States. This is a good first step.

We are here today because Chairman Shelby and I, along with the subcommittee chairs and ranking members, worked hard to produce bipartisan bills with input from both Republicans and Democrats. Over the past 2 weeks, the Senate voted on 11 amendments, and agreed to a manager's package that contained 46 amendments important to our Members.

This is the way the Senate is supposed to work: regular order.

Our bipartisan success is due to the Shelby, Leahy, McConnell, Schumer commitment to move through this process with bipartisan support, at spending levels agreed to in the bipartisan budget deal, and reject poison pill riders and controversial authorizing language.

The House, unfortunately, is pursuing a different path. They are taking up partisan bills filled with poison pill riders that cannot and will not pass the Senate. If our progress is to continue, the bills that come out of conference must be bills that can pass the Senate, which means they must be free of poison pills.

I am disappointed my election security grant amendment was rejected by the Senate. The integrity of our elections, which are the foundation of our democracy, should not be a partisan issue. It is unfortunate that the Senate voted down funding our States need to help upgrade their election infrastructure and secure our elections from interference by Russia and other foreign adversaries ahead of the 2018 midterms. We need to heed the warnings of our intelligence agencies, of the lights blinking red, of the appeals from the attorneys general, the secretaries of State, and the State and local election officials who are sounding the alarm. This duty has fallen to us, and we must not later be found to have been asleep at the switch, with so much at stake.

But this minibus is the result of hard work and compromise on the part of the chair and ranking member of each subcommittee. While it is not perfect, it will touch the lives of the American people in every State from improving roads to protecting our forests, and I urge that Senators vote ``aye'' on final passage.

If we pass this bill today, we will have passed seven appropriations bills out of the Senate and have a firm commitment to take up two more in the coming weeks. It wouldn't have worked if the chairman had not committed himself to what the rest of us did but also the chairs and the ranking members of the subcommittees we have here--Senators Hoeven, Merkley, Murkowski, Udall, Collins, Reed, Lankford, and Coons.

I also want to thank the majority staff: Shannon Hines, David Adkins, and Jonathan Graffeo, as well as their subcommittee staff.

I often say that Senators are merely constitutional impediments to their staff. I know my staff has worked long hours. I might get home on a Saturday or Sunday, and they are still working, people like Charles Kieffer, Chanda Betourney, Jessica Berry, Rachael Taylor, Dianne Nellor, Dabney Hegg, Ellen Murray, and all of the subcommittee staff.

Finally, I wish to thank Jessica Shulkin, who is going to be leaving the Appropriations Committee in August after nearly 18 years for the Agriculture Subcommittee. Her expertise, her hard work, and her working in a bipartisan and professional way has advanced our Nation's agricultural policy, helped our rural communities, and has kept USDA and the FDA answerable to Congress. I wish Jessica all the best. She has been a pleasure to work with.

In conclusion, I have a list of all the staff, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

In conclusion, I thank Senator Shelby, Senator McConnell, and Senator Schumer. We worked together. It is kind of nice when something works out.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 3400 Withdrawn

Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

What is the parliamentary situation? Are we in morning business?

Mr. President, I do have a few comments I will make.

Mr. President, I have had the privilege of serving in the U.S. Senate for 44 years. For 20 of those 44 years, I was either the chairman or the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. During those 44 years, I have seen 19 nominations to the Supreme Court. I voted for most of the nominees--for both Republican and Democratic Presidents. The first one was John Paul Stevens, who was nominated by President Ford.

I voted on every current member of our Nation's highest Court.

When I was in Vermont over the weekend I was thinking of these nominations, and I believe that I have never seen so much at stake with a single seat as with the current nomination of Judge Kavanaugh.

There is one thing we can all agree upon, Republicans and Democrats alike, that like many Supreme Court nominees before him, Judge Kavanaugh has impressive academic credentials and judicial experience. But unlike most of his predecessors, Judge Kavanaugh also had a lengthy, partisan career.

Prior to his time on the bench, Judge Kavanaugh was a political operative engaged in some of the most divisive fights in our Nation's recent history--including Kenneth Starr's investigation of President Clinton, Bush v. Gore, and five contentious years as a senior official in President George W. Bush's administration.

