$21 billion, as i'm sure my colleague from colorado, who i see standing over there, would love to do. it's probably not needed all at one time, but the credit is there. but if we're willing to reauthorize this program and to give them some degree of permanency, then i believe every person who is the beneficiary of or interested in the land and water conservation fund will not argue with saying, okay, we will take the $21 billion we built up, we'll give $11 billion to parks maintenance program, and we will pay $10 billion to the treasury, and we will start over at accruing at $900 million a year what the american people, through their congresses in the past have said we're going to invest in these conservation efforts. it's a significant gift. there are winners and winners and winners. there is no difference between this and the catawba falls

example i gave you where the winners were the local community, the individual who sold land, the emergency response, the cost to the county. this is a win-win for america, and we're doing all this with zero taxpayer money. we're usine royalties off expiration to fund it. so i'm going to do something that's probably a first in this body, mr. president. there are individuals that still would like to object to this. i'm going to ask unanimous consent and then i will object to my own unanimous consent request because i understand the rights of any one individual in the united states senate. i could have waited hours to speak until one of them came to object, but i saw it more worthy of my time to come here and to raise this issue, to present solutions and object to my own

unanimous consent request because i respect the right of every individual. but i hope through doing this those colleagues that might have an objection to this would alleviate that objection. if you don't like the program, that's one thing. but don't claim it's because you want to reduce the debt. don't claim you don't want to use taxpayer money. don't claim that you want to package this with parks, maintenance program. i'm giving it all to you in one bill and theology thing i'm asking -- the only thing i'm asking for in return for the conservation fund is give us the ability to know long term this is in place so we can leverage every private sector dollar in this country that we possibly can towards whatever appropriations appropriators decide on an annual basis to give to the fund. so at this time i would ask unanimous consent that the -- i would ask unanimous consent that at a time determined by the

majority leader in consultation with the democratic leader the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill in relation to the lwcf which is at the desk and there will be one hour of debate and the senate vote on the bill with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? bush bush -- mr. burr: mr. president, i reluctantly object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: i will save my colleague to object to his own motion out here but i so much believe in what he's trying to do that i can't object to it. and i thank him for his leadership through the chair on this issue over many years. this should be a bipartisan issue. it is a bipartisan issue. my colleague cory gardner from colorado and i wrote an op-ed piece together -- can you believe that? -- in "the denver post" supporting the kind of work that senator burr from north carolina is trying to do. it's long past time for us to

continue playing these political games and actually do some work for the american people. there's not a county in america that doesn't have a land and water conservation fund project. that's not what imhe -- what i'm here to talk about. but thank you for your leadership. i'm here to talk about another area that should be bipartisan and that is address be the urgent matter of climate change in the united states of america with the leadership of our government. and instead this week, mr. president, president trump made his latest assault on our country's climate policy by gutting the clean power plan. this decision creates more uncertainty for coal miners by delaying for two years what everyone knows we ultimately have to do and it creates uncertainty for everybody else. president trump has campaigned for years on the idea that there's a war on coal ignoring his own department of energy's

observation that the reason why coal has fallen as a source of our energy is that natural gas because of the ingenuity of the american people has become so cheap. that's what displays coal but he ignores it like he ignores economic reality after economic reality. this is not going to help colorado. we added 230,000 outdoor recreation jobs and we got 170 ,000 ag jobs that are inacceptably linked to the -- inseparatably linked to the stability of our climate change. colorado does not have the luxury of operating in a fictitious economy. we see the threat of climate change every day from an infestation of pine and spruce beetles that have destroyed our drought-stricken trees to wildfires that no longer bound to a season because they burn or

can burn all year long, shorter ski season, longer droughts that are affecting our farmers and ranchers. these consequences of climate change are costing coloradans billions of dollars each year and this cost is only expected to increase. i've said it before. my state is a third republican, a third democratic, a third independent. we have a consensus in my state that climate change is real and humans are contributing to it. that doesn't mean everybody agrees with what the solution should be, but there is a consensus that if we do not act, we will not be fulfilling our obligation to the next generations of coloradans. and in colorado for that reason we have made significant progress transitioning to a cleaner energy mix. because we're betting on the economy as it actually exists, not as donald trump imagined. and so far that bet has paid off. we've had $6 billion invested in clean energy. we created hundreds of thousands of clean energy jobs,

construction, maintenance and installation that can't be outsourced, can't be sent to china. wind jobs alone are expected to triple by 2020 and our largest utility, excel energy announced this past june it is retiring two coal plants early and replacing them with wind, solar, natural gas, and energy storage. and that has nothing to do with the environmental protection agency, nothing, or regulation. it's because it is cheaper. it is cleaner for the environment, but it is also cheaper for the rate base. that's what we're accomplishing in colorado. i know it's true across the country. this assault by president trump on the clean power plan which so many states were already complying with is just the latest in a year and a half attack on important environmental regulations.

