mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all no in favor say aye. all op motioned say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mc -- mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to calendar number 120. the presiding officer: the motion is on the motion -- motion to proceed. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, peter d. welte, of north dakota, to be united states district judge for north dakota. the presiding officer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on of peter d. welte, of north dakota, to be united states district judge for the district of north dakota.

mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 203. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. and the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, james westly hendrix, of texas, to be united states district judge for the northern district of texas. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of james wesley hendrix of texas to be united states district judge for the northern district

of texas. the presiding officer: i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to calendar number 204. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes have it and the motion is agreed. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, sean d. jordan, of texas, to be united states district judge for the eastern district of texas. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the negotiation to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of sean d. jordan, of texas, to be united states district judge for the eastern district of texas, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous

consent that the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the motion is on -- the motion is on the question to proceed. the ayes appear to have it. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to calendar number 205. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those -- the ayes do have it. and the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, mark t. pittman, of texas, to be united states district judge for the northern district of texas. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of mark t. pittman, of texas, to be united states district judge for the northern district of texas. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to

legislative session. the presiding officer: all those in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it and the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to calendar number 231. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all opposed, say no. the appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, jeffrey vincent brown, of texas, to be united states district judge for the southern district of texas. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture vote. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of jeffrey vincent brown, of texas, to be united states district judge for the southern district of texas. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the

question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. al opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 232. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, brantley starr, of texas, to be united states district judge for the northern district of texas. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of brantley starr, of texas, to be united states district judge for the northern district of texas. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to

proceed. all those in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session and consider calendar number 233. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, stephanie l. haines of pennsylvania to be united states district judge for the western district of pennsylvania. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of stephanie l. haines of pennsylvania to be united states district judge for the western district of pennsylvania. signed by 17 senators as follow- mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the

question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 326. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, ada e. brown of texas to be united states district judge for the northern district of texas. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of ada e. brown of texas to be united states district judge for the northern district of texas, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session and consider calendar number 327. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, stephen d. grimberg of georgia to be united states district judge for the northern district of georgia. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of steven d. grimberg of georgia to be united states district judge for the northern district of georgia, signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session and consider calendar number 345. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, jason k. pullman of texas to be united states district judge for the western district of texas. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of jason k. pullman of texas to be united states district judge for the western district of texas, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to

proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session and consider calendar number 350. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, martha maria pacold of illinois to be united states district judge for the northern district of illinois. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of martha maria pacold of illinois to be united states district judge for the northern district of illinois, signed by 17 senators as follow- mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session and consider calendar number 352. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, steven c. seeger of illinois to be united states district judge for the northern district of illinois. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of steven c. seeger of illinois to be united states district judge for the northern district of illinois, signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to

proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session and consider calendar number 364. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, william shaw stickman iv of pennsylvania to be united states district judge for the western district of pennsylvania. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of william shaw stickman iv of pennsylvania to be united states district judge for the western district of pennsylvania, signed by 17

senators as follows -- mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session and consider calendar number 48. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, karin j. immergut of oregon to be united states district judge for the district of oregon. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of karin j. immergut of oregon to be united states district judge for the district of oregon, signed by 17 senators

as follows -- mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 55. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, john milton younge of pennsylvania to be united states district judge for the eastern district of pennsylvania. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of john milton younge of pennsylvania to be united states district judge for the eastern district of

pennsylvania, signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. m mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider 344. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, mary s. mcelroy of rhode island to be united states district judge for the district of rhode island. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of mary mcelroy of rhode island to be united states

district judge for the district of rhode island signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the read are of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 346. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, stephanie a. gallagher of maryland to be united states district judge for the district of maryland. mr. mcconnell: i sent a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of stephanie a. gallagher of maryland to be united states district judge for

the district of maryland signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar none 351. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, mary m. rowland of illinois to be united states district judge for the northern district of illinois. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of mar write m. rowland of illinois to be united

states district judge for the northern district of illinois signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you, madam president. madam president, yesterday the american people finally heard at length directly from special counsel robert mueller. in his testimony before the house judiciary committee and intelligence committees, the special counsel gave voice to his report on russian interference in our 2016 presidential election and president trump's obstruction of the investigation into it.

what the american people and i heard from special counsel mueller was an explanation and confirmation of the deeply troubling findings and conclusions of his investigation and his written report. he told us that the trump campaign welcomed the help of a hotiohostile foreign power, rus, to influence our 2016 presidential election, accepted that help, lied repeatedly about it and benefited from it. he confirmed that there was voluminous evidence that president trump had obstructed justice through his efforts to interfere with and impede the special counsel's investigation. most importantly, contrary to the president's claims, the special counsel confirmed that his investigation had not

exonerated the president of the crime of obstruction of justice. when asked robert mueller made this crystal clear testifying that, quote, the president was not exexpull at a timed for the acts he committed. in his testimony yesterday special counsel mueller did not back away from any of his written report's findings. the american people saw and heard him emphatically defend them. special counsel mueller, a decorated war hero, gave every single american cause for deep alarm when he called russian interference in support of the trump campaign, quote, among the most serious challenges to american democracy that he had ever seen. he agreed that it was, quote, unpatriotic and wrong to seek campaign help from a foreign power, and he decried president

trump's failure to acknowledge or respond to the systematic and sweeping russian interference warning, quote, they're doing it as we sit here. yesterday donald trump tried to defend himself in tweets while robert mueller defended our democracy and his testimony. the special counsel's testimony and events of the past two weeks have led to the undeniable conclusion that it is time for the house of representatives to begin a formal impeachment proceeding against president trump. i stand here today on the senate floor to place -- the place where an unprecedented trial would occur understanding the gravity of this moment in our nation's history. i stand here today because i believe we have reached the moment where we must stand up for the survival of our

democracy. before he came to this decision, i said i needed to hear directly from special counsel mueller and other witnesses. that congress needed to obtain documents and that we needed to gather all the facts in evidence. i had hoped that the house judiciary committee's investigation would get us answers to the questions about the president's obstructive conduct that remained after special counsel mueller issued his report. and i had hoped that the president who continues to insist that he did nothing wrong would cooperate and that the house judiciary committee would receive testimony and other evidence from the trump campaign and trump administration witnesses. that has not happened. and that's because of continued and deliberate presidential obstruction. just listen to the numerous

roadblocks that the president has put in congress' way since special counsel mueller issued his report in march. president trump has denied the entire congress access to the full, unredacted version of the mueller report and its underlying materials. president trump has claimed that key witnesses like former white house counsel donald mcgahn and former white house communications director hope hicks are immune from testifying or simply don't have to comply with congressional subpoenas. president trump has opposed testimony from two of the special counsel's top deputies and restricted the scope of the mueller testimony. and president trump has vowed to fight any future congressional subpoenas. what we have seen from president

trump is a pattern of repeated and baseless denial, baseless defiance of the house's constitutional authority to investigate, especially subpoenas seeking evidence that the president obstructed justice and abused his power. the president has engaged in stonewalling that shows an unprecedented disregard and contempt for a coequal branch of government under our constitution. disregard and contempt that would make richard nixon blush with envy. taken together special counsel robert mueller's testimony and the president's obstruction of the congressional investigation compel us to immediately begin a formal impeachment inquiry.

