the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. o god, you are our god. we can stay composed even in a storm

because of your presence. we need you and stay thirsty for you, for your power and glory uplift us. give our lawmakers the gift of your steadfast love, blessing them beyond all that they can ask or imagine. may they praise your name each day. as they depend on you, empower them to confront life's challenges and hardships, knowing that they are never alone. lord, satisfy their souls with good things, transforming the mundane into the meaningful. purify their heart,

revealing to them your plans for the prosperity of our nation and world. we pray in your loving name, amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., july 25, 2018. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom cotton, a senator from

the state of arkansas, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: orrin g. hatch, president pro tempore. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i spoke yesterday about the bipartisan cooperation that's made it possible for us to return to regular appropriations process. collaboration got the four measures we're now considering through the subcommittee and full committee process thanks to the efforts of chairman shelby, senator leahy and subcommittee leaders senators murkowski, collins. bipartisan let us turn to the legislation by consent and kick off the amendment process with several votes yesterday. if we can keep it up, we'll soon take four more big steps toward our goal. funding the federal government the right way and avoiding another omnibus. yesterday i mentioned the legislation before us addresses two pressing national needs.

rebuilding america's infrastructure and bolstering the fight against opioids. but that's far from the whole story. these measures cover about one eighth of the total discretionary spending for next year. they fund a long list of key services that americans depend on every day, everything from food safety inspections to child nutrition programs to the forest service and national parks. communities in all 50 states are connected to this legislation. here are a few of the provisions that will be particular cause for celebration in my home state of kentucky. $37,000,000,000 toward rural development, including support for rural businesses and loans and grants to improve rural infrastructure for electricity, telephone, and broadband internet in communities in kentucky and all across the country. another $1,000,000,000 in grants to help communities invest in

highways, bridges, and other infrastructure projects with a guarantee that 30% of this funding would go to rural areas. more funding for the abandoned mine land pilot ram that helps communities reclaim abandoned coal mines and put that land to better use. more funding and a sharper federal focus on controlling the invasive asian carp that threaten local prosperity and water safety in kentucky lake and lake barkley in western kentucky. and more help for kentuckians who battle the scourge of opioids every day. the legislation funds the f.d.a.'s efforts to intercept illegal drugs, the d.e.a.'s program for high intensity trafficking areas, and increase training for first responders. it also contains a provision i secured directing the department of department of housing and urban development to direct more access to transitional housing opportunities for individuals recovering from substance abuse

disorder. i could go on, mr. president. the ways the bill before us would assist families in communities across kentucky are practically countless. the same is true for every state in our country. that's why every member understands the importance of appropriations. funding the federal government, matching resources with urgent challenges is one of congress' most important responsibilities. i'm proud of the appropriations process that's under way, and i'm especially proud of all the ways the resulting legislation will deliver for the american people. now, on another matter, mr. president, we're discussing the difference between rhetoric and results when it comes to our economy. yesterday i described how my democratic friends spent the obama years talking about the importance of rebuilding american manufacturing. they talked about it. but it's the actions of this united republican government that have made it easier for manufacturers to expwandz and to

hire. it's on our watch that optimism among u.s. manufacturers has hit the highest level one survey has ever recorded. well, it turns out there are quite a few areas where this republican government is helping to deliver victories that our democratic friends spent eight years talking about. in his 2,010 state of the union, president obama proclaimed that job growth would be the number one focus of the coming year. he said the true engine of job creation in this country will always be america's businesses. and that government's role was to create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and to hire more workers. recognizing american job creators as the true engines of prosperity giving them room to succeed, sounds good to me. sounded good to almost everyone, in fact. but once again the policies didn't match the rhetoric. instead the obama administration twice said all -- set all-time records for the number of pages in the federal register. and those pages had

consequences. by constantly moving the regulatory goal post, government eroded the certainty of businesses need to invest and to hire. washington, d.c. restricted farmers and ranchers' control over water on their own property. bureaucrats overwhelmed small banks and credit unions with a rule book designed for wall street. and an outdated federal tax code held back job creation and made america much less competitive. on democrats' watch, democrat -- americans had to wait out an economic recovery that was insufficient, slow, and left whole parts of the economy way behind. remember the rhetoric and then remember the facts. republicans have always agreed that job creation must be a top priority. we have a better idea about how to actually help make it happen. the republican congress has used the congressional review act to slash 17 burdensome regulations.

that's on top of the administration's own executive actions. we passed and the president has signed major changes to obamacare and to dodd-frank and we passed generational tax reform that puts more hard-earned money in the pockets of working families and gives job creators more flexibility. so what's happening on our watch? just a few days ago the number of americans newly filing for unemployment benefits hit his lowest level in more than 48 hours. let me say that again. newly filing for unemployment benefits hit its lowest level in more than 48 years. here's how cnn characterized the labor department's most recent jobs report. the u.s. economy keeps adding jobs at a blistering pace. the job market is so good, many people who had previously given up looking are starting to look again. and according to gallop, the percentage of americans saying now is a good time to find a quality job hit its highest level in 17 years.

