vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any members wishing to vote or

change their vote? if not, the ayes are 99. the nays are zero. the amendment is agreed to. there are now ten minutes of debate equally divided before the next vote. the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: our national debt now exceeds $22 trillion. we're borrowing about a million dollars a minute, actually more than a million dollars a minute. many authorities, including admiral mullen, have said that the greatest threat to our national security is actually our debt. the best way to do something about debt is quit spending yourself further into a hole. we had spending caps, and we adhered to them for a couple of years. we actually were reducing the size of the deficit. this year, though, the deficit will actually approach a trillion dollars, and next year may exceed a trillion dollars. this amendment would place back

the spending caps just on the spending we have before us on this bill. so i would advocate that if you are concerned about the debt, concerned about the deficit, and concerned about the strength of our country, that you vote to reinstitute the spending caps. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. shelby: mr. president, i rise to urge my colleagues to oppose the paul amendment. while we all understand the desire to cut spending, the allocations in this package before us have -- are based on caps that were set in a bipartisan budget agreement signed into law earlier this year. i think we should and cannot go back on our word and our agreement and expect bipartisan support. we're working on the appropriations committee. i think we're doing well at this point. we have a long way to go. but if we start loading it up, the process will fall apart. i urge you to vote no on the paul amendment.

mr. leahy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i rise to urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment offered by the senator from kentucky. make no mistake about what this amendment would do. it is an 11.4% across-the-board indiscriminate meat ax cut in important programs, and as the chairman of the committee has pointed out, it would violate the bipartisan agreement that we just reached earlier this year. in addition, let me give you just one example of what the impact of senator paul's amendment would be. if you look at the section 8 housing program which helps some of our most vulnerable citizens, this amendment's passage would mean that 275,000 low-income

seniors, disabled individuals, homeless veterans, families with small children would lose their housing assistance and become at risk of homelessness. i don't think that's what we want. thank you, mr. president. mr. leahy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i totally agree with both the senator from alabama and the senator from maine. first, as they said, this violates the bipartisan agreement this body made and agreed with the president, but the things we would do, 73,000 jobs would be cut from the federal highway administration projects when we need them, 3,830,000 low-income women, infants, and children no longer receiving w.i.c. in the interest of time and the storm warning we have outside, i

would ask consent my whole statement be made a part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. is there further debate on the amendment? if not, the question is on the paul amendment 3543. is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 25. the nays are 74. the amendment is not agreed to. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. a senator: today there are a few things i'd like to talk about but i'd like to start by recognizing the service and the bravery of our capitol police officers. mr. portman: this week is the 20th anniversary of a shooting which occurred here in the u.s. capitol that claimed the lives of u.s. capitol police officer jacob chestnut and detective john gibson when a gunman forced his way into the capitol building. they laid down their lives in defense of others and made the ultimate sacrifice defending the u.s. capitol. at the time then-president clinton said, quote, quo the

shooting at the united states capitol yesterday was a moment of savagery at the front door of american civilization, end quote. he was right. i was working ney capitol that day 20 years ago. i remember where i was as i'm sure everybody does that was here. i remember hearing the gunshots. i was on the telephone from my office in the house of representatives with a member of the leadership staff and heard the chaos through the phone lines. we are forever grateful for the sacrifice of those two police officers and for their families and for the continued service and commitment of the u.s. capitol police every single day up here in the capitol. they are the ones who protect us every single day. this week we'rereminded to thank everyone who puts on a uniform and steps into harm's way to protect fellow americans. i'd also like to discuss important legislation that the senate passed earlier this week and the house passed today to improve skills training in our country at a time when it is so

badly needed. i'm the cofounder and cochair of the senate career and technical education caucus, and i've got to tell you i'm excited about this bipartisan legislation. it reauthorizes what's called the perkins career and technical education or c.t.e. act. it's a federal law designed to help americans get the education, training and skills they need to fill in-demand jobs. the president supports the legislation. i know he's excited about signing it into law and helping those who need the skills to fill those jobs that are out there. c.t.e. at one time called vocational education, is just a great opportunity for the students, but also for our economy and for employers. the bill that passed includes what's called educating tomorrow's workforce act. it's legislation that my colleague, senator tim kaine and i authored to allow states and localities to use perkins grants funding for a number of purposes. one, c.t.e. focused academies. we encourage schools to incorporate the key elements of