i do not come to this decision lightly. an impeachment proceeding against the president of the united states is a matter of the highest constitutional magnitude. but when the evidence demonstrates that the president of the united states obstructed the special counsel's investigation and when the facts and the evidence demonstrate that the president of the united states is continuing to obstruct justice seeking to derail a legitimate congressional investigation into the lawfulness of his conduct while in office, then the congress must do its constitutional duty and act. the acts of obstruction that special counsel mueller described in his report and in his testimony yesterday to congress are impeachable offenses, a view shared by myriad constitutional scholars, attorneys, and prosecutors. the president improperly pressed

then-f.b.i. director james comey to drop the investigation of former national security advisor michael flynn and subsequently fired comey because of the russia investigation. confirmed yesterday by the special counsel's testimony. the president unlawfully demanded that then-attorney general jeff sessions reverse his recusal from the russia investigation and take over the investigation confirmed yesterday by the special counsel's testimony. the president engaged in witness tampering and falsification of government records when he directed white house counsel don mcgahn to fire robert mueller and later pressured mcgahn to deny that that had happened, confirmed yesterday by the special counsel's testimony. the president engaged in a coverup when he sought to

prevent public disclosure of evidence about the infamous june 9, 2016, trump tower meeting, confirmed yesterday by the special counsel's testimony. the president abused his constitutional authority by holding out the prospect of pardons in exchange for witnesses' silence confirmed yesterday by the special counsel's testimony. that robert mueller found so much evidence that this president committed impeachable offenses might be shocking but it should not be surprising. after all look at what we've learned about this president during his two and a half years in office and what he is willing to say and what he is willing to do. did an american president put family members in high white house policy positions, requiring security clearances that should never have been issued? yes, he did. did an american president repeatedly show infatuation with

and express sympathy for authoritarian figures around the globe most notably vladimir putin, the man who interfered with the 2016 election to president trump's benefit? yes, he did. did an american president face multiple, repeated, and credible allegations of sexual assault by more than a dozen women, sexual assault that he bragged about on tape? yes, he did. did an american president become known as individual number one in effect an unindicted coconspirator on charges of federal campaign finance law violations that were brought against his lawyer michael cohen in york? yes, he did. did an american president seek to divide americans based on race, religion, and ethnicity directing racist language at elected members of congress and urging others to celebrate that hate? sadly yes, he did. and we've watched as donald

trump has given the constitution a stress test, the likes of which we haven't seen in 230 years. we've watched him attack judges and seek to intimidate the judiciary. we've watched him disregard congress' coequal role in government under article 1 of the constitution, whether by spending unappropriated money on his border wall, relying on acting government officials to eviscerate the senate's advice and consent function, or ignoring legitimate oversight requests. we've watched the president sue congress in order to block release of his tax returns and refuse to disclose any meaningful information about his business operations, especially sources of foreign investment and loans raising alarming questions about violation of the constitution's emollients clause. this president relishes attacking the freedom of the press and has insighted violence

against journalists for exercising their first amendment rights. donald trump is tearing at the fabric of our democracy literally every single day. and yesterday the congress and the american people heard the facts and evidence that congress can and should act to hold him accountable. faced with impeachable offenses, it is the constitution that entrusts the congress with the responsibility of zig whether to remove a president of the united states from office for high crimes and misdemeanors. indeed, in the face of evidence of serious and persistent misconduct, it is harmful to the nation. congress would be abusing its constitutional discretion and setting a dangerous precedent if it did not begin impeachment inquiry. if the evidence of obstruction of justice and other wrongdoing that robert mueller explained yesterday is not evidence of impeachable offenses, what is?

what damage would a future president have to inflict in order to trigger an impeachment inquiry? i have no illusions about where an impeachment inquiry will lead. my republican colleagues have thus far shown themselves unwilling to hold this president accountability. they believe that everything is, quote, all over. but the evidence in the mueller report and the special counsel's testimony yesterday explaining it, defending it, and reaffirming it compel us to do what is right and what is necessary, and that is to exercise our authority and begin an impeachment proceeding against donald trump. nothing less than our democracy is at stake. i call upon my colleagues in the house of representatives to do so. i yield the floor. mr. alexander: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: madam president, i have eight requests for committees to meet today

during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. alexander: thank you, madam president. madam president, i have one message for my colleagues in the senate and those who might be watching. it's about this chart, which is very simple. this is a line of what we call discretionary spending. this is about 31% of the budget. that's the budget agreement that you read about in the newspapers the last couple of days -- that's what we're talking about. it's a blue line. it has to do with paying for our national defense. that's about half of the dollars. then for our national parks, america's best idea, then for the national institutes of health, the source of medical miracles ranging from restoring your heart to curing zika to the national laboratories where the source of our competition with the rest of the world. that's what this money is for.

and what the blue line recognizes, madam president, is that for the last 10 years the growth in spending for national defense, national parks, national institutes of health, national labs violence gone up at about the -- has gone up at about the rate of up nation and for the next ten years, including the budget agreement that the president and the congressional leaders recommended this week, it will go up at about the rate of inflation. so, madam president, the point is, for 20 years -- 2008-2029 -- the increase in spending for the amount of money we're talking about and the type of spending in the budget agreement is not the source of the federal deficit. what is? medicare, medicaid, social security, and interest. that's the red line. ten years ago it was $1.8 trillion. at the rate we're going, $5.4 trillion in ten years. that's not the type of spending

we're talking about in the budget agreement. and so my message today is in support of properly funding national defense, national parks, national institutes of health, and national labs and not beating our chest and pretending that we're balancing the budgets on the backs of our soldiers, our medical miracles, our national parks when, in fact, it's the entitlements that the president and the democrats and the republicans in congress need to address. now, i'll talk about the blue line today. i've talked about the red line plenty before. former senator corker and i introduced legislation a few years ago that would have reduced the growth of this red line by $1 trillion over ten years. the only problem was, we were the only two cosponsors of the legislation. the budget deficit is vitally damaging to our country, but the