not just rhetoric, mr. president, but actual results. due to the hard hard work of american workers and job creators with an assist from this republican government, unfortunately this pro-growth agenda hasn't gotten much support from across the aisle. not a single democrat, not one voted for the tax reform that has helped turn rhetoric about jobs into actual jobs. hardly any democrat support for the regulatory housecleaning that's given job creators more confidence to stay on american soil, grow their businesses, and add jobs. so all of us agree with the rhetoric but not everyone supported the policy agenda that's helped deliver these results for the american people. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

morning business is closed. and under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 6,147 which the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 6,147, an act making appropriations for the department of the interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2,019, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the clerk will please call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. murkowski: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: i request the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: mr. president, we are on day two officially of the second tranche of an appropriations package. we have before us the interior subcommittee appropriations bill, the financial services, the t-hud, transportation, housing, urban development, and agriculture. so it's a good combination. it's a good package. it's a strong package. it is a series of appropriations bill that moved through the full appropriations committee several months back. most of these bills advanced either unanimously as the interior can subcommittee appropriations bill did or with

a strong, strong bipartisan show of support out of committee. for those who have fald the appropriations process over the years, you know that is somewhat unprecedented, to be able to advance these spending bills through the full committee process, much less to do so in a manner that surely shows the bipartisan approach that this committee has taken in this fiscal year. i want to acknowledge and recognize the work of chairman shelby and his vice chairman, senator leahy from vermont, for the truly collaborative process that they have encouraged all of us to work towards. there was an agreement and understanding that our appropriations process has not been the model of good governance, of legislating that we would like it to be, that we expect it to be, and that our colleagues expect it to be, much

less the american public. so with a very determined effort, the group of the appropriators who came together earlier made a very strong and a firm commitment that we were going to get this process back on track, and with the leadership of the chairman and the vice chairman, that's exactly where we are. we were able to move a smaller minibus, if you will, a month ago. that is now moving through that conference process. not an easy process, we recognize, but nothing around here is easy. if it's worth doing and doing well, it's going to take a little bit of work. well, we have done that work, and to be here, the 25th of july, to be at a place where the senate is poised to advance seven of the appropriations bills out of the senate is

really quite unprecedented. i noted in my remarks on the floor on monday evening that it's the first time since 2010 we have seen an interior appropriations subcommittee bill brought to the floor of the united states senate. that's a long time. that's too long a time to not have a full sum process, a process where we can not only demonstrate the good work that we as appropriators have done but that our colleagues that are not on the committee can also view that good work, weigh in, offer their thoughts, offer their amendments, and be part of the broader whole process. so how did we get here from there, from a point where we effectively were not legislating as we know we are capable of doing? there was a -- there was an agreement, a commitment that we were going to stand down on some

of the more controversial riders. in other words, those initiatives that were not actual appropriations but more in line with being authorizing within the appropriations bill. and there has been a history around here that we have seen a level of authorization and sometimes that level of authorization on an appropriations bill has created enough controversy that it ground the whole process to a halt. so standing down on some of these initiatives, some of these riders has been an important part of how we have come to be where we are today. we talk about the need to keep out the poison pills. well, we have joked -- and it's not really a joke, it's the reality -- one member's priority is another member's poison pill,

so how do we work our way through that process? we will have an opportunity to take up, at least for discussion, some of those priorities that may be significant and members have a great deal of desire to see them advance, and members on the other side will look at that and say that's -- that's too toxic. can't go there, can't do that. so how we navigate through that. we'll take a little bit of legislating. but i would ask members, i would urge members please come to us, as your bill managers, whether for the interior appropriations issues, for the financial services issues. senator lankford is the chairman of that committee, senator hoeven on ag and senator collins on transportation, housing, urban development, on t-hud. come to us with your issues, your concerns, your amendments. let's work them through.

let's get them through the process. yesterday, we were able to advance four amendments. some might say, well, that's not very much, but i would suggest to you that we are getting started, we are getting started in a good way, a positive way, an encouraging way, and we want to encourage that good forward activity. we all know that the most prized commodity around here is time and floor time, so we don't have unlimited time on the floor to take up this package of measures. so help us, help us get to that point where we can work through those issues that we need to bring to the floor that will require a vote. we will help you and do so in a way that i think will do honor to the appropriations process, do honor to the legislative process. again, what we know around here

to be regular order, although unfortunately i think we have seen regular order has been less and less regular, it's become extraordinary because we just don't practice it enough. we want to get back to that. and we have the opportunity to do so. we have demonstrated that with one package. we're in the midst of demonstrating that this week. and i look forward to the full cooperation of members as we advance. i see that my friend and colleague, the vice chairman of the appropriations committee, is here on the floor again. i want to acknowledge his great leadership working with chairman of the full committee to really get us back to a place where we can be proud of our process. with that, i yield to my friend, the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i would simply say to the senator from alaska, having served -- having had the honor of serving here with both her

father and with picture former chair of the appropriations committee, senator stevens, and i hear her saying things that are very similar to what i have heard both of them say. i will say that perhaps senator stevens, rest his soul, would say it with a little bit more emphasis, especially if he is wearing his incredible hulk tie. but the senator from alaska is one of those who believes in the senate working the way it should and getting things done. i want to compliment her, her efforts. senator shelby and i had made a pact that we would try to get these appropriations bills through because they have been stalled for years. and the senator from alaska has