fuel economy standards for cars and trucks that he got rid of that will make our automobiles and our trucks less competitive overseas. commonsense rules to decrease methane leaks from oil and gas production. opening up of the arctic national wildlife refuge and our coast for drilling. attacking the antiquities act and endangered species act. appointing scoot pruitt, a climate denier to be head of the e.p.a. -- i'm sorry, to be ahead of the e.p.a. trying to roll back the -- using taxpayers for retiring coal and nuclear plants. on the taxpayers' dime. trying to delay ozone standards to limit smog and prevent our children and seniors from getting sick and withdrawing from the global climate agreement. we now have the distinction of being the only country in the world to not be part of that agreement. syria has now joined -- i could tell you the generation of

people in this chamber that are the age of the pages in this chamber have a consensus that climate change is real. i know my colleague is here so i'm going to bring this to a close. but let me say the republican party nationally has had a distinguished record on environmental matters until very recently. that may surprise people that have seen the debate in washington but it's true. richard nixon, a republican president, signed the clean air act and signed the clean water act. he created the environmental protection agency. anybody who wants to remember what was going on back then only needs to think about the cuyahoga river catching on fire and what that looked like. and anybody who remembers that knows it's very hard to make an argument that net-net, the clean air act and clean water act haven't been good for our economy. that doesn't mean every regulation is perfect but it's very hard to make that argument.

people will. i think it's very hard to make it convincingly. ronald reagan, one of the great conservative republicans in the history of america, is the guy that was president when the ozone layer got a hole in it. and he was a survivor of skin cancer and kids that come to my meetings today don't know what the hole in the ozone layer is. they can thank ronald reagan for that. and both bushes said that climate change is real and that humans are contributing and we've got to do something about it. and we need to work through multilateral organizations. in that case, it was the u.n. to do something about it. and then what changed? in 2010 the supreme court made the decision in citizens united that opened up our entire federal government to billions

of dollars of outside money and the threat of outside money that came with a promise to sign something called the climate pledge that denied that it was real. and ever since then we haven't been able to do any bipartisan work on it. the supreme court in that opinion talked about -- its worries about the corruption of action. what we have is the corruption of inaction. the bills that aren't written, the amendments that never get a vote, the committee hearings that are never healed because of a distortion in our political system. and we have to change that together because if we're serious about climate, we neat an enduring solution. we can't have something that's ripped out like the clean power plan after a year and a half. that will not fulfill the responsibility we have for the next generation of americans or

to the planet for that matter. so i'm very sorry to be here today under the circumstances that i am here, but i thought it was important to note what the president had done. and i'll say again that i hope the time will come when we can make bipartisan progress on climate change. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. a senator: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to speak to the issue of the leadership of the department of department of justice. mr. sasse: it's been a change couple of hours. lots and lots of goofy talk about firing the attorney general. and i've -- i would just like to say in public what i've been saying to my colleagues in a message i just communicated to the president of the united states. and that is that it would be a very, very, very bad idea to fire the attorney general because he's not executing his job as a political hack. that is not the job of the attorney general.

the attorney general's job is to be faithful to the constitution and to the rule of law. jeff sessions just had to issue a statement about two hours ago which i would like to read. the attorney general says, and i quote, while i am attorney jerntion the actions -- general, the actions of the department of justice will not be properly plowed by political considerations. demand the highest standards and where they are not met i take action. no nation has a mortal lentszed, dedicated group of investigators and prosecutors than the united states. i am proud to serve with them and proud of the work we have done and successfully advancing the rule of law. closed quote. that's his job. the attorney general is a man when he served in this body would have policy disputes with probably all 99 of us or all 100 of us now. the 99 people he served alongside. there are a bunch of issues why i agree with jeff sessions on policy. there are some issues where i disagree with jeff sessions on policy. the democrats disagree with jeff