budget agreement that president trump recommended is not the source of the budget deficit. that part of the budget is under control. that's 31% of all the dollars we spend in the united states. and just add to this, if this continues for another ten years, this blue line -- national defense, national parks, national institutes of health, national laboratories -- that's going to go from 31% of the budget to 22% of the budget and mandatory spending is going up to 78%. that is the budget deficit. this is the budget agreement we're going to be voting on next week. that part of the budget is under control. now, here's what this budget agreement that the president recommended and that our democratic and republican leaders in the house and senate have recommended and that i strongly support. the first thing it does is it suspends the debt limit, the amount we can borrow. now, madam president, if we don't do that we have a global

fiscal crisis. we all know that. so we need to do it. second, it raises the defense and nondefense discretionary budget caps. that's this blue line down here. that's on the amount of money that we can spend, as i said, on national defense -- that's about half of the spending -- and our veterans, national labs, biomedical research, national parks. let's talk about the military for just a minute. former secretary of defense james mattis, who had enormous respect here in copping, said, quote, no enemy in the field has done as much harm to the readiness of the u.s. military than the combined impact of the budget control act's defense spending caps worsened by operating for ten of the last 11 years under continuing resolutions of varied and unpredictable duration. now, in plain english, madam president, what that means is that because of the president's leadership and the recommendations of our

bipartisan leaders, we will avoid what secretary mattis said has been so damaging to our military. here's what happened. back in 2011, we passed a budget control act to try to limit this part of the budget. that came after a special committee was appointed, which everyone hoped would deal with this part of the budget, the problem part, the part that's causing the deficit. the budget control act came up with a formula that everybody thought would work. they said, well, if we put in there that we'll have dramatic reductions in military spending, congress will never do that, so they'll be forced to finally do something we all should have had the courage to do a long time ago, and that's deal with entitlements. what happened? we didn't deal with the red line, and we cut the military. we cut the military badly over the last ten years, and we're just now beginning to catch up. last year congress avoided the

sequestration and increased discretion area spending for years 2018 and 2019. let me say, because i'm going to repeat it over and over and over, we increased spending last year at about the rate of inflation. that's not the cause of the federal deficit. reaching that agreement did, though, mean that for the first time in nearly a decade, the department of defense received its budget on time. and it received a record funding level for research and development. this new two-year budget agreement that the president has recommended will rebuild our military by providing $738 billion for defense discretionary spending for 2020 and $740 billion for 2021. it will also allow us to fulfill the commitment we made as a part of the new start treaty in 2010 in december. i voted for that. and part of the deal with president obama was that if we passed the treaty limiting

nuclear weapons, that we would make sure that ours worked. president trump said the other day that russia has 1,1111 nuclear weapons and they all work. we don't want to use them. we don't want them to use them. the best way to keep them from using them is to make sure ours work. now we've reached a budget agreement, so we can get to work on the appropriations bills and hopefully get many of them done before the end of the fiscal year, which is the 30th of september. that's important to the military especially. when i met with secretary of the army mark esper, who was approved by a big vote yesterday as secretary of defense, we talked about what it meant to have an appropriations bill passed into law on time instead of a so-called continuing resolution, which is a just a lazy way to govern. it just says, just spend next year when you spent last year, which means we don't spend for

the things we need to spend and we don't stop spending on the things we shouldn't spend. here's some of the benefits of passing the appropriations bill on time, which would mean october 1. it keeps large projects on time on budget. that's true in the defense department. it's also true other places. we have a big project called the uranium processing facility at oak ridge, tennessee, that comes through the energy and water appropriations committee i chair and senator feinstein is the ranking member. we've made sure that that's on at the same time and on budget. $6.5 billion by 2025. what if we don't appropriate the money on time on budget, we can't finish the project on time, on budget. who's hurt by that? our national defense and our taxpayers. our the chick mog --

chicamaugawak in tennessee. for the last several years we've continued a steady reconstruction of it. we need to pass these on-time on budget. also, it keeps equipment maintenance at the department of defense on schedule. that saves money. for money for new new technolog. speeds up -- keeps military training on schedule. that means we're properly prepared for combat and it prevents accidents. this new two-year agreement also helps our veterans. in 2018 president trump signed the v.a. mission act which the senate passed by a vote of 92-5. the mission act gave veterans the ability to seek medical care outside the department of veterans affairs and see a private doctor closer to home. so if you're 60 miles away in the state of the nebraska or kansas or tennessee and you need

medical care and you can't see a v.a. facility, you can see a private doctor close to home. this budget agreement makes sure we have enough money to support that, and i'll ask the staff here how much that is. senator perdue said yesterday that 40% of the increase in the spending of this budget agreement, in the discretionary side, is to help veterans with the choice program. so it's not even in the national defense part of the budget. it's in the nondefense part of the budget. helps veterans. so 40% of this increase is helping veterans on top of what we spend for defense and still we keep the spending at about the rate of inflation. that's not the source of our budget deficit. it's important for the american people know that republican

majority in congress has worked together with democrats to provide record levels of funding for science, research, and technology. in the senate, that's been senator blunt of missouri and senator murray of washington state who provide the leadership for that in the appropriations committee. in april 2016, francis collins, director of the national institutes of health, told our appropriations committee -- i am a member of that, as are others -- senator durbin and others, we work on this together -- that with adequate and consistent funding, he could make ten bold predictions about some of the medical miracles that he expected over the next several years. he talked about regenerative medicine that would allow -- that would replace heart transplants by restoring your heart from your own cells. he talked about vaccines for zika, for h.i.v. a.i.d.es, and for the universal flew which kills tens of thousands a year. he talked about a artificial

pancreas. he talked about cures for alzheimer's or at least medicines that would identify the symptoms that would identify -- symptoms, that would identify alzheimer's before the symptoms and do something about it. since fiscal year 2015, the appropriations committee has increased funding for the national institutes of health by $9 billion or 30%. from $30.3 billion in 2015 to $39.3 billion in fiscal year 2019. senator blunt and senator murray did that by cutting some programs and increasing the national institutes of health. they did it all down here in the blue line that stays within the rate of inflation, not up here in the red line. that's called good government. i can't tell you the number of leaders at academic and research institutions who i meet who say that the young investigators in our country are sewn couraged by this new funding for biomedical research and they're busy working on the next miracles.