essential, as were a number of senators on both sides of the aisle, in getting that accomplished. we got our bills through. almost all of them passed the appropriations committee unanimously. i joke that sometimes you can't get a unanimous vote around here that the sun will rise in the east, but here was a case where we showed it did that. and the senator from alaska is absolutely right that one person's poison pill may be another person's essential. but we've worked it out. and if we can get the appropriations bills through -- and -- i realize the other body is going on a six-week vacation. but i would hope that maybe some of them would stay around. we're going to be here. we could conference some of

these bills and get them passed. i think it would encourage the country to see both bodies do what we've done here in the senate, but it also would make the government run better. i share the frustration of heads of departments whether in this administration or any other administration who can't see -- never know whether their appropriation is going to pass. how do they plan? how do they spend money? where do they go? we're making it work. i see the distinguished democratic leader on the floor. i did want to compliment the senator from alaska for her efforts in making it possible. and i yield the floor. mr. schumer: i thank my friend -- the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: i thank my friend and colleague from vermont for

yielding and my colleague from alaska as well for allowing me to interrupt their very important and bipartisan debate. now, mr. president, eight years ago when elena kagan caying was nominated to the supreme court, senate republicans said we must get all of her documents from the clinton library and have enough time to analyze them so we can determine whether she should be a justice. the republican leadership did not say, some of the documents. they did not say, a subset of the documents. they did not say, the documents for just one administrative job. they said, all of her documents. and i showed this letter yesterday to my friend, the now-chairman of the judiciary, mr. grassley, senator grassley. he said it is totally different. now, he is a man of integrity, but i know sometimes he gets twisted by his leadership and

the president to do things that aren't consistent. and this is one of them. because the republicans didn't ask for only certain documents. they asked for all. and we are asking for all. this is one of the most important positions in the world and certainly in america. shouldn't we know everything? not just some of the stuff -- and some of the stuff that the white house wants us to know -- but everything. so our friends on the other side of the aisle demanded all of her documents for justice elena kagan. democrats agreed. it was the right thing to do. and because elena kagan had nothing to hide, she went happily forward and said, go right ahead. now republicans ought to do the same thing for judge kavanaugh, particularly if he has nothing to hide. for the last week, senator feinstein has been ready to jointly request the same documents of judge kavanaugh that republicans demanded of

justice kagan. but our republican colleagues are dragging their feed and refuse -- their feet and refusing to agree. they are the reason this whole activity has been slowed down. it's not democratic obstruction. it's democratic desire for transparency and openness, which republicans are blocking. they are being the obstructionists. now, the republicans' rationale -- they downplay judge kavanaugh's role as white house staff secretary. they argue we don't need to see documents from that part of his career, although they have no argument against it. they think we don't need them. we think we do. why not show them to us? and here is what judge kavanaugh himself said. he said that, quote, my three years as staff secretary for president bush were the most interesting and in many ways the most instructive. kavanaugh himself says that the

very documents that we want to see and republicans are blocking us from seeing are the most instructive. shouldn't the american people see the writings of what their own nominee calls the most instructive? as staff secretary, kavanaugh said he, quote, participated in the process of putting together legislation, unquote. he drafted and revised executive orders. he consulted on judicial nominations, including the replacement of chief justice rehnquist. isn't that something we'd want to know what his thoughts were about who should be a justice? wouldn't that really inform us of what kind of justice he might be? he was one of the most senior officials in the bush white house, one of only 17 out of hundreds of presidential aides who was paid the maximum white house salary. i'm sure he deserved it. that's not the issue. the issue was he was an extremely high-ranking official there.

this is not looking when he was some clerk. it was a major, defining part of his career. and so here we go. once again republicans are against transparency, are against the full record for one of the most powerful positions in the world that will last a lifetime. all of this stonewalling on getting judge kavanaugh's records from his time as staff secretary raises the question -- it looms -- what are judge kavanaugh and the republicans hiding? why are republicans hiding his full record from the senate and the american people? what don't they want us to see? what don't they want the american people to see? is there something there so damning that it might defeat judge kavanaugh's nomination? if there is, we're entitled to see it. and if there's not, then what's

the problem moving forward? just last week we saw our republican colleagues defeat a judicial nomination based on something that nominee wrote in college. are they really going to turn right around and say that the nominee for the highest court in the land doesn't need to release documents that he wrote far later in his career when his views were far more formed? mr. president, this is about transparency. this is about making sure the senate does its job in the right, complete, and open way. democrats have made a completely reasonable request for documents. the same request we agreed to when the shoe was on the other foot. we're being consistent. our republican colleagues are being hypocritical. what's good for them in the minority when president obama nominated someone is not good

for us in the minority when president trump nominates someone. so i tell our -- the old saying in the farmers' almanac and elsewhere -- what's good for the goose is good for the gander applies so, so really in this situation. our request is eminently reasonable. the quickest way to get this nomination moving forward is to get the documents in record. and it's for leader mcconnell and chairman grassley to agree to our request. just today, parenthetically, we saw that the white house doctored the transcript and supposedly the tape of what mr. putin said at the -- right after the president and he met. it was sort of like an autocratic country, a