sessions on lots of policy, but i think everybody in this body knows that jeff sessions has been executing his job in a way faithful to his oath of office, to the constitution, and trying to defend the rule of law. i think jeff sessions' statement today that the u.s. department of justice is filled with honorable, dispassionate career prosecutors who execute their job in ways that the american people should be proud of is indisputably true. what he said is something that basically everybody in this body knows and agrees with, and yet bizarrely there are people in this body now talking like the attorney general will be fired, should be fired. i'm not sure how to interpret the comments of the last couple of hours but i guess i would just like to say as a member of the judiciary committee and as a member of this body, i find it really difficult to envision any circumstance where i would vote to confirm a successor to jeff sessions if he is fired because

he's executing his job rather than choosing to act as a partisan hack. i think everybody in this body knows that jeff sessions is doing his job honorably and the attorney general of the united states should not be fired for acting honorably and for being faithful to the rule of law. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: i just want to thank my colleague for his statement about the attorney general. i think he's absolutely correct about what he said. i used to work at the department of justice and the f.b.i. and d.o.j. are filled with honorable civil servants who are doing their best to enforce the law. i thank him for his remarks and yield to the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: what is the use of a house if you don't have a tolerable planet to put it on. that's a question that we should all grapple with in this chamber. it's a question that propels my

colleagues from the environmental committee to come to the floor and take note that the trump administration's plan to replace the clean power plan with a dirty power plan is one egregious step in damaging our planet, an egregious step to increase carbon pollution. carbon pollution that has all kinds of effects we're seeing across the country from raging forest fires in the northwest with my state covered in smoke to the stronger, more powerful hurricanes that hit my colleague from texas' city of houston to my colleague from florida's cities in florida to the impact across the country on agriculture, the impact with greater droughts in some cases

greater floods in others. one of the single, most effective steps that can be taken is to reduce the amount of carbon pollution from power plants, power plants and transportation. let's be clear. this dirty power plan from the administration increases the damage to the citizens of the united states, and all just to pander to polluters, which we've seen so much of the last year and a half. i know that we're living in the era in which the administration has created a parallel universe of alternative facts, where truth isn't necessarily truth, as the president's lawyer has said this past couple of weeks. but let's remember that if you're outside that parallel universe, if you're in the real world, there are real numbers. by 2030, the clean power plan

would stop 870 million tons of pollution from poisoning the air that you and i, our families, our children, our friends breathe. that's represented here by looking at this blue line by the year 2030 and the descending line of carbon pollution that's driven both by the fuel economy standards and the electricity standards. and what we see under the president's dirty power plan is that from here into the future, there's no further reductions. essentially zero reductions, and then past 2030 an increase in the carbon pollution that's doing all this damage across the country. and there's damage in every one of our states. this damage doesn't just happen in blue states. texas is not a blue state. texas suffered horrific consequences of that carbon pollution. so certainly representatives from that state would want to do

something about it, and so on through every single state here. that amount of difference in the carbon pollution between the clean power plan and the dirty power plan is equivalent to the pollution from 166 million cars on the road for a year. and it isn't just the impact on forest fires and the impact on hurricanes and the impact on drought affecting agriculture and the impact on floods. it's also the impact on human health. the estimate is by the year 2030 the difference between clean power and dirty power plan is 4,500 premature deaths. so this decision kills people. the difference between those two lines by the year 2030 is 90,000 children's asthma attacks. the difference between those two lines is 1,700 heart attacks. so while these are just lines on

the chart, picture that many children asthma attacks going to the hospital, 90,000 children, picture that many heart attacks, picture that many premature deaths. aren't we here to make america stronger and better, not to kill americans, not to put americans in the hospital. and yet the president's plan does exactly that. and those health problems result in a lot more expenses. in fact, the clean power plan could result in $54 billion in health and climate effects, and it creates a lot of jobs by renovating the housing industry. when you renovate a house, you create a tremendous number of jobs. when you renovate an energy economy, you cleat lot of jobs, millions of jobs. millions of jobs in clean and renewable energy, in wind and solar and geothermal.