that's what consistent funding will do. dr. collins came back to the committee in year -- i asked him if he was ready to update those bold predictions. he said we're close to a cure for sickle cell anemia, sickle cell disease. and a you in, nonaddictive painkiller which would be the holy grail in our fight against opioids. with this new budget agreement, congress could increase funding for the national institutes of health for the sixth consecutive year to continue this lifesaving research and do it all within the blue line which is not the cause of the federal budget deficit. let's go to the office of science. last year, the energy and water development appropriations subcommittee that i chair, the senator from california, senator feinstein, is the ranking democrat, we agree for the fourth consecutive year and congress agreed with us and president trump signed it to

provide record funding for the department of energy's office of science. with this new budget, we can do it for five years. what does this mean? this means funding for the 17 national laboratories, including the oak ridge national laboratory, which are america's secret weapon. no other country has anything like our national laboratories. many americans worry about competition from china and other parts of the world. how do we meet that competition? through innovation. and where does that innovation come from? it's hard to think of a major initiative that's not come since world war ii without some federally sponsored research funding. funding our labs is important. it also helps keep us first in the world in super computing. why is supercomputing important? because that keeps our standard of living high. that keeps our national defense on its toes. china knows that. two years ago, china had the two top supercomputers, but today

the united states has the two fastest supercomputers in the world, and the exoscale computing project would deliver the next generation's systems starting in 2021. this accomplishment is not the result of one year of funding or of one political party, but ten years of bipartisan effort through the bush, obama, and trump administrations. democrats and republicans have tried to make sure that america is first in the world of supercomputing. we did it all under the blue line over the last ten years. the funding went up at the rate of inflation. not through the moon like entitlements. that's the source of the federal budget, not the money we spent to keep ahead of china and japan but supercomputing. in national parks, ken burns and others say our best idea is america's national parks. there are 417 of them. they have a bad deferred maintenance backlog. senator portman, senator warner, senator king and i, others of us, we are working with

president trump who supports our legislation to try to cut half of the deferred announce in the national park backlogs out in the next five years. we're going to use money from energy on federal lands to do that. americans are often shocked to find when they go to federal parks that the bathrooms don't work, the roofs leak, the campgrounds are closed because there is not enough money for maintenance. this budget helps make sure that our national parks are something that americans can continue to enjoy. all 418 of those parks. and we do that under the blue line that goes up at the rate of inflation, not at the budget-busting entitlement line. now, i've said this over and over, and it needs to be said over and over. this is mandatory spending. this is discretionary spending. this will be $1.6 trillion at

the end of ten more years. this will be $5.4 trillion at the end of ten more years. ten years ago, this was $1.1 trillion and this was $1.8 trillion. now, what do you think the problem is for the source of the federal budget? you don't need a ph.d. in mathematics to figure this out. it's not this line. it's not national defense. it's not biomedical research. it's not supercomputing. it's not the army corps of engineers. it's this line. it's entitlements. it's our fault, not for having dealt with it, but we shouldn't beat our chests and pretend to balance the budget by decimating the work on this line. discretionary spending is only 31% of the money. mandatory spending is the rest of the funding. it will increase from 69% of total spending to 78% in 2029.

the spending on national parks, national defense, national institutes, national labs will be reduced to 22%. madam president, i don't believe we can properly defend our country, properly keep our parks up, keep first in the world of supercomputing, expect to continue biomedical research that produces living-saving mirks if we squeeze all the money out of the blue line and let it go up in the air on the red line. madam president, the united states is experiencing robust economic growth. you hear a lot of political talk in this chamber, but no one really disputes that. our economy is growing and growing and growing. we have not seen anything like it in a long, long time. six million new jobs created just since president trump was elected. the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years. at 3.7%. before congress passed the major tax reform in 31 years, our

gross domestic product was projected to be a little less than 2% over the next ten years. for the first quarter of 2019, this year, actual gross domestic product was a little over 3%. higher g.d.p. and lower unemployment leads to higher family incomes and more revenues for the federal government and more revenues for the federal government reduces the dip. i urge my colleagues to support this two-year budget agreement, and to those who are worried about the federal debt, i'm worried about it, too. that's why senator corker and i put our bill in, reduced by a growth of $1 trillion over ten years what's happening in this red line. if we want to talk about the federal budget deficit, let's talk about where it really is. let's talk about the red line, which has gone from

$1.8 trillion ten years ago and is projected by the congressional budget office to go to $5.4 trillion ten years from now. let's don't pretend we're balancing the federal budget by focusing on the part of the federal budget that's under control. the part that funds our military, our national parks, our biomedical research, our national labs. for the last ten years, it's gone up at about the rate of inflation, and for the next ten years, according to the congressional budget office, including this two-year budget agreement which only affects the blue line, not the red line, it goes up at the rate of inflation. so i'm proud to support it. i believe it's the right thing to do. when the house sends us the chance to look for it next week, i hope it gets a big vote in the united states senate. i thank the president, and i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. inhofe: madam president, let me just take a few minutes here to share an idea that -- when we come back next week, we're going to be talking about the budget. we'll be talking about making really difficult, very difficult decisions. i would say that we on the committee that i share, the senate armed services committee, have an advantage i think over some of the other people because one of the critical things in

the budget coming up is how that treats the military. and i think it's important that people understand that if you're a member of the armed services committee, you're in a position to know something the other members don't know. now, that may sound like someone's not doing their job, but that's not true at all. you know, when you're in the senate armed services committee, you have hearings that take place. you start in january, you're going to have posture hearings. posture hearings are going to sometimes be as -- or normally would be about six hours a week of hearings. in hearings, you find out things that you just don't have time to find out, unless you're a member. if you're a member, you're sitting there for three hours a week. now, i don't see this -- say this critically of the previous administration, because i would say of the obama administration, the top priority was not defending america. you know, in fact, he

established something that was called parity. parity that was saying that for every dollar that you put into military, you had to put a dollar into the nonmilitary. that's never happened before. at least it has not happened since world war ii. at that time it's been established that that would be our priority. every democrat and every republican president at that time, all the way up until the obama administration, had defending america as the top priority. now, what happened during that administration was that we -- we actually had a dramatic reduction, if you used constant dollars, that reduction took place between 2010 and 2015, it took place using constant dollars, for this description we use $2,018. going into 2010, it was about

$780 billion. go into 2015, it was $532 billion or something like that. so it was about a reduction of 25% in the defense budget in a five-year period. that's never happened before in the history of this country, and yet we have suffered through and we have paid dearly for it. a lot of people are not aware of it. unless you're on the committee. if you are on the armed services committee, you know this because you see it. and see -- so we -- when the current president came in, president trump, his budget boosted that back up to now talking about real dollars, it was $700 billion in fiscal year 2018. then in fiscal year 2019, it was $716 billion. now we're getting into where we are today in the current budget. we passed a defense authorization bill. in the defense authorization bill, it actually came out to agreeing that we had to get to