non-democracy. that's what dictators do; they change the facts and change the record. are our republican colleagues here -- so many of them who've stood for transparency -- going to join this cover-up of records and truth because they don't like the results? that's not america. that's not the america the american people know and love. now, on the farmer bill-out, yesterday president trump announced a $12 billion bailout for farmers who have been hurt by the president's economic policies. obviously the farmers are hurting or the president wouldn't have done this. the drawbacks of this particular policy aside, the bailout is another example of the president chasing his own tail. it's becoming a light motive in this administration. president trump's impulsiveness and incompetence -- his lack of thoroughness and study of an issue -- leads him to act impulsively. he creates a massive problem and

then he's forced to hastily contrive a way to make it look like he's saving the day. the irony of this policy should not be lost on anyone. the president's bailout is like a soviet-style program where the government props up an entire sector of the economy, and that characterization is one that i spoke of this morning to several colleagues, and i've now been told one of my republican colleagues used the same characterization -- soviet-style program. freedom -- freedom caucus, the koch brothers. this is not what even the hard right in america stands for. knowing this administration, they'll design a bailout to help only massive agribusinesses who will use the money for stock buy

backs knowing this administration, family farmers are likely to be left to suffer. it was not so long ago that our republican friends complained bitterly about i picking winners and losers in the market. what's the president doing here? he's picking winners and losers. the president's policies have hurt scores of americans. he proposes a massive bailout in this case but tries to slash health insurance for tens of millions of middle-class americans. he pushes a bailout in this case, but his budgets continue to decimate infrastructure, education, health care, environmental protection, and more. i'd say that's picking winners and losers. the president's -- the bailout is another example of president trump lighting a fire and grabbing the nearest thing off the shelf to douse it and then patting himself on the back as to what a great guy he's been. it's not good policy. it's not good politics.

and it's incredibly telling of this administration's failure to anticipate the consequences of its decisions. and one more point. if you talk to our farmers, they'd rather have long-term contracts and good markets. a bailout and storing all these agricultural products on the shelves will lower prices and cause the people we sell to overseas to find other suppliers and sign contracts with them. in the long term, it's going to make things worse. and where does the bailout stop? what about people who use steel and aluminum? what about other goods that have been targeted by our foreign competitors? are they going to get bailouts too? are we going to -- is it going to go up from $12 billion to $50 billion to $100 billion, and amazingly our republican

colleagues -- this is so against their principles -- are going to go along? we shall see. now, one more point -- russia. after president trump's inexplicable behavior in helsinki last week, many of us were poured to wonder -- were forced to wonder whether president putin had something on president trump because his behavior was so obsequious in front of putin. well, now it seems it's not just a few democrats who are wondering. yesterday's quinnipiac poll showed that 51% of americans believe that the russian government has compromising information about president trump. that's astounding. our leading enemy has information, compromising information, and then our president acts be a is he colloquy usually? whoa! where are we in this chun? let me repeat d. where are we in this country? let me repeat that poll.

a majority of americans believe the russian government has something on president trump. that's astounding. the fact that millions of americans are wondering if our president is compromised by our leading adversary is a message to the white house -- america wants you to be tough with president putin. the president will say, ah, this is fake news. this is made up. well, president trump, if putin has nothing over you, why aren't you being tough with him? the best way to show that putin has nothing over you is if you stand up to him, not be so obsequious and fawning, not invite him here to the white house this fall. no more accepting putin's denials or a consensus of american intelligence. no more ending about over backwards to criticize -- to avoid criticizing putin for interfering in our elections. and no more one-on-one meetings with putin where no one knows --

not the intelligence community, not our military leaders, not the congress, and not least of which the american people -- know what was said or agreed to. so the writing is on the wall for the white house. this white house keeps reaching new lows. the american people, so disturbed by the president's posture towards russia, believe that president trump may be compromised -- compromised by our biggest enemy. i don't think that's ever happened. certainly in my memory, my lifetime. i can't remember an incident in history where this has happened this way. president trump ought to reverse course immediately. he can start by revoking his invitation to president putin to visit the white house this fall. i yield the floor.

i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i request that proceedings under the qurk be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 499, h.r. 2,779. the presiding. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. ms. murkowski: mr. president,,

let's take back that previous request and ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the calendar number 499, s. res. 2,779. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 499, s. 2,779, a bill to amend the zimbabwe democracy and economic recovery act of 2,001. the presiding officer: is there any objection to proceeding to the matter? without objection, the senate will proceed. ms. murkowski: mr. pleader, i ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment be withdrawn, the flake amendment at the desk be agreed to, and the bill as amended be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: is there any objection? without objection. ms. murkowski: i know of no further debate on the bill. the presiding officer: is there any further debate? if not, the question is on

passage of the bill as amended. all in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill as amended is passed. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i'll just take a few moments as we're waiting for greater discussion about our appropriations package that is on the floor. the community of alaska in south central, the peninsula will be celebrating their progress days this weekend. on friday we have a homestead community barbecue where a very special individual will be

recognized as the first female homesteader in sol dotna. when most of us around here think about homesteading, they might go back to when president lincoln signed the homestead act. six million people were able to stake their claim on federal lands. perhaps if you are an alaskan, you recall that homesteading became legal back in 1,898 when president mckinley signed legislation to extend homesteading to what at that time was still the district of alaska. it wasn't decades later until we became a state. what most people didn't realize is that while the days of the wild west are certainly over here in the lower 48, the tradition of homesteading is still very, very much alive and