high-quality c.t.e. programs from around the country. and we promote partnerships between local businesses, regional industries and other community stakeholders and create work-based learning opportunities for students like apprenticeships, internships. we know getting that work experience really helps to be able to land a job. so we're excited about that legislation. it also includes important accountability information for our most vulnerable students to track how well they're doing, how well our c.t.e. program is helping them to ensure high quality skills training. when i travel around ohio talking to employers of all sizes, they all stress one thing to me, which is yeah, the economy is doing better, tax reform has worked well for me, regulatory relief is happening, that's great. but we're having trouble finding workers. in ohio today if you go on our website called ohio means jobs, you'll see probably 145,000 jobs advertised and yet we have over 200,000 people out of work. a lot of that is the skills gap.

i often hear the biggest challenge employers have is they can't find enough skilled workers. you want to give these students the chance to acquire the training needed for today's job. this legislation helps to ensure it regardless of someone's economic standing. it provides a route to good paying jobs and successful career for students who might not have been typical in a stem education or can't spend the time or money involved in going through a tradition college education. it's not just about students. it's also about those who are further in life who are trying to rebuild or start a new career. this bill will help those incumbent workers. i visited flying high welding school in youngstown ohio. it's a very impressive program. it focuses on people who are in recovery, people who have been released from prison, helps them to be able to learn a skill, in this case welding which helps them transition back into the workplace. really impressed by it. their placement rate is about 100%. they have taken people and helped them provide them with the skills that they need and

then in turn their lives have been turned around. this legislation will help to enable places like this school to be able to be more successful. there are so many opportunities out there, whether it's in welding, whether it's in coding, machining, health care skills, commercial driving where we need drivers right away that have the commercial licenses, the c.d.l. we should encourage more of that. i'd like to thank my colleague and cochair of the senate c.t.e. caucus tim kaine as well as senator lamar alexander who chairs the senate help committee who passed the bill this past month and mike enzi and all my colleagues on the senate c.t.e. caucus for their work on this issue. once signed into law this legislation will help students get the career and technical education they need regardless of economic standing and help them to have the opportunity they need to be able to pursue whatever their american dream is. the last thing i want to talk about today, mr. president, is some bad news that we received this week, and this is about our

federal government. and the lack of information out there from federal agencies as to how they're spending our hard-earned tax dollars. as many people know, our federal government has grown a lot of in the last half century. in 1961 when president kennedy entered office with seven cabinet positions and 451 career management positions, to today when president trump took office we've gone about seven times higher in terms of the number of people. we've gone from the number of cabinet posts being doubled from 7 to 15. the increased size of our federal government is intended of course to provide a better structure to carry out important duties the government has and help more americans. but one result we have to be cautious of is the increase in federal spending that comes with it. as the size of our government grows, transparency and how taxpayer money is spent becomes increasingly important. most of the increase in the funding you've seen over the last 20 years of course is in programs that congress does not

appropriate every year. this includes important entitlement programs like medicaid, medicare and social security. and we need to address this unsustainable growth in the so-called nondiscretionary spending. we need to save these entitlement programs for the current and future generations of americans who rely on them. but we also need to ensure we rein in the waste, fraud and abuse in our departments and agencies, discretionary spending that congress spends every year. that's where this legislation is so important to be able to require transparency and accountability to help federal agencies spend their taxpayer dollars. while white house and congress track spending through the budget and appropriations process, each federal agency tracks its own spending internally. they've got their own metrics, their own measurement systems. as you can imagine, it's made it hard to truly know where all the funds are going to various departments and agencies because each has their own measurement. we recognize the need to address this in 2006 when i was director of the office of management and

budget, the federal funding accountability and transparency act became law. i personally endorsed that legislation when i was at o.m.b. because i knew we needed it badly. then senators tom coburn, a key sponsor of that, and we went about putting all grants and contracts online. that was a good thing. the goal of the law was to standardize the way the federal departments and agencies report their spending to have more comprehensive and transparent accounts of where taxpayers dollars were going. it also created a public website managed by the office of management and budget, o.m.b. called u.s.a.spending.gov for taxpayers and policymakers to get accurate information about what these funds are used for. taxpayers should be able to see where their money goes and congress, which is given the power of the purse in our federal government, needs to know what the funds that allocates are being used for to make informed decisions about spending. in 2010, the g.a.o., government accountability office looked into how this program was working and what they found was that the usefulness of