so the dirty power plan that the president is putting forward says this -- instead of having a plan, we will simply tell the states to develop an idea of what they should do. in other words, the states have the responsibility but no requirements to act. well, there is a little bit in there about improving the efficiency of coal-fired plants. but the idea is if you extend the plants for a couple years by making them more efficient, well then you'll reduce the adoption of renewable energy. then it's cheaper. so we're talking also more expensive power by keeping inefficient, expensive forms of power producing into the future. and these ideas that the administration has put forward about making the plants work a little bit more efficiently come with a caveat that if you do that, you don't have to put the additional modernization pollution controls on them, which means more fine

particulates. it means more sulfur, more mercury, all things that damage human health. so it all keeps coming back to this assault on the health of americans and on ag and on forests and on fishing, because all three of those are affected by carbon pollution and climate chaos. so that's the basic picture we're looking at. and why don't we take a step back and just ask the simple question, what is the best outcome for america? is it the adoption of cheaper, renewable energy over more expensive fossil fuels? i would say, yes, let's adopt the cheaper energy. is it the adoption of cleaner energy over dirtier energy? yes, let's keep our air cleaner. is it doing what's right for the health of americans? yes, let's do right by the

health of americans. is it taking and contributing to a strategy of driving carbon pollution, hopefully down to zero? then we want a plan that drives carbon down, not a plan that drives it sideways -- that is, no change or eventually upwards. well, that question that henry david thorough put before us, what use is a house if you don't have a narc to put it on, that would include significance for those american citizens who have had their homes burned down this year because of carbon pollution. that would certainly be very relevant to those working in agriculture in america who are losing their farms because of drought or floods. it certainly would be relevant to those citizens living in texas, in florida who have been deeply damaged by the hurricane storms of last year.

so let's do right for americans, and let's reject this dirty power plan that will hurt us in every way possible. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i'm very happy to join my colleagues to express our view of how pathetic this new clean power plan replacement rule is and how it really makes fools of huge portions of the american people, for farmers who are out there facing drought and flood like they have never seen before as our weather extremes expand. this makes fools of them.

this makes losers of them. for people who live near our forests or work in our forests or enjoy using our forests, for the people senator merkley just spoke of, for those downwind from our% of thes when they -- of our forests when they burn, they're made a laughingstock by this new rule. the wildfires that are tearing through our forests are expanding both in season and severity. in some states where there used to be a wildfire season, there isn't a wildfire season anymore. anytime could be wildfire season. this is all unprecedented. for outdoor enthusiasts of all kinds, the changes that are happening to the species and

weather patterns that folks have come to rely on are damaging, and this plan ignores all of it. it's harm for coastal community is particularly important to rhode island and to the presiding officer's home state of louisiana. we have coastal communities that are facing dramatic sea level rise. we are seeing new risks for local communities from storm surge as well as from sea level rise. we are seeing great american cities that are filled with sea water on bright, sunny, fine days just because high tide and sea level rise combine to bring flooding into what once was dry land. all of these concerns are just made a mockery of by this phony e.p.a. rule. and even if you're not a farmer

or even if you don't care about or live near a forest, even if you have no interest in the outdoors, even if you don't live on or visit the coast, you are a part of the american economy and the american economy is going to take a whack from our failure to do right by the environment and from our failure to win the transition to a low-carbon economy. we are all involved in this together, and we are all in that sense made losers and made a mockery of by this ridiculous rule. the only other thing i'd add is we're a country that has for a long time been proud of our reputation and our example. one of our presidents said the power of our example has always mattered more than any example of our power. well, what an example we are

setting now. the only nation in the world not to participate in the paris agreement. even the syrians got in, for pete's sake, and here we're -- strange outliers. we try to compete in the international contest for the way that people live, putting forward our american system of government and our american way of life. our american system of government is not looking so good right now on this question, and as the inevitable march of climate change and indeed climate havoc continues, our failure to act is is going to look worse and worse. people are going to ask questions, and we don't have good answers. because the truth of the matter is, the reason we're not doing anything about this is the corrupt influence of the fossil fuel industry. period, and end of story. i was here during the years when we had bipartisan activity in the senate on climate change.