certainly we see that in alas came. i would like to take a couple of minutes this morning to share the story of an alaskan homesteading icon, marge mullen. again, it is marge who will be recognized this weekend at progress days. in fact, on july 27, it will be recognized by the mayor, mayor anderson. july 27 will be recognized at marge mullen appreciation day. marge was born in chicago in 1,920. according to the peninsula clarion, the local newspaper there on the peninsula, marge claims she remembers seeing an article on alaska homesteading in the chicago daily news in 1,947. the idea must have seemed appealing to her because after she read that article, she and her husband, frank, who was a pilot during world war ii, they

bought a small plane and they headed north to plant their roots. that was quite a trek back in the late 1,940's to fly in a small aircraft. they landed in alaska. they walked 65 miles through some pretty tough terrain and they settled their home study on soldotna creek making marge the first woman to live in soldotna under the homestead act. it wasn't too many years after they arrived in alaska that sadly marge lost her husband, frank, to polio. and it certainly would have been easier at the time for her to just pack up and head back to chicago, but marge was a pretty independent, strong headed woman, and she made that pretty brave choice to remain out on her homestead. and just to kind of paint a picture of what we're talking about back in the early 1,950's,

make sure everybody understands the significance of a decision like that, you can either stay out there in some pretty open and still very wild areas or go back to chicago. homesteading has always been a lifestyle that is based on self-sufficiency. you've got to be able to handle things on your own. it's a difficult task anywhere. it's difficult as we saw the initial homesteaders around the lower 48 states, but some additional challenges perhaps in alaska. some pretty tough winters that you go through, temperatures are somewhat unforgiving in the winter months as we know. marge faced a cost of living that was three to four times higher than she knew down in the lower 48. when you're out there, you live every day knowing that wildlife is just right outside your door and that if something goes

around, there's not a lot of help. there's no aid in the event of an emergency. so whether it is a bear that has threatened you and your family or whether it is just the rigors of living on your own with no assistance, no help, it can be a lonely life, but it can be a very life-building experience. and marge certainly developed that. she learned to hunt on her own, to chop wood, carry water, grow food to safeguard the health, the warmth, and safety of her self and her four children. trust me when i say that marge overcame challenges that many of us, even some hearty alaskans could not imagine. but she overcame those challenges in an alaska that was far less modern than the alaska that our visitors see today. and while marge is widely known as a pioneer homesteader, she's also known throughout the

community of soldotna for many other contributions. she began the town's first roadside litter pickup program so she was involved at a lot of different levels. she served as the chair of the local planning commission. she helped establish the peninsula conservation society. she eventually became its president. in 2,010 marge was honored for her accomplishments when she was rightly inducted into the alaska women's hall of fame. marge's contributions continue today. she is 98. she is revered as soldotna's unofficial historian. she acts as the chair of the local historical society. you have to figure that she knows everything that went on in the region. she was part of everything that went on in the region. she is really history in the flesh bringing the early days of soldotna to life during her teachings and digital lessons.

again, as i mentioned, the soldotna city mayor has proclaimed july 27 as marge mullen appreciation day so as the community of soldotna comes together to celebrate marge's legacy, i think it's only appropriate that we here in the senate should come to know a little bit of her history as well and join in the recognition. so i offer my thanks and my best wishes to marge mullen as she continues influencing her community and the state of alaska. so thank you, mr. president, for letting me share this little bit of a tribute this morning. i see that no members are down on the floor yet. again, i would encourage folks to take a look at the bills that we have in front of us, the interior, the financial services, the ag, and the t-hud. let's have an opportunity to consider the amendments that we

can take up and allow for the process to go forward in a fulsom, constructive way. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reed: mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, as we consider the appropriations minibus this week, i rise to emphasize once again the importance of acknowledging and addressing the threat of interference in our election systems. in particular, congress must address the continuing threat of russian cyberattacks against our democratic institutions. it is difficult to overstate the need to shore up support for democratic institutions here and around the world in light of president trump's recent foreign policy failures. in the last week or so, the president has attempted to derail the nato summit by insulting our allies and demanding that they immediately double their contributions, thrown a wrench into brexit negotiations, and seemingly endorsed a new prime minister for the united kingdom and then embraced russian president vladimir putin in helsinki. president trump stood shoulder to shoulder with president putin

while the world looked on and he chose to take the word of a auto accurate and k.g.b. agent over the assessments of the american intelligence community on russia's interference in our elections. by indulging president putin's fabrications, he also gave credence to putin's propaganda on crimea and syria, russia's use of chemical agents against civilians and its violation of arms control obligations. this failure to stand up for america's interests and those of our allies and partners was a dereliction of the president's responsibilities that will continue to undermine our national security. president trump's erratic and divisive actions are undermining that which makes us strong. our nation and our allies, our partners around the world benefit from the world order that the united states created after world war ii. we draw strength from our allies and from participation in international institutions. we are not weakened by them. we are strengthened by them. while the president later took

low-energy steps to walk back and obfuscate his words on russian interference, he soon took to twitter again to aggressively attempt to discredit investigations into russian election interference and into his own campaign. regardless of what president trump may say or tweet, we must be absolutely clear -- the threat of russian interference in our democracy is not a hoax or a witch hunt, and congress and the states must act now to address the real threat of another foreign intrusion into our elections. indeed, the findings of the intelligence community assessment were clear, and i quote, we assess russian president vladimir putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the united states presidential election, russia's goals that undermine public faith in the united states democratic process, denigrate secretary clinton and harm her electability and potential

presidency. this problem is not behind us either. indeed, president trump should listen to the national security officials that he appointed and a republican-controlled senate confirmed. the director of national intelligence, former republican senator dan coats, issued a simple but multiple public warnings this month, including stating that the warning signs about russia's cyberattacks ahead of our midterm elections are, in his words, blinking red again, akin to before 9/11. last week, f.b.i. director christopher wray stated russia attempted to interfere with the last election and continues to engage in maligning influence operations to this day. when asked last week if russia is still in the united states, the secretary of homeland security said that the united states would be foolish to think that the russians are not. they have the capability, they have the will, we've got to be prepared. the private sector also validates these concerns.

at last week's aspen security forum panel, tom burke, microsoft's vice president of customs, security, and trust, told an audience that microsoft already had detected cyberattacks against three candidates running for congress this fall. these attacks look very much like those phishing attacks that russian agents used against democrats in 20169 so this chamber facing a stark choice. we can listen to the american intelligence community, nonpartisan experts. we can acknowledge the indictments and guilty pleas of 33 people by the special counsel and the ongoing warnings of republican national security officials, all of whom agree that our democracy is under attack, or we can trust the words of vladimir putin, online trolls and conspiracy theorists and president trump who insists in the face of evidence that russia is not attacking our democracy. for my part, i don't believe

that's a very difficult choice. mr. president, securing our elections should not be a partisan issue. election security is not security, and the fiscal year 2018 omnibus included $380 million in state election security grants. all states and eligible territories requested funding. to date, 100% of the funds have been requested and 90% have been dispersed. yet concerns remain. on monday, 20 states attorneys general, including in my state, wrote to the house? and to ask for additional assistance to secure the 2018 midterm elections against cyberattacks. i understand there senator leahy intends to offer an amendment to the financial services and government title of the minibus this week that would provide $250 million in additional state election security grants. these grants could provide

states additional and much-needed resources to update voting equipment and secure election systems. i'm a cosponsor of this amendment and believe that congress should pass it and continue to listen to the states and take further steps to ensure that our foundational democratic institutions are secure against foreign actors. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, earlier this month president trump announced his choice for to fill the vacancy left by the retirement of justice anthony kennedy, and he told us that that nominee would be judge brett kavanaugh, the d.c. circuit court of appeals. during this short period of time, just a little over two weeks, we've seen some of our friends across the aisle attempt to tank judge kavanaugh's confirmation before it really had a chance to get started, certainly before they had a chance to meet him. five of our colleagues across the aisle announced their opposition to any supreme court justice that president trump might nominate, anybody -- fill in the blank. then, once the president chose judge kavanaugh, 15 more fell

into lockstep with the first five, so now we have 20 of our democratic colleagues, before they've even had chance to meet the judge have, announced their implacable opposition. well, i thought that that would pretty much take the cake until i saw reported this morning one of our colleagues across the aisle said, to support judge kavanaugh would make you complicit and evil. well, it's hard to take statements like that seriously. to me, that's completely unhinged and detached from any reality. this is the same judge who was confirmed in 2006 by a substantial bipartisan vote to what many have called the second most important court in the nation. so my advice to some of our

friends across the aisle who are engaged in this kind of superheated rhetoric, my advice is, get a grip -- get a grip. well, the strategy we've seen on the other side hasn't worked too well. they've targeted the nominee's character, but then they've had to deal with the fact that this nominee is a stand-up guy and a good father. multiple fact-checkers debunked claims regarding his legal views as well the timing of his confirmation, so it seems that our colleagues have moved on. now it seems like it's all about the paper. it's all about documents. we've heard from some of our colleagues requesting that every e-mail, every memo, every document that ever crossed brett kavanaugh's desk has to be disgorged and produced in the

course of this confirmation proceeding. ignore the fact that when he was confirmed to the d.c. circuit court of appeals, they didn't request any of the documents -- when he was staff secretary of the united states, but now for some mysterious reason, they could be hiding a smoking gun that they will use to derail his confirmation, or at least so they're acting. in the course of my legal career -- and i served for 13 years as a judge on the trial court and appellate courts in texas -- i've seen fishing expeditions before, and this is the very definition of a fishing expedition. now, i agree with our colleagues who say that all relevant documents need to be produced and should be, and will be produced in a perfectly normal part of confirming a judicial nominee. but that's the key -- the documents need to be reasonably

related to the confirmation process. now, our friend, the minority leader from new york, sees things differently. no surprise there. yesterday he said that -- well, he scolded me personally, as well as other republican colleagues. he said, we're guilty of applying an enormous double standard -- double standard -- when it comes to producing documents in a judicial confirmation hearing, and he compared the confirmation of justice kagan to judge kavanaugh. but let's rewind the clock. it's true that republicans wanted to see justice kagan's documents and review them before holding a hearing on her confirmation for the supreme court, but it wasn't the range of documents we're talking about with kavanaugh, and her situation was dramatically different. first, she had never served as a judge before, like judge kavanaugh has, who has a vast