u.s.a.spending.gov was impaired by the lack of guidance of agencies to report spending. so in 2014 a colleague of mine, mark warner, and i, senator warner from virginia, authored what's called the -l data act and we followed what the g.a.o. had said. we wrote this legislation to try to fix the law. the goal of the data act was to create a more consistent spending system across government to improve the efficiency of u.s.a. u.s.a.spending.gov. that would ultimately provide the american public and policymakers, we thought with accurate, consistent and reliable data on government wide spending to eliminate unnecessary spending. being able to follow federal dollars from appropriations to the resulting grant or contract that actually occurs is incredibly helpful in that effort. the data act required federal agencies to report spepgd in real time -- spending in real time down to the location by congressional distribution by

2017. now it's time to take stock of how that program is, woulding and to assess the transparency in our federal spending. the permanent subcommittee on investigations here in the senate which i chair has taken this task on and along with ranking member senator tom carper, we've looked into the implementation of the data act and how accurately departments and agencies report spending data. what our report found was troubling. we reviewed inspectors general or i.g. reports of 25 federal agencies making up more than 80% of all federal spending from the second quarter of 2017. at least 55% of the spending data equal to roughly $240 billion those agencies submitted to usaspending.gov was found to be incomplete, inaccurate or both. the i.g.'s report on the department of defense and department of energy determined that 100% of those department's spending data was not being a rat. according to the inspector general, some agencies such as

the department of education and agency for national development did well. they reported accurate data. unbelievably about 96% of the spending data that the treasury department submitted for its own department was not accurate. so the treasury department which the data access is supposed to monitor other department spending data for accuracy overwhelmingly submitted inaccurate data itself. we found just last month o.m.b. and the department of treasury updated the agency guidance that appears to weak data standards which could lead to less accurate submissions in the future. we should be doing more to ensure this law is properly implemented, to ensure accountability and accuracy in our finances. we also found deficiencies with the website itself. the data act requires the website to be user friendly and accurate. our investigators found it to sometimes be neither. it's important to remember that the data act is still in its early stages. it was fully implemented just a

little over one year ago. so it's not yet what we hoped it would be when it became law in 2014 but it's not too late to improve it. our p.s.i., permanent subcommittee investigations report includes recommendations to do that, first that o.m.b. and the treasury department should update the standards and guidelines for agencies to follow to improve accuracy and accountability for spending. it is up to them to do it. second, o.m.b. and treasury should establish clear definitions for agencies and i.g.'s to follow when conducting reviews of data act compliance to avoid existing confusion and disparity which we found is out there today. finally the treasury department should improve the overall quality of usaspending.gov. these are reasonable steps and will help increase accountability within the federal government and provide greater transparency for taxpayers. as i mentioned, taxpayers deserve to be able to access accurate information on where their money is going and lawmakers need to know how

departments and agencies are spending the resources to be able to conduct proper oversight, plan future budgets and eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in our federal government spending. on the floor today we were discussing appropriations bills. we will pass another four appropriations bills this week, i hope. that's good but part of this process is we've got to be sure we're doing the oversight so as we're passing spending bills we know where the money is going so we can identify ways to improve the spending. i recognize a lot of hard work has gone into ust spending.gov to date, many of the outside groups like the data coalition have put into making this process successful. i appreciate who have taken this seriously and worked hard on this. the legislative branch implemented the law selectively, it has ahead the government more transparent. if we continue to do the

followup, i'm optimistic it will spur action to make our government spending more accountable, more accurate, and more accessible. that's the goal. thank you, mr. president. i yield back my time. a senator: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: mr. president, we were sitting in the cloakroom between the last two votes that happened in the senate and everybody's phones started buzzing at the same time that's because everyone receives these alerts from the national weather service. and the alert said flash flood warning until 9:15 p.m. this evening. and i thought it was ironic because i was headed down here on the floor to speak about flooding, and in particular flood insurance, which is a threat so many different states across the country, so it was an