$750 billion. you might ask why. well, we had a thing that was called the defense system, it was a document that was really a good document. it talked about how we're going to -- because during the obama administration, we saw china and russia become peer competitors in many areas. in fact, they ended up with some things that were better than us. just an example. artillery during that period of time. both china and russia have us outranged and outgunned. how many people know that? people assume that america has the best of everything. well, that was true up until that time. air defense. only two active duty battalions. no new technological advancement. nothing happened during that period of time, and that allowed china and russia to start creeping up and getting ahead of us. nuclear triad modernization. we had no modernization increase

at that time, but russia and china did. in fact, china actually has today a nuclear triad, and russia is actually building one. but electronic warfare. the united states defense against -- we didn't have that kind of a defense. russia -- you remember what happened in ukraine. hypersonics. now, hypersonics is kind of the newest thing that people talk about. it's a type of a weapon system. it moves at five times the speed of sound. it's something that is the weapon system of the future. now, prior to that past administration, prior to the obama administration, we were ahead in our research on hypersonics, but at the end of it and up until this new administration came in, we were actually behind russia and china. i only say that because we

really took a hit, and the only time that we have had three opportunities, one fiscal 2018, one fiscal 2019, and the other on the budget we are going to be voting on this coming week, that was our opportunity to catch up. i would say this, if you're on the armed services committee, you have an obligation of knowing the deficiencies we have. others don't have this -- i think many of the members take the time and they find out that they can get this done. but we're in a position where general dunford as an example. he said we lost our qualitative and our quantative edge in artillery. china -- we're actually outnumbered five to one by china and ten to one by russia. air and missile defense, china and russia have weapons that prevent access. we call them s.a.m.'s,

surface-to-air missiles. nuclear modernization, no real u.s. modernization took place during that time. and so we had some of our top people admitting that we had deficiencies and we quickly tried to correct them. along came fiscal year 2018. we got back up to a $700 billion budget, and we started working on things. we had the manual. it's a manual. i normally take this down with me to the floor when we talk about this manual because this is something that everyone agreed the manual was put together. it was an s.d.s. manual. it was put together by 12 democrats and 12 republicans all experts in national defense. and everyone agreed that would be our blueprint to pull us out of where we were at that time. and it was working. we were on schedule to do it. and we're currently close -- with this budget on schedule.

it says that while we're rebuilding our military, we should be anticipating that we have to increase our military spending by between 2% and 3% over this period of time. that's a net increase. well, the budget we came up with in the defense authorization bill was $750 billion, and it was a budget that was, almost gets us there but not quite. the president's budget that came out just the other day, that has that figure at $738 billion, and that's a, you know, that's very close to where we're supposed to be. and it's a two-year budget. that's a good thing for the military. we understand that. those of us on the defense committee. so that brings that $738 billion up to $740 billion, so very close to the $750 billion.

and i only say that because that makes it more important for anyone who is serving on the defense authorization, on the senate armed services committee to be in a position to know what i've just said. and that's something that most people don't know, and i don't believe that most of the members of this body know it. but those who are on the committee, they do know it. and we have to keep in mind that this budget is going to be the only way that we're going to be able to do what needs to be done. this is the short version. i'm going to come back and talk about this this coming monday and give a lot more details than we gave now, but i would just say this, that i would encourage any member of the senate armed services committee to understand that they're in a position to know what the problem is, and a lot of other people do not know that. i would anticipate that members of the committee would be in that unique position to know and

would be supporting a budget that gives us enough room to get back into position to recover from the losses that we took from the previous administration. that's what's at stake. that's what we're anticipating. and i would anticipate that our members of the committee should be doing that. with that, i'll yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator for ohio. mr. portman: mr. president, i'm on the floor this afternoon to talk about an issue that i've come to this floor other times to speak about, and that's the drug crisis we face in this country. in fact, i'm told over the last three years i've come to the floor 58 times to address this topic, talk about the opioid crisis, talk about the new resurgence of crystal meth, talk about what wiek do about it we've made a lot of progress, doing something about it. we put new policies in place at the federal level for better prevention, better treatment, better long-term recovery and also to help our first responders and specifically to give them access to this miracle drug in a lock sown which

reverses the effects of an overdose. congress put in place the cures legislation and the stop act. we've provided actually more than $4 billion of additional funding for these programs, particularly for treatment, just over the last few years. until ohio, we've received $140 million for care and cures since they were signed into law. that money has gone toward innovative evidence-based programs that are actually making a difference. we had to do this. you know why? because this crisis has gripped our country in the worst drug epidemic ever. more people are now dying every year from overdoses from these drugs than died in the entire vietnam conflict as an example. we've never seen anything quite this bad. so we've responded, as we should have, at the national level to a national crisis, and working with states, localities, nonprofits, people out there in the trenches doing the hard work. we're beginning to make a difference. last week the center for disease

control, c.d.c., issued a report, their latest statistics on overdose deaths. and while drug overdose deaths are still way too high, way too high, they show we're actually seeing a reduction. by the way, this is the first time we've seen a reduction in the opioid overdose deaths in more than eight years. so think about that every year for eight years we've seen increases in death to the point we had over 70,000 people dying a year. 70,000 people dying a year of overdoses in 2017. in 2018 we now have the numbers in from c.d.c., it went from 71,000 roughly to 68,000 roughly. now again, way too high. no one should be satisfied with that but after increases every year to have a 4% decrease nationally shows we're beginning to turn the tide. let's keep doing what we're doing. we cannot pull back now. if we do it will go back up

again. actually it's the first time since 1990, i'm told, that nationwide overdoses from any kind of drugs decreased in a calendar year, first time since 1990. in ohio, by the way, we did better from 20717 -- 2017 to 2018. we had a 22% drop in ohio. that's partly because in my home state we've been ground zero for this. to go 22% below where we were the previous year is progress and we should be proud of that. but still we're seeing overdose rates way too high. around the country 33 states had reductions. as i said earlier, the area we've made the most progress is in combatting opioids partly because of the legislation we passed here. particularly we have tried to address this issue of prescription drugs, heroin, fentanyl. "the washington post," by the way, recently published a stunning analysis showing why it's so important we continue to

push back and how we got here. they showed for the six years between 2006 and 2012, that there were absolutely unbelievably high shipments of prescription pain medications. oxycodone and hydrocodone accounts for 33% of the total shipts shipments to pharmacies. in a c.v.s. pharmacy outside of ohio, more than 6 million pills. one small pharmacy over 6 million pills. overall over that period more than 3.6 billion prescription pain pills were supplied to ohio. that's billion, with a "b." that an astounding number. during those six years there was approximately 313 opioid prescription pain pills prescribed for every single man, woman, and child in ohio.