It is no surprise, then, that Judge Kavanaugh has quite a paper trail--over one million pages. His lengthy, controversial record was something that the White House was well aware of when the President selected him. But the President selected him, nonetheless. Under the advice and consent clause of the Constitution, the burden falls now to the Judiciary Committee to review his record. It should be self-evident that records relating to an especially significant period of a Supreme Court nominee's career should be among those most closely examined by the Senate.

Indeed, the methodical review of a federal court nominee's full record is not optional. It is the most fundamental part of the Senate's constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent. In fact, we saw just a few weeks ago that such vetting led to the withdrawal of a circuit court nominee with a record of very offensive college writings.

This process must be even more exhaustive for a nomination to our Nation's highest Court.

One only need look to the Senate's consideration of Justice Elena Kagan. Like Judge Kavanaugh, she served in the White House prior to her nomination. I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time. I worked with the ranking member at the time, Senator Jeff Sessions. We requested the full universe of her documents from the Clinton Presidential Library. We worked together. We wanted to ensure the request was expedited. We wanted the collection to be complete.

Crucially, President Obama made no claims of executive privilege. In fact, less than one percent of the documents were withheld on personal privacy grounds. To this day, those emails are posted online for anyone to see.

Then, I also supported then-Senator Sessions' request for documents related to military recruitment at Harvard. Military recruitment at Harvard is not the sort of thing one thinks of for a Supreme Court nominee, but Justice Kagan, a brilliant lawyer, had been dean of the law school.

Well, that request was beyond the scope of our committee's usual practice, but I agreed with the Republicans that the records could potentially be of public interest, and therefore they ought to be subject to public scrutiny.

Transparency weighed in favor of disclosure, but, then, transparency almost always does.

For Justice Sotomayor, when I was chair, I joined then-Ranking Member Jeff Sessions to request decades-old records from Justice Sotomayor's time working with a civil rights organization in the 1980s. Remember, she was a sitting judge on an appellate court, and we had her record, which is what some of the Republicans are saying is all we should look at with Judge Kavanaugh. They wanted the documents during the time she had worked with a civil rights organization decades before. We did have 3,000 opinions that she had written over the 17 years she served as an appellate and district court Federal judge. Every Republican wanted those records, and those of us who were in the majority, the Democrats, said: Fine, the public should know what they are. We agreed.

What a change, what a change--they wanted to have the records from Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor, and they had to come up with those records, but he doesn't have to. This is what the American people deserve to see from Judge Kavanaugh. Every document of public interest should be made public with no artificial restrictions and no abuse of executive privilege.

The American people deserve the unvarnished truth of this man, just as Senate Republicans rightly demanded of the two highly qualified women that President Obama nominated. We wanted the records from them, and we want the records from him, but, unfortunately, the Judiciary Committee is not on track to uphold its bipartisan standard of transparency. Two weeks ago, my Republican friends expressed a willingness to request White House documents that Judge Kavanaugh authored or contributed to as Staff Secretary of President Bush. We thought it was very similar to requests made of Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan.

But then they had a private meeting with White House Counsel last week. Now, suddenly, we can't do that. Suddenly, the White House, a different branch of government, is telling the independent Senate Judiciary Committee what they have to do, and suddenly all of Judge Kavanaugh's Staff Secretary records were off-limits.

Then last Friday, in a stark departure from committee precedent, Chairman Grassley, who is a friend of mine, shocked me when he sent a partisan request that omitted any and all records from Judge Kavanaugh's three contentious years as Staff Secretary. This was a particularly extraordinary admission, given that Judge Kavanaugh himself singled out his three years as Staff Secretary as ``among the most instructive'' for him as a judge, when he provided advice ``on any issue that may cross the [president's] desk.'' During this time, Judge Kavanaugh said he helped to ``put together legislation,'' and he ``worked on drafting and revising executive orders.''

Karl Rove described Judge Kavanaugh as playing a major role in reviewing and improving practically every policy document that made it to the President. Judge Kavanaugh said this experience gave him a ``keen perspective on our system of separated power.''

Yet, Senate Republicans don't want to see any of it. Not even those memos and other documents that Judge Kavanaugh himself authored and edited.