there were multiple bipartisan bills floating around. there were bipartisan hearings. in fact, the first climate change hearing in the senate was chaired by senator john chafee, a republican of rhode island u. all of that bipartisan work came to a shuddering halt in june of 2010 when the five republican judges on the supreme court gave to the fossil fuel industry a pearl beyond price -- the citizens united decision that allowed unlimited political spending by big special interests. unlimited. and it took the fossil fuel industry about two minutes to figure out how to make that hidden, dark money political spending. and the result has been the absolute shutdown of bipartisan, as the fossil fuel industry has moved to exercise full dominion over a once-great republican

political party. i see the majority leader on his feet, from which i deduce that he may seek the floor, in which case, as i courtesy, i am most inclined to yield it to him. is that the case, mr. leader? 5's does the leader seek the floor? mr. mcconnell: has the senator yielded the floor? mr. whitehouse: i will yield the floor if the majority leader seeks it, yes, i will. the presiding officer: the senate majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the following amendment be called up, paul 3967. i further request unanimous consent at that 4:10 is the senate vote in relation to the amendment and there be no second-degree amendments in order to the amendment prior to a vote and that it be subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold for adoption. i further ask that consent that following disposition of the paul amendment, the managers' package, which is at the desk, be agreed to, and all postcloture time be yielded

back. further, that senator enzi or his designee be recognized to offer a budget point of order and that senator leahy or his designee be recognized to make a motion to waive. finally, th timely, following disposition of the motion to waive, amendment 3699 be withdrawn and the substitute amendment as amended be agreed to and the cloture motion on h.r. 6157 be withdrawn , the bill be read a third time, and the senate vote on passage of the bill as amended with no further intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. leahy: mr. president, we have no objection. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell, for mr. paul, proposes an amendment numbered 3967 to amendment numbered 3695.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i'll just take a minute to conclude my remarks and then yield to senator king of maine who i believe will be followed by senator van hollen of maryland. the rule that we're looking at is basically about 98% scott pruitt. if you look at the timing. scott pruitt was one of the most disgraceful tenures in any cabinet position in the history of the united states. to the extent i have anything good to say about him it's that he wasn't very good so that e.p.a. following the direction of the fossil fuel industry lost over and over again as its phony

sham activities and rulings and regulations were challenged in court. what we saw over and over again was that the process that e.p.a. was a sham, that the review of public comment was a sham, that the judicial review, the legal review that they had to go through, legal analysis was a sham, and as a result, they came up with rules and regulations and policies that were a sham. well, once you expose some of that stuff in court where people have to tell the truth and discovery has to happen and you see documents and you get judges who are not in tow to the fossil fuel industry, it doesn't look so good. so i think probably our best hope for this phony baloney dirty power plan that pruitt 98% put out and the new administration oorl -- administrator, i guess we should give him 2% credit, it's not

likely to last that long, not likely to survive judicial scrutiny, it like so much else the e.p.a. has done in this administration is a complete fossil fuel funded phony and sham. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: mr. president, my colleagues have spoken eloquently about the weaknesses of the supposed new clean power plan which really is anything but. and i'd like to speak a minute about why this is such a detrimental idea for the country but also for my state. let's put it in very stark terms, even by the terms of the new plan that's been announced, the original clean power plan would have reduced carbon emissions by 30%, co2 by 30%, the new plan by about 1% and that may be being generous.

we have clean air and water in maine, but pollution knows no boundaries. that's one of the problems with this plan is that it essentially leaves up -- leaves up to each state how to regulate the plants within its borders. that's a good idea except the pollution from these plants doesn't stay within those borders. this is a representation of the way air moves in the northeast part of the united states, and what you can see is the arrows are coming up over massachusetts, the gulf of maine, and then into maine, west through vermont new hampshire into maine, through quebec and back into maine. we are literally at the end of the country's tailpipe. and therefore anything which weakens pollution controls to our west or south or indeed north is a harm, a direct harm to my people. and that's why i think this plan is so ill-conceived and will not achieve meaningful results and by its own terms we will see

more deaths as a result of this plan. they admit that in the data that's been submitted with the plan that deaths will increase. in my state of maine, we already have higher than average asthma rates. this will only exacerbate that. what this plan is doing essentially is extending the life of dirty, polluting plans and shortening the life of real people. i don't think that's the direction we should be moving in. i think this body should correct that. and i believe that this is important to the country and also to the region and particularly to the state that its represent. -- that i represent. the words clean should not be in this plan because that is not what it does. the clean power plan should do what it says it is. it should improve the environment, should improve the air for the people of this

country, not make them worse which is what this plan would do. mr. president, i yield the floor to my colleague from maryland. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. van hollen: i thank my colleagues from maine and rhode island and others who are here today to draw attention to the trump administration's very dangerous proposal that takes a wrecking ball to the clean power plan that has been put in place. it's been put in place to try to reduce the costs that we are facing from a climate pollution and carbon pollution, and what we see in the trump administration's plan is going to drag us backwards. in fact, analysis was done of their plan, and it will be worse than doing nothing at all. we know and my colleagues have talked about this that every day the american people are already paying the costs of carbon

pollution in extreme weather events, whether those are forest fires, whether they're droughts that are wreaking havoc on crops, whether it's flooding. my colleague from maryland, senator cardin and i were just in ellicott city, maryland, two days ago where within a two-year period they have been hit by what are called 1,000-year floods because there's only supposed to be one-tenth of 1% of a chance that that happens and yet we've seen two of them in two years causing loss of human life and incredible property damage. so the costs of doing nothing are huge and that is why the previous administration adopted the clean power plan and with this administration taking us back words, those costs of doing nothing are going to rise again. as the senator from maine said, it's not just incredible property damage, but you will

see loss of life and greater asthma deaths, and other negative health care effects. so i know that there's a vote coming up. i wanted to say a lot more about this, but the main point was made by senator from rhode island which is this is not going to stand. this will not be accepted in the courts. we will fight this in the courts because the american people deserve to have a system where they don't pay. the american people don't pay for the pollution being spewed out by others. polluters should pay, not the public. let's defeat this new plan put forward by the trump administration that takes us backwards and let's try and work together to address what is a very serious national and international issue. i thank you, mr. president.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question occurs on the paul amendment number 3967. mr. leahy: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk shall call the roll. vote:

vote:

oeu

voted: vote:

the presiding officer: is there anyone in the chamber who wishing to vote or change their vote? seeing none, the yeas are 45, the nays are 48. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.

under the previous order, the manage's package at the desk is agreed ton and all postcloture time is yielded back. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. leahy: the senate's not in order. the presiding officer: could we have order, please. please take your conversations off the floor. the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: immediately following some comments, i'll be raising a budget point of order. i find this circumstance to be unfortunate given that i filed an amendment that would have cured the budget violation. the substitute increases the maximum discretionary pell grant award under the pell grant program's complicated funding structure, this triggers a point of order for a change in spending or chip which results in ha net increase in spending

and increase mandatory spending by a total of $390 million. while we're unable to consider my solution supported by the taxpayer union, i believe the only alternativery have as budget chairman is to enforce the budget rules we've agreed to. in this case the budget rule being violated is bipartisan. it was first created by the senate democrats in 2008. if this point of order is sustained, the bill can still move forward, but together we will have prevented $350 million increase direct mandatory spending being rolled into the baseline will it will ee -- where it will evade budget enforcement. the presiding officer: take your conversations off the floor. mr. enzi: now is the time to enforce our budget rules. i urge my colleagues to enforce fiscal discipline and not waive this order. the provision of 270 in division

b, title 3, lines 7 and 8 would result in a net increase in the cost of mandatory programs affected by the bill. therefore, i raise a 0 point -- a point of order against that provision pursuant to section 314-a of s. con. res. 70, the concurrent resolution of the budget for fiscal year 2009. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president -- the presiding officer: please take are your conversations off the floor. the gentleman may resume. mr. leahy: mr. president, pursuant to section 904, the congressional budget office of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, i move to waive all applicable sections of that act, applicable budget resolutions for purposes of thed pending

amendment. i ask of the pending amendment. i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, the reason i did that -- and i rarely disagree with my good friend from wyoming. we are, after all, the only two irish italians in this -- in this body, but people are hurting hard enough in going to college, and cutting the pell grant award just adds to it. student debt today exceeds one-half trillion dollars, and that's because of the erosion of federal support. i'm saying my point of order is staying with the middle class of this country so that their children, their families can be

educated. the presiding officer: order in the chamber, please. i cannot hear the gentleman. mr. leahy: and i'm ready to vote. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: mr. president, i appreciate my friend from wyoming's concern on this. i will be voting to waive the point of order. my colleague from wyoming was exactly right when he says this is a complicateed formula. it's a combination of discretionary and mandatory funding. per the higher education act, the discretionary portion of the maximum award is established annually in the labor-h.h.s. bill. we have changed the maximum pell from discretionary funding from $5,035 to $5,135 for the 2019- 2020 school year. that has an additional mandatory funding of 1,060, so maximum