judicial record -- 300 opinions, 12 years on the d.c. circuit court of appeals. he's got a vast record when this comes -- when it comes to his activities as a judge. you would think that that would bed good place to tax but we thought that it was -- you had you would think that that would be the good place to start. but we didn't have judicial opinions to review for justice kagan. for justice kagan we needed materials to understand her legal physiological if i and style of reasoning and we'd to use what actually existed at the time. i would say that the solicitor general files -- she represented -- she was solicitor general of the united states and represented the u.s. government in front of the supreme court. virtually none of that was touched. we recognized that it should be -- that those communications,

attorney-client communications, should be respected. but, second, for justice kagan's confirmation, republicans and democrats alike agreed that not every single executive branch document was relevant and important to her confirmation process. so in that respect, i would tell my friend, the minority leader, that's not a double standard. that's the same standard -- should be the same standard. republicans and democrats got together in the case of justice kagan and agreed that records from her time at the solicitor general's office were too sensitive and privileged, and they shouldn't be made available to the senate in connection with her confirmation. instead, the senate decided that it was more appropriate to focus on records from justice kagan's time at the white house counsel's office. and the office of domestic policy. so too we would say that brett kavanaugh's documents that he

authored, that he contributed to at the white house counsel's office, subject to any privileges that might pertain, should be fair game. so there's already a well-worn precedent when it comes to executive branch records, which should be on limits and which should be off-limits. we observed that in the case of justice kagan, and we would argue the same consideration should be applied to the kavanaugh nomination. third, in the past comment of mine, senator schumer was referring to yesterday, i was talking specifically about tens of thousands of documents in reference to justice kagan. in the end, 173,000 documents were produced on her behalf. by the way, that's nowhere close to the, quote, gazillion, closed quote, that the junior senator from alabama has alleged was produced during the kagan

confirmation. it wasn't a gazillion. it was 1 73,000. it might have seemed that way, because that's a lot of documents. the stacks of paper were stacked high. but the truth is, much fewer than a gazillion were produced. 173,000. compare that to the document production for justice gorsuch when he was confirmed. that was roughly 182,000 documents. now, that's a high number as well, but it pales in comparison to what our democratic friends are asking for in the case of judge kavanaugh. but the truth is our friends across the aisle are picking numbers out of the air, talking about potentially millions of documents. the senior senator from california has named one million as her magic number. and that's the minimum amount of documents she said she expects

to be produced. well, as i said, we all know that judge kavanaugh, mission to serving as a -- in addition to serve as a judge on the d.c. circuit court of appeals, in addition to working in the white house staff office, served as staff secretary to the president and this many documents crossed his desk. but the effort to insist on every document that he touched from the time he was at the bush white house as staff secretary are ludicrous. it's ridiculous. and it is nothing less than a fishing expedition designed to delay his confirmation until after the supreme court reconvenes in early october. to our colleagues -- do our colleagues really seriously claim they need to see every piece of paper that crossed his desk? is what president bush had for dinner 14 years ago relevant to how judge kavanaugh will serve on the court?

i'm sure there's a copy of the white house mess menu as part of those documents, but those aren't his documents in the sense he didn't create them. he didn't contribute to them. he was sort of a traffic cop, a very important traffic cop in terms of the documents that went across the president's desk. but our friend, the senior senator from connecticut, for example, seemed to suggest that every piece of paper that crossed his desk is important. he said he wants to see any documents that have judge kavanaugh's name on them whether he was a direct recipient or a sender or he was copied. so somebody sent a document to him, how is that relevant to judge kavanaugh's qualifications? something sent to him by somebody else that he didn't contribute to and he didn't

author? well, based on that rationale, if judge kavanaugh was cc'ed on an e-mail about somebody's birthday party down the hall, apparently some of our friends across the aisle think that information is absolutely crucial to this confirmation hearing. that's just not right and it's ridiculous. just as the judiciary committee quickly processed justice kagan's nomination in 2,010, somebody who spent a number of years at the clinton white house, i'm confident we can do the same if we got together and worked at it in the case of judge kavanaugh. under chairman grassley's leadership, the judiciary committee will work to produce hundreds of thousands of documents for members to conduct a thorough review. i'm confident of that. we met with the white house counselor yesterday to talk about the strategy for producing

the documents that are relevant to the confirmation process. but there's no better evidence of exactly what kind of judge justice kavanaugh will be than the opinions he's written on the d.c. circuit court of appeals. the committee will receive thousands of documents that are relevant and important to the confirmation process. senators and their staff will be able to review them and senators will be able to ask questions. and i guarantee chairman grassley will hold a full and fair hearing before the judiciary committee when we convene for the purposes of the confirmation hearing. so we'll be able to ask, all of us, on a bipartisan basis the hard questions everybody wants to ask. and at the end of the process, which i'm hopeful will take place this september, the senate will act and judge kavanaugh