Just as I worked to provide these same documents when the Republicans requested them in a Democratic administration, I do not believe the Senate can fulfill its constitutional duty to provide advice and informed consent to a nominee for our Nation's highest Court without vetting three years' of such critical records.

That is why, yesterday, I joined Ranking Member Feinstein and the other Judiciary Democrats to send our own records request to the Bush Presidential Library. The request mirrors--not surprisingly--almost word for word the request I sent with then-Senator Jeff Sessions for Justice Kagan.

We simply cannot have a lower standard of transparency for Trump nominees than for past nominees of both Republican and Democratic Presidents. The fact that the Judiciary Committee is willing to move forward without Judge Kavanaugh's full record is especially alarming because the last time Judge Kavanaugh testified before the Senate under oath, he appeared to provide a misleading account of his work at the Bush White House.

In his 2006 confirmation hearing, I and other senators asked about his knowledge of several Bush-era scandals, including warrantless wiretapping, torture, and detainee treatment. Judge Kavanaugh testified he had no knowledge of such issues until he read about it in the paper. He testified in response to a question from Senator Durbin that he ``was not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants.'' Again, this was under oath.

After his confirmation, press reports indicated that he had participated in a heated discussion in the White House over the legality of detainee policies. Judge Kavanaugh discussed whether the Supreme Court would uphold the Bush administration's decision to deny lawyers to certain enemy combatants. Judge Kavanaugh advised that his former boss, Justice Kennedy, would likely reject the argument that the White House was putting forth.

I try to look at this conversation every way I can. I was a trial lawyer. I took depositions. I argued cases. I am trying to reconcile it with Judge Kavanaugh's sworn testimony under oath, but it is impossible. It makes it all the more critical that we review his complete White House record to find out what he really did.

The only records I have seen from Judge Kavanaugh's time as Staff Secretary are a handful of emails previously released through an unrelated FOIA request. One happens to show very clearly that Judge Kavanaugh was looped in, notwithstanding his statement, on the Bush White House's efforts to message the infamous torture memos. From the 1 million records that exist on Judge Kavanaugh, we have but one drop in the bucket, but in that one drop, they are discussing torture. It is something he said that he had read about only in the papers. Yet this email shows he worked on these issues while in the White House.

I am afraid that my Republican friends clearly do not want records from Judge Kavanaugh's three years as staff secretary to be public, but the fact that records may be controversial doesn't mean they should be hidden from the public view. Indeed, just the opposite principle applies. Just as we gave all of the records on President Obama's nominations, we should do this.

The American people must not be in the dark about controversial aspects of a nominee's record. Certain principles are more important than party. Transparency is one of them.

We have learned this lesson before. Wearing blinders when considering a former administration official for a lifetime judgeship presents grave risks.

When President Bush nominated Justice Department lawyer Jay Bybee to the Ninth Circuit in 2003, I and other Senators asked about his involvement in the legal issues surrounding the war on terror. He didn't answer our questions. But a year after he was sworn in for a lifetime position on the Federal court, the American people learned that Judge Bybee gave the legal green light for the official use of torture, something that most people now agree is one of the darkest chapters in our nation's history. Had we known that at the time, Judge Bybee would still be known as Mr. Bybee. He never would have been confirmed. A majority of Republicans and Democrats would have voted against him.

Judge Kavanaugh was directly involved in some of the most politically charged moments of our recent history. The Senate owes the American people an unsparing examination of his nomination--a nomination that could shape their lives for a generation.

It is my hope that Senate Republicans and Chairman Grassley will reconsider their partial records request for Judge Kavanaugh and join the Democrats' request for all of his records. I agreed when they demanded that for Justices Kagan and Sotomayor.

Well, if that is the standard we followed for both of those tremendous jurists--Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan-- shouldn't we demand the same of Judge Brett Kavanaugh? He is no different than they are on the issue of what he has had to say. We ought to find out what it is. Then make up your mind; vote for him or vote against him. I am pretty sure that had we gotten the right answers on then-Mr. Bybee, he never would have become Judge Bybee.

I don't believe that many Senators of either party will stand up here and say that it is great that we broke the law on torture for dubious reasons.

I see the Senator from Missouri.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Vermont is special in large part because of the dedication and kindness that Vermonters show to neighbors and strangers alike. I would like to recognize a few Vermonters in particular who went out of their way to do what needed to be done to save the lives of others. On July 6, a number of boaters became stranded on the water near the Colchester Causeway Bike Ferry while enjoying themselves on Lake Champlain. Luckily for those in distress, the crew of the Bike Ferry was nearby, and sprang into action.

After quickly rescuing four people, Captain Brian Costello, deckhand and former coastguardsman Frank Malaki, and captain-in-training Richard Schattman were told that there were more people who needed assistance. Before long, all those who had been stranded were safe and sound, with warm clothes, water, and shelter, thanks to the ferry's crew.

Anyone who has enjoyed the beauty of our great Lake Champlain knows that, in bad weather, its calm, rolling waves can quickly turn treacherous. We have always been lucky to have the protection of the Coast Guard on the water in times of emergency, but it should hearten many to hear that there are also professional, courageous, and selfless Vermonters like Captain Costello, Mr. Malaki, and captain-in-training Schattman nearby to lend a hand.

I share the pride of the Coast Guard in this lifesaving effort. I ask unanimous consent that the July 19, 2018, article from ``My Champlain Valley'' entitled ``Bike-ferry crew recognized by Coast Guard for heroic rescue,'' which commemorates the bravery of these men, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I applaud what the senior Senator from Alabama said. We worked very closely together on the weekend, yesterday, and today, and we are continuing to work on a managers' package. I also want to be able to bring up my elections security grants amendment, especially as we know that Russia and others continue to try to interfere with our elections.

I believe the Senate has to act as a coequal branch of government in defending against a threat to our democracy. The threat is very real. Our intelligence community unanimously agrees that Russia interfered in the 2016 elections. There is an imminent threat to our 2018 elections. Just last week, we learned that a Russian hacker targeted the office of a sitting Senator. We can't ignore such a threat against this Chamber or our government.

My amendment, if I bring it up, will provide $250 million for State election security grants to protect our elections. It improves election cyber security, replaces outdated election data equipment, and undertakes other anti-cyber efforts.

In fiscal year 2018, Congress came together--Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate--and appropriated $380 million for state election security grants. It was the first new funding for election security in years. In just a few short months since then, all the States and territories--55 in all--requested funding, and 100 percent has been committed to the states and 90 percent disbursed.

Last week, 21 State attorneys general signed a letter pleading with Congress to provide more funding to address this crisis, writing: ``More funding is essential to adequately equip states with the financial resources we need to safeguard our democracy and protect the data of voting members in our states.''

Securing our elections and safeguarding our democracy should not be a partisan issue. The House Republicans blocked Democrats from even having a vote on the House floor. I am still hopeful the Senate will not make that same mistake.

Let us heed the warnings of our intelligence agencies. Of the lights blinking red. Of the appeals from the attorneys general, the secretaries of state, and the state and local election officials who are sounding the alarm. This duty has fallen to us, and we must not later be found to have been asleep at the switch, with so much at stake.

I join with Senator Shelby on this next vote, but I do want Senators to be on notice that I will be bringing this up at some point.

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator preceding me, and I thank him very much. He has worked very hard in the Appropriations Committee.

Senator Shelby and I have worked very hard to get a bipartisan bill. I would hope that we could have a consent agreement very soon to bring the current bills to a conclusion.

I would note that both Mr. Shelby and I have done our best to work with Members of both parties. Many people on the Appropriations Committee have concerns, some of which are by nature parochial, many national. I think we have tried to accommodate as many people as possible, and I hope that Senators can reach an agreement soon so we can know exactly what we will be voting on if not tonight, tomorrow morning.

I thank the Senator for his comment.

I see my friend is about to speak, so I will yield the floor.

Mr. President, Senator Shelby and I and Senator Moran have worked on this. We have no objection.

Mr. President, I have no objection.

Mr. President, I would again note that Senator Shelby and I have been working very hard on this appropriations bill, but so have a whole lot of other Senators, my colleague from Kansas being one of them.

Both Republicans and Democrats want to bring the Senate back to the way it should be, where we work things out between both parties. It means that everybody has to give something, and not everybody wins everything, but the country does very well. That is what we are trying to do on the appropriations bill. I think we can wrap these up, and I would hope that the other body, when they get back from their vacation, will be able to work

with us to get them finalized and to the President.

I must point out that it has taken the courage of a lot of Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, to work together to get this done. As the dean of the Senate--the longest serving one here--I applaud them very, very much.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I see nobody seeking the floor. I will speak briefly, but I would urge the Congress--both bodies--to heed the clear warnings of our intelligence community, and I urge them to take a meaningful step, an important step, toward defending our democracy.

If we do nothing, we leave our elections vulnerable to an aggressive foreign adversary fully intent on destabilizing our country. To this Vermonter, and many of the Senators in the Chamber, it is a simple choice. It is a solemn responsibility.

Today, the Senate should vote on my amendment to provide $250 million in grants to the States to help secure their election systems. We have to send a clear message to Russia and other foreign adversaries that tampering in our elections will not be tolerated. Simply giving a speech about it is not enough. We should vote on this.

If there was a missile attack against any of our States, we would respond immediately. Our democracy is a sacred part of what we cherish as Americans--all of us, Republicans and Democrats alike--and our States are under attack.

In fiscal year 2018, Congress came together--Republicans and Democrats, the House and the Senate--and we appropriated $380 million for State election security grants in response to our intelligence community's assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.

In just a few months since then, States and territories--55 in all-- have requested funding, and 100 percent of these funds have been committed; 90 percent of them having been disbursed to the States.

The need is clear, and we have only scratched the surface. This week, 21 State attorneys general signed a letter pleading with Congress to appropriate more money to address this imminent threat. Experts agree that aside from our appropriation last year, Congress has not provided any new spending on election security grants in years. By not providing these funds, Congress has allowed our election infrastructure to lag behind the times and the threat. We are leaving our country vulnerable to a clear threat to the foundation of this very institution and the other institutions of American Government.

We spend hundreds of billions of dollars in defending against missile threats, as we should, or threats from the sea, the air, and the land, as we should. But here is a very direct threat we can begin to address with a tiny fraction of what we spend on these other threats.

My amendment will provide the funding needed to help protect our elections. Our intelligence community has warned us publicly that we are, once again, being targeted. The Senate should not allow that. We should vote to defend this institution, the U.S. Senate, and our own democracy.

In a world where the President of the United States stood shoulder to shoulder with Vladimir Putin and refused to condemn Russia's attack on our election and attacked our own law enforcement intelligence agencies, my amendment is a necessary first step.

I believe in America first, not Russia first. I believe in protecting America. Our State works very hard to protect our elections. We elect Republicans and Democrats in our State. In the last election, Republicans elected a Governor, and I was reelected as a Senator. It is obvious we split votes, but we count our votes, and we do not have interference from another country.

Vermont is a small State, and we go under their radar, but anybody who reads the intelligence knows there is no question Russia has attacked us before, Russia is continuing to attack this country today, and Russia will attack this country in November. We must protect it.

I don't believe anybody is seeking recognition.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I simply say to the Senator from Alaska, in my having had the honor of serving here with both her father and with the former chair of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, that I hear her saying things that are very similar to what I had heard both of them say. Perhaps Senator Stevens--rest his soul--would have said it with a little bit more emphasis, especially if he had been wearing his ``Incredible Hulk'' tie, but the Senator from Alaska is one of those who believes in the Senate working the way it should and getting things done, and I compliment her efforts.

Senator Shelby and I made a pact that we would try to get these appropriations bills through, which is something that had been stalled for years. The Senator from Alaska has been essential, as have been a number of Senators on both sides of the aisle, in our getting that accomplished. We have gotten our bills through. Almost all of them have passed the Appropriations Committee unanimously. I joke that sometimes you can't get a unanimous vote around here that the Sun will rise in the East, but here is a case in which we have shown that it can.

The Senator from Alaska is absolutely right in that one person's poison pill may be another person's essential, but we have worked it out. If we can get the appropriations bill through--and I realize the other body is going on a 6-week vacation, but I hope there will be some who stay around. We are going to be here. We could conference some of these bills and get them passed. I think it would encourage the country to see both bodies do what we have done here in the Senate. It would improve how the government runs.

I share the frustration of heads of Departments, whether here in this administration or any other administration, who never know whether their appropriations are going to pass. How do they plan? How do they spend money? Where do they go?

We can make this process work the way it is supposed to work.

I see the distinguished Democratic leader on the floor, but I do want to compliment the Senator from Alaska for her efforts in making this possible.

I yield the floor.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

Mr. President, I totally agree with both the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Maine.

First, as they said, this violates the bipartisan agreement this body made and agreed with the President about the things we would do. Seventy-three thousand jobs would be cut from the Federal Highway Administration projects when we need them, including 800,000 low-income women, infants, and children no longer receiving WIC.

Mr. President, the Paul amendment proposes an 11.39-percent cut in each of the four bills under consideration. If adopted, it would undo the bipartisan budget deal the Senate passed and the President signed into law just a few months ago, and it would undo all of the work that has gone into crafting the bipartisan bills we are considering today.

More importantly, an 11.39-percent across-the-board cut would have devastating impacts on programs that are important to millions of Americans and to our economy.

I would mean a loss of over 73,000 jobs that would otherwise be created through Federal Highway Administration projects. An 11.3- percent cut to our National Parks would cause steep reductions in visitor services, law enforcement, and natural resource protection, all at a time when our National Parks are seeing a dramatic increase in visitors.

An 11.39-percent cut means 108,000 low-income families, the elderly, and disabled will lose their HUD rental assistance and be at risk of becoming homeless. It means 830,000 low-income women, infants, and children would no longer receive WIC assistance.

These are just a few examples. I urge a no vote on the Paul amendment.

Madam President, I am pleased to join my friend, the senior Senator from Alabama, Chairman Shelby, as we prepare to debate the second set of appropriations bills to reach the Senate floor this session. Senator Shelby has noted that this is a change in recent years. I commend him, and I commend both Republicans and Democrats who have worked together in the way we used to and now are again. This minibus contains four important bills for fiscal year 2019: the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies bill; the Financial Services and General Government bill; the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies bill; and the Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development and Related Agencies bills.

Now, that was something significant to be on the Senate floor in past years. What is even more significant--and Chairman Shelby would agree with me--each of these bills was reported by the Appropriations Committee unanimously. Every Republican, every Democrat voted for them. They fund programs that provide important services to the American people across the country. They invest in the future of this country.

Let me take one example, the Agriculture appropriations bill. This bill is a win for farmers, for families, and for rural communities through its investments in rural development, housing, food, nutrition, agriculture, research, and clean water programs. Every State in this Nation--yours, Chairman Shelby's, and everybody else's, and of course my own State of Vermont--has rural communities and farm economies that benefit from these important programs, every one of us does.

The Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development bill will make critical infrastructure investments across the country and, of course, also in my home State of Vermont. It includes $10 billion in new funds--new funds--to help address our crumbling bridges and railways and roads. Let me just say, if I might be parochial for a moment, what that means in Vermont. It will help invest in safety improvements on Amtrak's Vermonter and Ethan Allen lines but also will make much needed repairs to our railroads and bridges. These increases in every one of our States are a direct result of the bipartisan budget deal reached earlier this year, and they are critically needed.

I have been here for over 40 years. What Senator Shelby and I have done is we have brought the Senate back to the way it used to be to actually get things done with Republicans and Democrats working together.

Improving the Nation's infrastructure was one of President Trump's key campaign promises. Unfortunately, he criticized the very budget deal that made these increases possible. He proposed cutting--not increasing--funding

for infrastructure programs that this bill supports. I am glad to say, again, that Republicans and Democrats came together on appropriations and took a different path. This bill also protects key investments in affordable housing and community development programs, such as HOME and CDBG. That is crucial funding that communities leverage to construct, rehabilitate, and maintain affordable housing. This is housing that is desperately needed across America--certainly in my State of Vermont--to shelter families, but it also promotes economic mobility and stability.

The Interior bill makes critical investments in programs to help ensure we have clean water to drink and clean air to breathe. I can't think of any State in the country that doesn't want clean water and doesn't want clean air.

It also supports important conservation programs, including support for our national parks. Our national parks attract millions of visitors each year. What a treasure, allowing families to come and see such an important part of America. I think it is quite in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt and others who had supported such parks, but it also has the Forest Legacy Program and the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is going to be beneficial for Vermont, New York, and, truly, the whole northeast region. The bill continues our commitment to regional efforts to protect, restore, and preserve Lake Champlain, the largest body of fresh water in the United States outside of the Great Lakes.

I am pleased to report that the committee rejected the misguided cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency proposed by the administration that would have set back the progress we have made in recent decades to preserve our environment not just for ourselves but for future generations.

Finally, the Financial Services bill helps to support small businesses and local economies through the Small Business Development Centers Program and other related programs. Every one of us knows that small businesses and local economies make up the strength of our States.

It also funds regulatory agencies that U.S. citizens rely on to protect them from unfair, unsafe, or fraudulent business practices, like the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, which protect consumers. Yet we were able to reach consent to consider such a broad package of bills in the Senate.

This is a broad cross section of issues, and every one of us had different views. With the vast array of issues here, every one of the 100 Senators here, if writing this legislation by himself or herself, may include something different or something else, and, then, of course, we would have nothing. Instead, Republicans and Democrats came together. I think a lot of this comes from the direct result of the Shelby-Leahy-McConnell-Schumer commitment to move forward on a bipartisan basis.

Senator Shelby and I met with the two leaders and said we wanted to do that. We wanted to actually show the Nation that the Senate can work, and we did it at spending levels agreed to in the bipartisan budget deal. We rejected new poison pill riders from the right and the left or controversial authorizing legislation.

We will all have issues about which we care deeply, but we had to come together on what is in the best interests of the country, and, frankly, as a Senator for almost 44 years, it was in the best interests of the Senate.

I think Senator Shelby would agree with me that achieving this goal of reporting strong, bipartisan bills took considerable restraint on both sides of the aisle, but that restraint is what is required to get these bills through the Senate. But I worry that the House is proceeding on a different path. They have passed partisan bills filled with poison pill riders that cannot and will not pass the Senate.

Funding the government is one of our most basic constitutional responsibilities. If you go across this country, you will find that the American people expect us to work together. They expect us to reach across the aisle and to reach agreement on these bills. The programs funded in these bills make a real difference in the American people's lives, and they shouldn't be held hostage to unrelated partisan policy fights. So I hope that when we get to conference on these bills, the House will reverse and do their work in a bipartisan fashion for the benefit of all Americans--not just Republicans, not just Democrats, but all Americans.

I especially want to thank Chairman Shelby for his partnership on these bills. I also thank the chairs and ranking members of each of the subcommittees. If they hadn't been willing to work and cooperate together, we wouldn't have these four bills before us. Again, I note that they went through unanimously. We had reached a point where some thought that we couldn't get unanimous agreement in the Senate that the sun rises in the east. Maybe we couldn't, but we did get unanimous agreement here, and thank goodness.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate what the distinguished senior Senator from Illinois just said. I will speak about the same amendment. We will be offering this amendment. It does provide $250 million for State election security grants. It provides it to protect our upcoming elections from attacks by Russia especially but from many other hostile foreign powers.

We don't do this as an exercise. We know the attacks have been there in the past, and they are coming in the future. Look at what our intelligence community said. They unanimously said that Russia interfered in our 2016 election.

After the intelligence community unanimously said they interfered, Congress came together, and we appropriated $380 million for State election security grants in the fiscal year 2018 omnibus.

Since that time, all 55 eligible States and territories have requested funding. One hundred percent of these funds have been committed to the States. As of yesterday, 90 percent of the funds have been disbursed to the States. This is pretty remarkable considering that the fiscal year 2018 omnibus was signed into law just 4 months ago.

I have asked what the funding was used for. I am told it has assisted States in improving election cyber security. They have replaced outdated election equipment. They have undertaken other anti-cyber efforts.

That is an important first step. I know all of us do not want our democracy attacked by foreign aggression. More is needed. It is certainly needed before the November 2018 elections--I might say even afterward.