ironic moment that reminds us of what that means to us here, but what it means to the people in the real world who are impacted by this. the house earlier today passed an extension of the national flood insurance program and it extends it for four months. it will expire november 30 of this year. i'm here today to tell you how critical it is the senate act on this as soon as possible. it will expire july 30, six days from today if we do in the take action. let me preface everything by telling you this program is badly broken. it is not financially sustainable. i don't like the way it's designed one bit and i've been working for years to try to reform it and to try to open up space for the private sector to come in and provide more options for the people who need it. i in many parts of florida, and i'm sure it's true in other

parts of the country, you can't buy a house in some places if you don't have flood insurance. they just won't write it because of the threat of damage to the property and the loss of value and that is widespread throughout the state of florida. there are many places where that is a fact. i don't like the way the program is designed and i desperately want us to perform to be consistent with market principles and sustainable in the long term, the answer is not to let it expire. the answer is to not let it expire, because if we do we're going to have an economic catastrophe. if we allow flood insurance to expire, there are real estate closings that will stop. and we will allow this to expire in the middle of the hurricane season. we len through hurricane season last year that impacted florida, it impacted texas, it impacted puerto rico and the damage it did was extensive. we don't know what this season holds but we're right smack in

the middle of it. i can't think of anything worse than not just allowing it to expire but to expire in the middle of hurricane season. i would hope that the extension would be for six months the way we got it done in the senate farm bill, but i believe a four month extension is better than none at all. i'm concerned that it will be lost in all the other jirgs, -- issues, and i hope that this chamber will bring this for a vote perhaps as early as monday evening when we return. to allow this to drag into tuesday, tuesday midnight, it will have a dramatic impact on people in florida and across the country. now, let me go back to one of the reforms that seed to happen. -- that needs to happen. one of the organizations i agree with a lot was out there, what they do key scoring this in the house and they talk about how broken this program is. they are absolutely right about that.

i support reforms that support private market involvement in this program, but i want to go back to the practicality of it. while i want there to be reforms, we should not hold hostage real people and families whose homes and lives will be at risk while congress tries to figure this out. it has to be done. now, i don't want to be in this cycle perpetual extension. i'm as frustrated about it as anybody else. i wish we could find some permanence to this in a way that didn't wipe everybody out by raising the rates but was also sustainable in the long run. we have to continue to work on that. as the senator from florida recognizing that over a third of the policies nationwide are in the state that i represent, i have to come here today with a strong sense of urgency and arguing on behalf of my neighbors an constituents and my own family who depend on flood insurance not only to protect their homes in the middle of a hurricane cycle but to be table

to transact real estate deals, selling a home, buying one, even commercial deals, everything that depends on this market being healthy. afford ability assistance has to be a key part of the reform. the last time that we extended this for five years in 2012, the premiums in the state of florida skyrocketed. and what it did was it caused a massive exodus from this program, particularly out of florida. a bunch of people left the program, and that's a problem because the key to having a sustainable program is having enough people in it. that's the whole purpose of insurance. you need to have enough people so you can spread the risk. if people begin to migrate out of the program and it's usually the safest properties are going to leave because they are less willing to pay the premium, you will be left with adverse selection. we heard that used in health term debates. if you don't have enough properties, enough safe p properties -- safe properties to

spread the risk, it makes the program less healthy. that's why the key to any reform has to be a program that has that kind of participation. i think the one component of flood insurance reform that everyone should agree with is the importance of strong mitigation funding. fema and numerous other groups have repeatedly cited statistics confirming that every dollar we spend on mitigation, mitigation against flooding, mitigation against sea level rides, that every dollar spent on mitigation results in $4 or more saved on future disaster recovery. every single years it seems like we are spending tens of millions of dollars on recovery packages from storms many imagine if we could prevent some of that at the front end by funding mitigation efforts in concert with state and local governments. flood insurance reform is going

to require a solution to a problem that has only been reactionary. this will only lead to more people, more individuals leaving the program and an even larger disaster supplemental package when future disaster occurs. floridians need a program that is transparent and affordable. right now this program is neither. i believe the house and senate can come to an agreement on a law that will achieve these goals and i think we need to do so in a way that is long term and sustainable. that's why once we pass the four-month extension -- i say once we do because i cannot image not doing it. i didn't imagine leaving for a one-week recess and having this lapse, it can't happen. it's not an option. it has to be dealt with. but once we to that, then we truly need to work on enacting

before november 30, when this extension would expire, the fundamental flaws of the program an allow the flood insurance program to move forward on a path that is responsible, affordable, and sustainable. not one that continues to require the government to bail it out. so that's what i hope will happen here, and i reiterate where i started in the strongest possible terms, i cannot emphasize this enough. i truly hope that we will bring this vote -- this reauthorization for a vote as soon as possible, that my colleagues will cooperate because if tuesday at midnight of next week, if we haven't acted, there will be hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, across this country, and many of them in my home state, that are going to find that their propy in the middle of hurricane season is not covered against water damage because they cannot get flood insurance, and that would be catastrophic for our economy and it would be catastrophic for florida and the impacted states. so i'm just here to repeat an

urge as strongly as i can that the leadership bring this up for a vote as soon as we are done dealing with the four appropriation bills that are before -- that is before us. there is not another option. we cannot allow this to expire. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: mr. president, thank you. i want to speak this evening for a few moments about trades and tariffs. they've certainly been in the news for a long time. they are in the news today, but i want to highlight the importance of trade and exports to my constituents and express my concerns about tariffs and an escalating trade wore. global trade war will raise the

prices for consumers, retaliate against farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers who depend upon exports and weaken our ability to work with our allies to challenge china's unfair trade practices. kansans are already feeling the effects of tariffs. approximately $361 million are being affected by this, aerospace exports to canada and beef and corn exports to mexico. moving forward with another $200 billion to $500 billion in tariffs against china or section 232 tariffs on automobiles for sewed national security concerns will only increase the negative impact upon my folks at home. with 95% of consumers living outside our country's border, the ability for kansas farmers and ranchers to earn a living is

directly tied to our ability to sell food, fuel, and fiber, the food, fuel, and fiber that we grow in kansas must be exported to people around the world. since march, uncertainty in trade has led to the price of -- the fall of so i peen. this results in grain handlers losing out $780 million of possible revenue solely on soybeans, one crop. the significant harm the trade war is causing to farmers and ranchers is no doubt the reason the administration is proposing $12 million in disaster relief for agriculture. unfortunately, it's only a short-term fix to a long-term problem and will not make up for the lost markets for farmers. china and mexico, two of our largest markets in kansas, mexico is number one, china is number two for agriculture producers, have already started to increase purchases of ag

commodities from brazil and argentina instead of the u.s. producers, including those in kansas. i'm concerned once we lose those markets it will take years, if ever, for us to regain those markets. this hit could not come at a worse time for ag produce he's -- producers. farm revenue has fallen by over 50% since 2013. low commodity prices has pushed many to financial viability. i argued that kansas farmers and ranchers can't afford a trade war. now many farmers will be faced with the reality of selling grain at or below the cost of production, just to pay off this year's operating loans. the impact of the downturn in the ag economy cannot be solely quantified on a balance sheet. i'm concerned that reduced opportunity in agriculture will result in fewer young people

returning to rural america. one of my goals is to see that the sons and daughters of farmers and ranchers in kansas have the opportunity to continue another generation of agriculture production in our state. when they cannot reach a price that is profitable, when they cannot obtain a process that is profitable, the likelihood of those young men and women remaining or returning to kansas farms and ranches tis appears. -- disappears. the average age of a farmer nears 60 years old. it is critical that our policies increase the likelihood that a young person is able to take over the family farm or ranch. i fear the trade wars will have the opposite effect, fewer markets to sell meat an tbrain will make it more difficult for the next generation to earn a living in rural america. if farmers in kansas are not producing a crop and selling it, that means their communities also suffer. the ability to keep a grocery store or gain elevator is

diminished. it's not just an agricultural issue. in fact, kansas manufacturers are dealing with the negative impacts of recently imposed tariffs. users users of steele and aluminum were frequent in kansas. we are an automobile manufacturing state and they are facing increased costs of materials, regardless of whether they utilize domestic or imported steel and aleukemia gnat. chinoot manufacturing in chinoot, kansas, is an example of the steel and aluminum tariffs harming a small company and its workers. the company which employs about 130 kansans is a domestic manufacturer of steel-based components for the power generation market. due to tariffs, chinoot's costs for raw materials has increased by about 8%. however, when the same power plant equipment is manufactured overseas, it can be imported here tariff free. so the actual unintended