pell will be $6,195. that is in line with the kind of increases we have had now for the last 12 years in a row, and i will be voting to waive and urge my colleagues to do the same. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to waive. the yeas and nays were previously ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? seeing none, on this vote, the yeas are 68, the nays 24. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. the point of order falls. a senator: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama p. mr. shelby: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent -- the senate not in order. the presiding officer: the

senate out of order. please take your conversations off the floor. mr. shelby: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be given two minutes before the vote and senator leahy be given two minutes, if he so desires. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. shelby: mr. president, i'll be brief here. the presiding officer: please take your conversations off the floor. please come to order. the senator from alabama. mr. shelby: i just with aens to mark what we've accomplished here today and i want to thank many folks, senators and staff who've made this possible. mr. president, in 1999, nearly 20 years ago, was the last time the senate passed nine appropriations bills by the end of august. 1999. some of us were still here. but this is a milestone here today that we're about to mark with the passage of two

appropriations bills, the most money in these of any appropriations bills. we collectively called earlier this year for a return to regular order in the appropriations process because it was broken, and the leaders on both sides, senator mcconnell and senator schumer, provided us the opportunity to follow through. and i want to take a moment to thank both of them for their leadership here. and i believe that we in the senate are demonstrating here together that they made the right call. i also want to recognize the vice chairman of the appropriations committee, senator leahy, for his work in this behalf. i can't say enough about the importance of his role in passing appropriations bill in a bipartisan manner, because that's the only way we're going to get them done. mr. vice chairman, senator leahy, i want to thank you -- the presiding officer: the senate will come to order, please. mr. shelby: the senate not in order. senator durbin, senator blunt,

senator murray also played vital roles in what we've been doing here today. their diligence and commitment to working in a bipartisan manner have been essential in passing the bills currently before the senate. and i want to thank all of them for their work. but, last but not least, i want to thank my staff on the defense subcommittee, the majority clerk, brian potz, his team katie, coleen, mike, chris, hans, kate, will todd, carlos alas, and marisa rode. all of them worked day and night to make this happen. without their dedication and expertise shall did and they have a lost it -- we would not be in a position today to send a defense spending bill to the president's desk on time, if we keep working like we're doing. i want to thank them for their work. and finally, i want to thank all of my colleagues here, both sides of the aisle, for

cooperation in passing these appropriations bills. i think it shows what the senate can do working together. and i hope we can continue to do this. we all know it's not easy, but it works. i believe, mr. president, it's the right thing for the american people. thank you. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i compliment my dear friend, senator shelby. we've worked together on this. we made a commitment along with leader mcconnell and leader schumer to only move forward on the one hand appropriations bills that have bipartisan support or spending levels agreed to. the bipartisan budget deal wejected poison pill riders, we did it. we set a arerd to get through. everybody cooperated. to cooperate here, as i see some people checking their flight schedule, i'd ask consent to put

my full statement in the record, which especially praises the staff that, woulded with and a half -- that worked with senator shelby and myself because there is a realization that our senators have the constitutional impediments to the staff. they work very long hours. i'll yield back tie time. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blunt: let new england just mention quickly -- let me just mention quickly the labor-h.h.s. staff. it's been 11 years since this bill has been on the floor. consequently, none of these staffers has probably ever been mentioned on the floor before even though every single year they've made this continued great effort. senator shelby, senator leahy, senator durbin decided along with senator murray and i that we'd bring this combination of bills together that's never been on the floor at any time. labor-h.h.s. and defense. the defense staff has been recognized. but let moo he just mention the

labor-h.h.s., education staff, mike general tillie, jeff reisic, ashley palmer, courtney bradford, our staff director, all of those are on our side of the aisle. senator murray's staff, obviously, critically important part of this as well. mark leash, kelly brown, terri curtain. this bill would not be here today in theton it's in or would not have been able to respond to all of the suggestions this week without both of these staffs working to make it happen. and i would yield back. the presiding officer: under the previous order, amendment number 3699 is withdrawn. amendment 3695, as amended, is agreed to. the cloture motion with respect to h.r. 6157 is withdrawn. and the clerk will read the title of the bill for the third

time. the clerk: calendar number 500, h.r. 6157, an act making appropriations for the department of defense and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the question now occurs on passage of the bill as amended. a senator: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:#