States need postelection audit systems. They have to be able to verify the accuracy of the final vote tally. They have to be able to upgrade election-related computer systems if our Department of Homeland Security identifies vulnerabilities. I believe the State and local election officials should undergo cyber security training. They should start using established cyber security best practices. These efforts are all essential to the security of our elections, and my amendment would enable them to go forward. In fact, yesterday, 21 State attorneys general signed a letter. They urged Congress to appropriate more funding for the States to help them meet their security needs.

Let me quote from their letter. They said:

Additional funding for voter infrastructure will not only

allow states to upgrade the election systems, but will also

allow for a comprehensive security risk assessment.

Unfortunately, past practice has shown that the existing

Election Assistance Commission grants are simply insufficient

to provide for the upgraded technology needed. More funding

is essential to adequately equip states for the financial

resources we need to safeguard our democracy and protect the

data of voting members in our states.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, at the conclusion of my remarks, a letter, dated July 23, 2018, signed by 21 State attorneys general.

Mr. President, it is clear that Congress--this involves everybody in the Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike--must serve as a bulwark against Russian aggression. I say this because our President has, time and again, proven he is either unable or unwilling to do so. Standing on the world stage with Vladimir Putin, with everybody watching, President Trump repeatedly refused to condemn Russia's attacks on our democracy. He almost groveled to the authoritarian Putin. He praised and defended Putin's ``strong denial'' of Russian interference. Then, to make it worse, President Trump attacked our own law enforcement institutions while standing feet away from the very foe our institutions work so hard to protect us from.

All of our intelligence communities and law enforcement have the sworn

duty to protect all Americans from foes like Russia. The President stands next to the President of Russia and attacks the same law enforcement institutions that protect us.

This brought about, not unexpectedly, bipartisan outrage over the Helsinki fiasco. The next day, the President tried to walk back his comments. But in typical fashion, he tried to have it both ways. He repeated the baseless claim that the attack ``could be other people also.'' Then, the very next day, when asked whether Russia is still targeting the United States, the President inexplicably said, ``No.'' That was roughly 48 hours after his own Director of National Intelligence issued a statement reaffirming that Russia is engaged in ``ongoing, pervasive efforts to undermine our democracy.'' Without going into any of the classified material--just go by what our intelligence agencies have said publicly. Russia is engaged in ``ongoing, pervasive efforts to undermine our democracy.'' And when the President is asked whether they are targeting the United States, the answer isn't no, it is yes.

Some have argued that this is an issue for the States to deal with entirely on their own, that the Federal Government should not involve itself in States' electoral systems. But our States were attacked in 2016 by a foreign adversary, and their election systems were hacked by Russia's foreign military intelligence service.

If any one of our States was attacked by a foreign government, would we stand by and say: Well, that is the State's problem. No. We wouldn't say: Well, it is not my State, it is not my problem. You are on your own. Of course not. An attack on any one of us is an attack on all of us. We are the United States of America. We would come together to protect that State. We would provide the Federal resources to help them out. That is what we Americans do. The same standard applies here in helping States strengthen and protect their election infrastructure.

We Senators from both parties have a choice: We either heed the fact- based warnings of our dedicated law enforcement and national security professionals or we do as President Trump has done and say: Well, we will take Vladimir Putin at his word. I don't. We either choose to act as a coequal branch of government to defend our democracy or leave that responsibility to a President who doesn't see the threat. In fact, he embraces the threat even when it is standing right beside him.

I say to my fellow Senators, if you believe that Russia is fully intent on destabilizing our democracy yet again in November, which is something every one of our national security and law enforcement officials believes--the people who read all the classified matters every single day, the people who know our intelligence backward and forward believe Russia is fully intent on destabilizing our democracy-- let's stand up for our country. Let's stand up for our intelligence services and have this amendment as a chance to take action--more than anything else, to stand up for America, stand up for our democracy.

Mr. President, I don't know whether there are others seeking the floor. I was going to suggest the absence of a quorum, but I see the distinguished senior Senator from Minnesota, and I yield to her.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bob Ross, a detailee from the Department of Agriculture; Ramsay Eyre, an intern at the Appropriations Committee; and Olivia Harris, an intern in my personal office, be granted floor privileges for the length of the current debate on H.R. 6147, an act making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other purposes.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.