consequence of a steel tariff has been to incentivize foreign manufacturing of power equipment currently made in my home state. chinoot manufacturing has also missed opportunities to compete on projects in other countries due to tariffs. last year the company built and shipped equipment they manufactured in kansas to morocco. however, when a duplicate project became available in morocco this year, chinoot wasn't even considered because the steel tariffs have raised their production costs, making them so less competitive than cheaper foreign manufacturers. china is important. the president is right to try to change the behavior of china. tariffs are not the only tool to make certain that other countries follow international trade rules and treat american exporters and workers fairly. i support efforts to hold china accountable for unfair trade practices and the theft of trade secrets and intellectual property rights from american companies. i applauded the u.s. for filing

a challenge to china's domestic agricultural support levels at the world trade organization. when china unfairly subsidizes its producers or limits market access to u.s. wheat, corn, and rice, the u.s. is right to contest them and to contest them strongly and firmly. while i remain unconvinced that tariffs are the best tool to change china's behavior, it does not mean we should not pursue strong enforcement of global trade rules. i'm also concerned that picking a fight on trade with the rest of the world reduces our ability to win the fight with china, a country that is most deserving of strong trade actions from the united states. by attempting to take the whole world on at once, the u.s. risks spreading our resources thin and reducing our focus on changing china's practices. the u.s. is not the only country with complaints about china's trade practices, yet instead of working with our allies to influence china and change their

behavior, we have forced confrontations with our other -- with other countries who ought to be buy our side -- by our side in dealing with china. i brief that -- believe that by strengthening our relations and trade with our allies, the u.s. will be better able to direct sound trade policies on the global stage. this includes successly including a nafta renegotiation with canada and mexico and reengaging in the trans-pacific partnership, t.p.p. negotiations, or pursuing bilateral agreements with countries in t.p.p. such as japan. this week, in fact tomorrow ambassador light highser, the u.s. trade representative, will be testifying before the subcommittee that i share, the committee on commerce, justice, and science. that subcommittee overseas the funding for the office of the u.s. trade representative. the hearing will be an opportunity for the subcommittee members to hear firsthand from

ambassador lighthizer on ustr's trade efforts and to express concerns about the impact the tariffs have had and will continue to have on our constituents. i hope to learn more about the ustr strategy and the end goal in threatening more tariffs progress to conclusion of nafta negotiations and efforts to fill the president's call for new bilateral trade agreements. again, recently imposed tariffs are having immediate impacts upon farmers and ranchers and manufacturers, but the long-term implications of disrupting supply chains and losing market share that took decades to build up is perhaps even more concerning. it is time to inject more certainty into our trade policies. we ought to start by reaching an agreement on a modernized nafta and ending the threat of an escalating trade war. i look forward to conversations with ambassador lighthizer this week in making certain that the administration understands the importance of getting trade policy right for kansas and for

america. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: mr. president, i understand that there are two bills at the desk, and i ask for the first reading en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will read the titles of the bills en bloc for the first time. the clerk: h.r. 184, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on medical devices.

h.r. 1201, an act to amend section 5000-a of the internal revenue code of 1986, and so forth and for other purposes. mr. moran: mr. president, i now ask for a second reading, and i object to my own request, all en bloc. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bills will receive their second reading on the next legislative day. mr. moran: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 4645, which was received from the house. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 4645, an act to amend the wild and scenic rivers act, and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. moran: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion

to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 592 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 592, designating october 9, 2018, as national aida lovelace day, and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. moran: mr. president, i further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 598 submitted earlier today.

593. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 593 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 593, honoring the life and legacy of grace hopper, and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. moran: i further ask, mr. president, the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. thursday, july 26. further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. further, that following leader remarks, the senate resume

consideration of h.r. 6147. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: if there is no further business, mr. president, to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned until -- under the previous order, following the remarks of senator hirono. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hirono: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: mr. president, the senate has a constitutional duty equal to the president's to provide advice and consent on all judicial nominees, including, of course, the president's supreme court nominee, brett kavanaugh. our advice and consent rule requires us to review the totality of judge kavanaugh's record and experiences, including the documents from his time in the executive branch.

judge kavanaugh worked as a fellow in the first bush administration's office of the solicitor general. for ken starr in the office of the independent counsel investigating president clinton, and in president george w. bush's white house in the office of white house counsel, and as staff secretary to the president. as has been the practice for previous supreme court nominees, the judiciary committee should ask for and receive all records related to his work in these roles. any document request of the bush library or to the national archives should parallel similar requests made for other supreme court nominees. take the request set by the committee for elena kagan's nomination. this is the letter requesting information for elena kagan, and we simply substituted judge kavanaugh's name where elena kagan's name appeared.

and note -- well, you probably can't see it, but the letter request is signed by then-chair of the judiciary committee patrick leahy, and it was signed by the ranking member, our current attorney general, ranking member at that time jeff sessions. a may 18, 2010, just -- on may 18, 2010, just eight days after her nomination to the supreme court by president obama, the judiciary committee sent a bipartisan request to the director of the clinton presidential library asking for records from her time working at the white house and records related to her nomination to the d.c. circuit. we should send a similar request for judge kavanaugh. just, as i said, substituting brett kavanaugh's name for elena kagan's. however, the chairman of the judiciary committee, our colleague from iowa, is refusing to work with us to request the totality of judge kavanaugh's record.

i have heard objection to the requests for all the records rest on the volume of documents we might receive. the fact that there could be a lot of documents relevant to judge kavanaugh's time in the white house or any relevant point in his career is not the issue. the president knew there were a lot of documents related to judge kavanaugh. it was reported that the majority leader argued that judge kavanaugh's voluminous record could hurt his confirmation, passively acknowledging that the senate would have to examine all of the documents. senator mcconnell understood that the record was relevant to the senate advice and consent responsibility in reviewing this nominee's qualifications and judicial philosophy. and even the nominee himself, judge kavanaugh, thinks the same. judge kavanaugh often refers to how his executive branch

experiences shaped his judicial philosophy. in 2013, he wrote in a published law review article that, i quote, when people ask me what prior legal experience has been most useful for me as a judge, i tell them i certainly draw on all of them, the clerkships, private practice at kirkland, independent counsel's office, even college jobs on the hill at ways and means, but the five and a half years in the white house, especially the three years as staff secretary for president bush, are among the most interesting and most instructive. end quote. in 2016, he repeated that sentiment almost word for word. again quoting judge kavanaugh, people sometimes ask what prior legal experience has been most useful for me as a judge, and i say i certainly draw on all of them, but i also say that my five and a half years at the white house and especially my three years as staff secretary

for president george w. bush were the most interesting and informative for me, end quote. judge kavanaugh emphasized that the most interesting and informative experiences he had were at the white house as staff secretary, so of course the senate judiciary committee ought to be able to review all of the records of his time in the white house. the scope of the requests that democrats on the judiciary committee are proposing is so obvious and common sense that it is hard to believe it is a topic of debate. in normal times, there would not be any question about what the committee is entitled to see and no responsible senator would object, but these are not normal times. if these times, we have senators trying to cover for an irresponsible, dangerous president who, like in anything else he does, wants to bulldoze

his nominee's way onto the highest court in the land for life. in these not normal times, the simplest of processes, getting access to the records of a supreme court nominee, has become politicized. and in these not normal times, we have to wonder why the standards have suddenly changed and we have to ask ourselves what could possibly be hiding in those documents. when the president proposes a nominee to the supreme court, we owe it to ourselves and to our country to thoroughly examine that nominee's record diligently question them about their records and judicial philosophy and make a reasoned judgment about their fitness for the job. the american people rely on us in the senate and particularly in the judiciary committee to perform our constitutional advice and consent duties to the

best of our abilities. so i urge my republican colleagues to join us in calling for the full release of all documents related to judge kavanaugh's record and experiences. this has happened in the past. it has always happened, and it should happen again. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate the previous order, the senate the bill includes funding for assorted independent agencies, senators are working to get agreement on a number of amendments. managers say