that's how, what we're talking about here. so obviously this was used as a way for people to take these pills and spread them not just in ohio, but in other places and causing immense harm, because people got addicted to these pills and turned to heroin, fentanyl, and many of these people are the people who not just have an addiction but end up having overdoses and many of them also dying. this week the largest civil trial in u.s. history will begin in my home state of ohio. i think appropriately that it's in ohio. and this will consolidate cases from around the country. more than 2,000 cities, counties, native american tribes and others will sue some of the biggest pharmaceutical companies and major distributors for their role in this drug crisis. so the pharmaceutical companies and the distributors are going to be sued in court in ohio through a consolidated case, the biggest civil trial, they say, in the history of our country. two of the ohio plaintiff

counties, cie ho ga county and summit -- cuyahoga and summit county are part of this lawsuit. in 2016 the death rate from pharmaceuticals, opioids, pain pills in cuyahoga county was 3.26 times the national average. in summit county, so many people died in overdoses that a mobile morgue had to be created in order to help process the bodies. i was there in summit county during that time period. they actually had to bring in a mobile unit to be able to deal with all the overdose deaths. the more we find out about the sheer pain of the pills that these drug companies pumped into the united states, more than 76 billion overall during that period -- 76 billion pills, that's with a "b" -- the more it is clear that lawsuits likes this are going to be necessary to get to the bottom of what happened and require these entities to help those affected by these pain pills. a lot of these people turned to other substances that were more accessible and less expensive like heroin but it started with

an addiction to pain medication. we are pushing back against the opioid pill industry that flourished for too long within our borders and that's a positive sign. while the c.d.c. showed an overall decrease in deaths there are troubling trends that have continued. first, while the number of opioid overdose deaths fell, the number of overdose deaths related to synthetic opioids, specifically, cheap and dangerous fentanyl, actually rose. so heroin, prescription drugs went down. but actually for the synthetic opioid which is 5 times -- 50 times more powerful than heroin, and unfortunately produced overseas and shipped into our country, those actually rose. fentanyl deaths actually rose. in fact, last year more deaths were attributed to fentanyl than to heroin and to prescription drugs combined. fentanyl, the big new danger. overall progress but with l fentanyl getting worse. we had a report last week of a

single kilo of fentanyl being seized in middle town ohio, enough of the drug to kill a half a million people. this was in our community, middle town, ohio. enough of the drug to kill more than a half million people. we're beginning to push back on fentanyl through legislation, including one called the stop act that we got passed in this chamber and in the house. this is doing a better job of keeping this poison from coming through our u.s. mail system which is where most of it has been coming from. our own postal system has been the conduit for this poison, most of it coming from one country. china. produced in chemical labs there by unscrupulous scientists, chemists and then sent through the mail. the 2019 audit by the inspector general of the postal service found that the postal service identified and pulled a package requested by customs and border protection 88% of the time. that's an improvement from only 79% of the time the year before, 2017, and only 67% in

2016. but they are still not complying with the stop act because the stop act says 100%. not 88%. why is that important? this stuff is coming through the mail. if customs and border protection can identify these packages and screen them and pull them off-line, less of that poison comes into our neighborhoods. but also it raises the price of this product which is part of the problem right now is it not just powerful and deadly, it's also inexpensive. they said the postal service missed 12% due to operational errors. we -- we need to ensure that all packages have the kind of information we need to track potentially harmful packages. it is electronic data. the stop act requires the postal service to do that, including 100% of all packages mailed from china. it was required by december 31

last year and the postal service informed us at the permanent subcommittee on investigations where we investigated this over many months, that they received data on 52.8% on all international packages and 70.7% from china. in 2019, march of this year, they were up to 58% and 80%. let's get to 100% from china and 70% from other countries. there's no excuse for not meeting this. it's the law of the land. while they are improving, the process is taking too long and they failed to meet the requirements in the stop act. the next part of the stop act is for the postal service to refuse shipments without the electronic data that says where it's from and what's in it and where it's going. that is any package received after december 31, 2020.

so at the end of next year, if they are not providing the data, we will refuse the package. now, a lot of people expressed concern about that to me. it will stop international freight back and forth. well, no, it's going to require the post office to do what they should be doing already and require the shippers to do what they should be doing which is provide the data. it's not hard. it's not expensive. again, most people are doing it. and, by the way, fedex, d.h.l., u.p.s., the private carriers have done it for years. they did it based on a law passed after the 9/11 attacks. it's our post office that has not. they viewed it as a competitive advantage. they don't have to require that. but, you know what, it's too important for us and to the deaths from fentanyl. so we have to improve the screening in the mail and we are and will continue to make progress on that. that's not all we have to do of course. more fentanyl is coming from other places, particularly across the southern border.

this is very concerning because we have gaps on our southern border right now. they say between 40% and 60% of the border patrol agents are being pulled off the border to deal with the humanitarian christ crisis on the border. i was there a week ago last friday. i had an opportunity to speak to a number of border patrol agents who were processing individuals, dealing with the humanitarian needs of the surge of families and children, including those claiming asylum, and we need to have these people attending to the humanitarian needs and processing these individuals. but i will tell you when i talked to the border patrol about it, that's not where they want to be. they want to do their job. they know these drugs are coming in when they are not out there with a watchful eye on our borders. unfortunately we're in a situation right now where we need more humanitarian aid, which we finally provided, thank goodness, but we also need more help on the border itself to close some of these gaps. i want to be sure that we are, indeed, dealing with both issues and we can and should.

the drug smugglers affiliated with the mexican cartels are pretty smart. they know when there's a gap and they take advantage of it and they are bringing in more fentanyl. last year the border and customs seized 1,400 pounds of fentanyl. the first half they have seized more than 2,000 pounds of fentanyl. it has headed to more than a doubling of fentanyl apprehended coming into the border. i will tell you we don't know how much is coming in. nobody does. but because of these gaps, because of border patrol having been pulled off the border to deal with the crisis to deal with the humanitarian issue and the flux of people coming in, there are more gaps. so the numbers of those shipments apprehended is bad enough. more a -- more than a doubling

and enough fentanyl to kill millions of people. but it's probably worse than that. this fentanyl is increasingly being laced into other drugs by the cartels because the fentanyl makes you so likely to become addicted, they put it in other things, including crystal meth, including cocaine, including heroin. individuals consuming anything right now that's a street drug might be unknowingly ingesting fentanyl also and risking your life because of the overdose deaths. in ohio due to methamphetamines has increased. as an example, columbus public health released a public alert this week urging anyone who uses drugs or knows someone who uses drug to have the miracle, known as narcan that reverses the effects of opioids. they say you have to have this miracle drug on hand because of

the fentanyl poison going on. so this issue of fentanyl is very real and it's affecting our communities in new ways, and we've got to be able to respond flexibly to what's happening. it remains to be a threat. also complicating the recovery process is the continued resurgence of psychostimulants, particularly crystal meth. and crystal meth is coming from where? across the border from mexico. you probably remember the talk of meth labs in communities and you have seen coverage of that and meth labs may have been in your neighborhood. methamphetamines were so dangerous. there are no meth labs in your neighborhood. that's the good news and the reason why is because this stuff coming from mexico is cheaper and more powerful.