will become justice kavanaugh. beyond the document production, but there's another wrinkle in the confirmation process that has emerged, and it hinges on the nominee's views on executive power. i spoke a little bit about that yesterday, but there's just another thing to mention. i'm referring to a 1,999 transcript of a panel discussion in which judge kavanaugh discussed the case united states versus nixon which forced then president nixon to turn over the watergate tapes. it was a significant event in our nation's history. my friend the minority leader has provoke tifl questioned whether kavanaugh would have let nixon off the hook. no, he wouldn't and neither did the supreme court of the united states. just the contrary. that's what we expect from the

courts. independent, legal judgment, whether it's the most humble among us or whether it's the president of the united states. in a speech, judge kavanaugh praised unanimous ruling in the nixon case. his views have been further confirmed by those who worked closely with him over the years. they said that to judge kavanaugh, nixon was one of the most significant cases in which the judiciary stood up to the president. so enough already. enough with all the distractions, the hype ventilation -- hyper ventilation, the fishing expeditions. let's get to work. let's keep this process moving forward on a bipartisan basis. let's roll up our sleeves. both justice sotomayor and gorsuch were confirmed in 66 days. now, if you applied that standard to judge kavanaugh, that would mean we would vote on his nomination on september 13.

but we'll have plenty of time to vet this nominee and to review the relevant documents that have some bearing on his qualifications and his experience and fitness to serve as a member of the supreme court. i hope our democratic colleagues will take advantage of the opportunity to meet with judge kavanaugh and to talk to him for themselves and see that he is an accomplished jurist and perhaps even more importantly an entirely decent human being. and he's one who will faithfully and fairly apply the law as written and uphold our constitution. now, i know that the senior senator from west virginia has agreed to do that and i want to express my personal appreciation to him for breaking up this boycott which is, i guess, been commanded by the highest authorities, the democratic

leader, to don't meet with the judge until we get ought the documents that we're asking -- we get all the documents that we're asking for. in addition to the senator from west virginia, the junior senator from delaware has also said he will meet with the judge as has the senior senator from indiana. and i appreciate that. i think they will find a lot of comfort in meeting with the judge and they'll find -- get some answers to their questions. i look forward to continuing our vetting process and voting to confirm judge kavanaugh this fall. mr. president, i yield the floor, and i'd note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

mr. flake: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent to have it vacated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. flake: mr. president, in january of next year, when i cast my final vote and look back on 18 years in the house and the senate, one of the things i'll value most are the friendships made during my time here. i've been fortunate to have incredible staff to work with for every year that i've been here. from the interns who answer phone calls, not all of those phone calls pleasant mind you, to the staff assistants who make constituents and visitors feel welcome in my office and in the capitol, to office managers who make things run smoothly and build camaraderie among the staff and the team, to legislative corns defntses who skill -- correspondents who

explain the nuances of bills and resolutions that i've sponsored or those that i've avoided, to legislative assistants who delve deep into the issues, much deeper than i have the time or sometimes the inclination to dig into, to a press shop that tries and often succeeds in making me look better and more thoughtful than i am, to legislative directors who try to focus my attention on issues where i might make a bit of a difference, to schedulers who gently remind me without judging of family birthdays and anniversaries and who keep me out of the middle seat more often than not. to expert staff in arizona who endure protests and provide skilled outreach, sometimes to lonely posts across the state, to case workers who work to solve medicare, social security,

veterans, and immigration issues for constituents who later thank me in the grocery store for tireless work that i scarcely knew was even done -- even done. now, to keep this ship moving in the right direction, you have to have a leader at the helm whose accomplished and skilled, equal parts firm and kind. it's been my good fortune that chandler morris has filled that role for many years. chandler will be leaving for greener pastures at the end of this month. chandler first came to my house office in may of 2005 as a legislative assistant. i remember looking at his resume and wondering if his background at the national association of home builders would lend itself to work on a broader legislative agenda. but as soon as i met chandler, i knew that he had the intellect and the work ethic to do

whatever i asked of him. i have never been disappointed. chandler moved from legislative assistant to legislative director to deputy chief of staff and eventually to chief of staff here in the senate. along the way, he's handled natural resource issues, trade issues, homeland security issues, u.s.-cuba policy issues, and perhaps most difficult and vexing of all, immigration issues. the members and staff making up the gang of eight in 2013 relied heavily on chandler's work and expertise during months of negotiations that led to the successful passage of a good bipartisan bill. i like to think chandler has enjoyed climbing aboard the marc train from baltimore and coming here to work in washington every day. i like to think that, but about this i am certain -- he was much happier climbing back on that train every night because he

knew that his beautiful wife annie and his precious kids parker and tally, were waiting for him to come home. i know that as much as he likes drafting good amendments, blocking bad legislation, or crafting lame puns about earmarks or wasteful spending, chandler would prefer to be hiking or camping with his family or taking in the outdoors in his beloved maine. this speaks well for his priorities. when chandler morris takes leave at the end of this next week, this institution will lose a loyal public servant. my senate office will lose a leader and a mentor. but as for me, i will retain a friend for life, and for that i am grateful. i yield back. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you. madam president, i want to start today by sharing a story that is very personal to me and that has informed my work and my values ever since it happened. when i was in college, a friend of mine -- we were close and lived together in the dorms -- went out on a date. she was raped, she got pregnant. she didn't know where to get a safe abortion, and she wasn't wealthy, so she knew she couldn't afford it either. the botched procedure she ended up having left her at a very