more devastating to our communities. so it's a concern, and the latest c.d.c. data on overdose deaths with regard to opioids particularly is very hopeful, but the overdose deaths by psychostimulants and cocaine continues to increase, and, again, that's because fentanyl is mixed into these psychostimulants. methamphetamine deaths increased by nearly 30% in all 42% of overdose deaths contributed to one involved cocaine or psychostimulants or fentanyl or both. that's the problem that we have to address. while we continue to fight the opioid abuse, i released a bill called combating meth and cocaine act to address this resurgeance to ensure in congress we are responding to it and not waiting until we have another huge drug crisis with a new way to mix drugs or a new

resurgence of crystal meth. today's grant called the state opioid response grants have been used to increase access to in a lacks own -- nay loks own, but for alled good the grants have done, they can't address the crisis of opioids which ignores the on the ground reality in my state and so many other states. earlier this year i participated with leaders in knox county. in knox county, the prosecutor's office said that most offenses clued methamphetamines. they said they have used the response grants to help with recovery services but it's not effective with regard to meth. because there's not an effective way to treat meth with drugs as you can with opioids. there's not an effective way to

use narcan with meth as you can with opioids. we need to provide the communities with the help they need to combat this new resurgence. the state grants will focus on methamphetamines and cocaine usage. more flexibility is important. we know these funds are making a difference so the bill will reauthorize the state response grant, giving certainty and providing the $5 million annually needed to ensure there is a funding stream. this is a simple, commonsense change. it will allow state and local organizations the flexibility they need to fight what is quickly becoming a two-front war on addiction, opioids and psychostimulants coming back with a vengeance. the latest data from the c.d.c. is a promising sign that we can and will recover from the drug crisis if we continue working to give those who need the help back on their feet. we need to ensure that we don't

rest on our laurels as cartels continue to innovate themselves to try different angles. there's so much money in this that those deadly drugs will come. they will continue to send our drugs through the postal system if they can, they will continue to send them through the intoarp -- southern border and we have to work here on a bipartisan basis to ensure that state and local governments get the resources they need to stem the tide. the federal government has been a better partner over the last few years with our states, with our localities and the nonprofits doing the hard work this the trenches. we can't give up now. the numbers with the c.d.c. are good with opioids, but that means we need to redouble our efforts to make sure that we not back off. we have to continue to focus on what we're doing and add to that with more flexible responses to the new resurgence, fentanyl

being mixed with meth, crystal meth coming if directly from mexico, this new drug, reality is one that must be met with the same kind of innovative response we've done in the last few years. with that, mr. president, i yield back my time.

the presiding officer: the senator for colorado. mr. bennet: is there a quorum call? the presiding officer: there is not a quorum call. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today after ten years in the senate when i have endured speech after speech after speech on this floor claiming that the republican party is the party of fiscal discipline. it is a politics that created

something during the depths of the worst recession called the tea party that were rallying all over america to stop what they said was runaway spending. when i got here, i actually believed that the republican party was a fiscally responsible party, that there was some principle behind it. today i know better. i was not naive. it is all about politics. there have been five budget deals since 2013 between the majority leader, mitch mcconnell, and whoever happened to be in the white house. these deals were meant to overcome the i -- overcome the

across the board cuts that were created by the sequester, which nobody in america understands but are basically across the board cuts on spending that otherwise would be an investment in your family, maybe, or an investment in our military, agreed to as part of the fiscal cliff deal in the dark of night, voted on it at 2:00 in the morning -- 2:00 a.m. when nobody had actually read the bill and ever since then politicians in washington have been making deals to try to overcome it. and when president obama was president, this is how much money he was allowed to spend. since donald trump has been president, this is the money that the republicans have spent.

this is the -- the red is defense and the blue is nondefense. under president obama, the deals increased by an average of $ 33 billion above the sequester. the two deals under donald trump increased spending by $154 billion, four times as much, four times as much. at a moment when the president is saying our economy is the best it's ever been in american history, and the result of this is that under donald trump, the deficit has increased by 15% each year. the deficit just between last year and this year is up by 23% as a result of the republican majority in the senate and donald trump.

we're on track to run $1 trillion deficits every year as far as the eye can see. that's after ten years of economic growth and unemployment below 4%. at no time in our history have deficits been this large outside of a major war or recession which brings pe to my second slide. -- brings me to my second slide, mr. president. this is the annual spending growth around here. this is the annual spending growth around here of defense and nondefense. it's both in here. under president obama in his first term, the spending went up 3%. we were in the worst recession since the great depression. he had to pass the recovery act. that's in this number. that is in this number. it was at the depths of the

worst recession since the great depression. three million americans lost their homes. nine million americans lost their jobs. we had a 10% unemployment rate, mr. president, not a 4%, not a 3 in change but a 10%. in the name of fiscal responsibility, republicans did nothing except berate the president for trying to save the economy, for what he was trying to do. i'll come to that in a moment. this includes the recovery act. overall growth, annual spending growth grew by 3% during president obama's first term. it fell by 2% during president obama's second term. it has gone up by 4% during

trump's first term. it has increased more under this republican president. admittedly he's not a conservative. it has grown more under this republican president than it did when president obama was trying to save the economy during the worst recession since the great depression. this 3% number includes the recovery act. the republicans are now growing government spending by more than that, by more than that. here's what they said when they wouldn't lift a finger during the depths of the worst recession. congressman mike pence said before he was vice president, we the people dough not consent to run away federal spending. we the people do not consent to the notion that we can borrow and spend and bail our way back to a growing america. he said that to a tea party rally here in washington, d.c.

that was here to stop runaway spending. where are they today? it's worse today than it ever was under president obama. far worse. not a little bit worse because you know what's not included on this slide are the tax cuts that have never paid for themselves and are not paying for themselves here. donald trump and the republicans have created $2 trillion of deficit spending because of the tax cuts and $2 trillion of deficit spending because of the spending. by the way, they're not actually spending this money in a sense. they are borrowing all of it from our children. they have not paid for a dollar of it, not one dollar. they're borrowing it from the pages that are here. they're borrowing it from the children of cops, teachers, and firefighters.

that's who they're borrowing it from to give tax cuts to rich people, to make our economic inequality greater. congressman mick mulvaney, not the president's chief of staff talking about the obama administration's budget at the time. it's hard to explain how detached from reality that is, to think that the country can spend another $1.6 trillion when it doesn't have the means. it means either you haven't been paying attention or you don't care. he's the president's chief of staff. he's the president's budget director. if that was runaway spending, how is this not runaway spending? the junior senator from texas said the -- said the debt is out of control and is jeopardizing the future of our kids. i have two little kids who are 4 and 2 and the idea of handing them a $16 trillion debt i think is immoral. really? what about $24 trillion? what about $30 trillion?

is that more moral than $16 trillion? really? former speaker paul ryan, we will end up with a grease-like situation on our hands, a debt crisis is coming to the country, he said. that's what he said here. admittedly he left in the middle of a government shutdown never to come back to washington, d.c. d.c., a fitting end to a decade of fiscal fights and shutdowns and ge. closures -- and government closures all done in the name of fiscal responsibility, never actually achieving it, never ever actually achieving it only for the opportunity to spend like this. i can't tell you the number of times i've heard about this on this floor. the debt and deficit is just getting out of control and the administration is still pumping through billions and trillions of new spending. our debt is out of control.

what was a fiscal challenge is now a fiscal crisis, said paul ryan. we cannot deny it. instead we must as americans confront it responsibly and that is exactly what the republicans pledge to do. that is exactly what the republicans pledge to do. they immobilized our government. they shut it down over and over and over again in the name of fiscal responsibility. no help to the economy or the next generation. that's the farthest thought from their mind. and after years of obstruction in the name of fiscal responsibility, they nominated donald trump who promised during the campaign to deliver a giant, beautiful, massive tax cut, borrowed all the money for it from working people in this country. there's a mayor in indiana who

wrote a piece about that in the paper that i thought was so instructive. he said that tax plan would be tantamount to my going to my city council and saying, i want to go borrow more money than we've ever borrowed before in the history of our city, of our town, and i'm not going to use it to invest in roads or bridges or the sewers or anything else. i'm just going to take the money we borrowed that our kids are going to have to give back, and i'm going to give it to the richest neighborhood in my town. he said they would ask, would have you been smoking? he promised to pass, quote, one of the largest increases in national defense spending in american history and, quote, not touch social security, medicare, or medicaid. he said he would eliminate not only the deficit -- this is donald trump, the candidate who

the republicans voted for, who fox news, the conservative channel, has supported like -- with hosts that claim they're fiscally responsible. he promised to eliminate not only the deficit but the entire national debt, that immoral debt of $16 trillion that is now climbing to $30 trillion. and the way he was going to do that was by, quote, vigorously eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government, ending redundant government programs and growing the economy as well as by, quote, renegotiating all of our debt deals. he hasn't renegotiated one. he spent more time failing to get a deal with the leader of north korea than trying to address this challenge.

quote, donald trump said, it can be done. it will take place and it will go relatively quickly. if you have the right people like in the agencies and the various people that do the balancing, you can cut the numbers by two pennies. this is the president of the united states of america. you can cut the numbers by two pennies and three pennies and balance a budget quickly and have a stronger and better country. that is ridiculous. that is ridiculous. but it's no more ridiculous than the history of the republican party that supposedly fiscally conservative party, what a joke. going back to 2001, the last time we had a surplus in america

bill clinton was president. he was a democrat. he had a $5 trillion projected surplus over the decade. unimaginable today. unimaginable today. but politicians like us were having discussions about what to do with the surplus, what to do with abundance, how to make social security sol veforts, how to give the middle class -- solvent, how to give the middle class a real tax cut, not a fake tax cut that's masquerading, covering up the tax cut for rich people. but we did none of that. and instead george bush who followed bill clinton cut taxes in 2001, almost all the benefit went to wealthy people. he cut taxes in 2003 and both times just like donald trump said and the majority leader mitch mcconnell said, both

times they said oh, don't worry about it. they'll pay for themselves. a lie. a lie. and the numbers are in the math. it's not about philosophy. this isn't about ideology. this is about the math. and everybody in america can see it because that's what produced the $16 trillion that paul ryan said was so immoral. $8 trillion ago on the way to $30 trillion in debt. and by the way, it's important to know that when this congress voted for those tax cuts in 2003 that were not paid for, the money was all borrowed by the sons and daughters of working people in america, we had troops in iraq and afghanistan. so we didn't even have the decency while we had people at war to pay for those wars or to say the american -- say to the

american people we need to pay for those wars. no, we're not going to pay for those wars, and we're going to borrow the money from america to give tax cuts to rich people. and then president bush on top of that seeking reelection passed medicare part d, the drug program for seniors, paid for none of that either. borrowed all that money from our children, all of it. and there's never been an effort to pay for it since. and then because of their lax regulatory oversight of the housing market, the economy collapsed. the economy collapsed and barack obama was handed not a $5 trillion surplus but a $1.2 trillion deficit from the republicans, from george bush. and during the course of his presidency, we had to weather the first recession since the great depression and the worst it ever got around here was $1.5 trillion on the deficit and the

other side called him a bolshevik and socialist and well meaning people from all over, wall street and other places came down here and said fix the debt. fix the debt. where are they today? where are they today? and by the time he left, president obama had cut the deficit by more than half, by more than half. every one of these deals has been cut by mitch mcconnell. every single one. so it didn't surprise me at all this week that he was reported in "the washington post" to have said to the president that, quote, no politician has ever lost an election spending more money. no politician has ever lost an election spending more money, said the republican majority leader to the president. i can't think of a more bolshevik statement than that,

to use terms that the other side has been using for ten years. i can't think of a more irresponsible position than that, when we are not in the deputies of a recession -- depth of a resession, when 10 million people haven't lost therapy, when the economy, according to the president, is the best economy we've ever had. this is the moment we should be securing our future. this is the moment we should be preparing for another foreign engagement. and because of these deals that have been led by mitch mcconnell, the republican leader from kentucky, when you add it all up, not only do we have this extraordinary deficit that we've never seen in the country's history -- i ask indulgence for one additional minute. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. but since 2001, we have cut

taxes by $5 billion. we spent $5.6 trillion on wars in the middle east. we didn't pay for a single calendar of this. that's $11 trillion and $12 trillion that we should have september to fix every road and bridge in america, that could have fixed every airport in america that needs it, that could have made ask consent solvent for my children's children. and for the other children of the people that came out here and said we're here to immobilize the democratic president in the name of fiscal year but now we know the level of their fiscal hypocrisy. it knows no end. if there's one benefit of this, if there's onist about of this, the american people are -- the presiding officer: the juror's time has expired. mr. bennet: i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the

clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, general mark a. milley to be chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. the presiding officer: question occurs on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: