vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, the yeas are 87, the noes are ten. the conference report is agreed to. mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, early this summer i was privileged to be at the white house when president trump announced his nominee to succeed justice anthony kennedy whose retirement

from the u.s. supreme court became effective just a couple of days ago. judge kavanaugh's nomination continues the streak that we republicans in the senate have been on for the last 18 months under the trump administration. we have set new records. specifically, we set a record last year for the most circuit judges confirmed in a president's first year, and we set a new record this year with the recent confirmation of president trump's 23rd circuit judge, texan andy oldham who will serve on the fifth circuit court of appeals. and that's two weeks ago. we already set the record with the most judges confirmed in the president's first two years and we still have five months to go. that's unprecedented. that's huge. it speaks volumes as to the

responsibility this administration takes to fill the benchs on the judiciary and with which this chamber's duty to provide advice and consent. we confirmed another nominee this morning, britain grant -- britt grant and we have 24 circuit court or intermediate-level judges. but some people don't like to focus on that record of accomplishment so much. they like to dwell on judge kavanaugh, the nominee to succeed anthony kennedy. i understand why the supreme court vacancy is a very big deal. but it doesn't give license to engage in hysterical attacks. we've seen judge kavanaugh called almost every name in the book. we heard his confirmation would result in the destruction of the

constitution. that the nominee is your worst nightmare and one who wants to pave the path to tyranny. well, mr. president, i just think those sorts of attacks and hysterical attacks undermine the very credibility of the speaker because anybody who knows anything about judge kavanaugh knows none of that is true. and we're not going to be distracted from carrying out the confirmation process in the normal established way through the judiciary committee first led by chairman grassley. and then once we get to the floor with a debate and vote to confirm the judge, hopefully well in advance of the next term of the supreme court which begins the first monday in october. we know, for example, that chairman grassley already sent a request to the bush library to

recover many of the records that pertain to the nominee's service when he worked at the white house counsel's office. this was a unilateral request, unfortunately, because our democratic colleagues refused to join it, even after two weeks of negotiations trying to find a way both sides could agree. this is, unfortunately, i think another sign of obstruction, which is basically all of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are opposing this nomination have left. many of the democrats on the other side have made clear they really aren't interested in the nominee's qualifications. as i mentioned previously, five of them came out against the nominee before he was even named. in other words, taking the position that any person nominated by president trump would not be able to earn their support. 15 more, after the nominee was named, came out in opposition.

so 20 democrats have already announced their opposition to the nominee without even taking a few moments to even meet with the judge or getting to learn a little more about his record. unfortunately the role that so many of our friends across the aisle wish the judiciary to play is they are really interested in judges who basically will be result oriented. in other words, rather than be impartial umpires and call balls and strikes, regardless of who's at bat, what they want is somebody who will put the thumb on the scales of justice an reach a preordained result, but that's not the way judges are supposed to serve under our form of government. judges don't run for election. they have lifetime tenure, so they are not politically accountable for their decisions at the ballot box like those of us in the political branches of

government are. so some of the rhetoric, as i said earlier, is just over the top. one of our colleagues even said you would be complicit in evil if you supported this nomination. we need to be aware of the double standard that applies. there's a stark contrast between judge kavanaugh and the confirmation and justice kagan. this time around our colleagues requested every single scrap of paper that made its way across the nominee's desk, even when he did not contribute to the policy or content of those documents. at a time when justice kagan was nominated, about 173,000 pages of documents were produced during the time that she worked in the white house counsel's office and on the counsel of domestic policy advisors. she and judge kavanaugh share in

common the fact that they worked in the white house counsel's office. but the difference between judge kavanaugh and justice kagan is just kagan didn't have any -- justice kagan didn't have any public record at all, just compare that to judge kavanaugh's serving on the district columbia court of appeals. he's got more than 300 written opinions for members to review and ascertain what kind of judge he would be if confirmed to the supreme court. i'm surprised that our democratic friends are asking for so many documents that are clearly immaterial, because during the nominee's 2006 confirmation hearing for the d.c. circuit court of appeals, our colleagues did not ask for any documents which they are now demanding, and specifically those that came across his desk when he served in the important function of white house staff secretary. this is perhaps a little

understood office, but basically it's an administrative position where judge kavanaugh at the time as staff secretary at the white house was responsible for making sure that the documents presented to the president for review had been properly vetted and were in good form. that's the responsibility, not to provide input in terms of the policy or the content of those documents. so he really was more or less a traffic cop for the paper flow across the president's desk. and as such, those documents would bear no -- have no bearing whatsoever on the judge's qualifications or experience and are unnecessary to produce for this confirmation process. but just as with justice kagan's confirmation, there was a bipartisan understanding in 2006 during judge kavanaugh's confirmation that certain documents are unnecessary and

should be off limits. in 2006, judge kavanaugh responded to the standard questionnaire for appellate nominees. our democratic colleagues didn't complain about that at the time. in fact, back at judge kavanaugh's hearing in 2006, senator feinstein, the ranking member on the judiciary committee, noted that without a record either as a trial lawyer or as a judge, it's very difficult for some of us to know what kind of judge you would be and whether you can move away from the partisanship and into that arena of objectivity and fairness. but now our friend from california has 12 years of judicial service and more than 300 opinions she and others can review, all of us can review to answer the very questions that she said she needed to answer. so my question is, why are our colleagues across itself aisle -- the aisle suddenly claiming they need every e-mail, every

memo, and every post-it note that went across the nominee's desk. well, we know the reason is because they cannot attack judge kavanaugh's judicial record of objectivity and fairness on the d.c. circuit. and instead they're trying to dig through other people's e-mails and documents and conduct a government-sponsored taxpayer-funded fishing expedition through the records of the entire bush white house. i call this the great paper chase. you've heard us warn that the democrat demands for every document from judge kavanaugh's time in the white house is nothing more than a stall tactic well, several media reports over the last few days have now confirmed that this is in fact their exact strategy. here's a statement from the "san francisco chronicle," feinstein, other senate dems have plan on brett kavanaugh nomination,

stall. their broader coordinated strategy is to delay and stall, not actually vet the nominee. so for most of them it won't really matter that judge kavanaugh will have more documents produced on his behalf before his confirmation than any other nominee in american history. it won't matter that some documents have already been released, for example, from his tenure working for the independent counsel. it won't matter that the process is fully transparent and thorough because they've already made up their mind. to be clear, overwhelmingly our democratic colleagues are simply not interested in vetting judge kavanaugh because they've already made up their mind to vote against the nomination. i hope that the three or four or five democrats who are still open minded to the confirmation of the judge will encourage their other colleagues to change their approach and to make sure that they do what we are

required to do under the constitution once the president has made a nomination like this. and that is to provide advice and consent, not just obstruction and delay and resist resistance -- resistance. many of the excuses they're giving, particularly with regard to documents are merely smoke screens for their true goal which is what we see in the "san francisco chronicle," is simply to stall, stall, stall. they've telegraphed the strategy in the place and they've made it clear that it's their only shot at blocking this mainstream nominee. because the truth is judge kavanaugh is imminently qualified and well respected by all that know him. mr. president, i believe it's our responsibility to continue to vet the nominee, to continue to encourage members to meet with him, and to continue their review of his record, particularly of the last 12 years on the d.c. circuit court

of appeals. because i'm convinced that if they do that, that they will be willing to support the nominee if they have an open mind and if they haven't already engaged in a political calculation to oppose the nominee, no matter what the reason may be. so i look forward to confirming the judge early this fall. chairman grassley has said he hopes to have a hearing on the nomination, and then a vote on the senate floor in advance of the october term of the supreme court. and i look forward to helping him keep that schedule and confirming this good man and fine judge to the supreme court of the united states. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i'd note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. reed: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i would like to rise to discuss -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. reed: excuse me, mr. president. i would ask unanimous consent that we dispense with the calling of the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i would like to rise to discuss the fiscal year 2019 national defense authorization act. i'm very pleased that we were able to pass the conference report with a bipartisan vote of 87-10. i think it represents the quality of the work that was done by my colleagues, senator inhofe, congressman thornberry, the chairman of the house committee, and also ranking member smith. i thank them for their thoughtfulness, for their cooperation throughout the conference. this passage in the senate follows the passage last week by

a vote of 359-54 in the house of representatives. again, another strong bipartisan endorsement of the legislation on behalf of the men and women in uniform and the national security of the united states. also at this point, i'd like to take a moment to recognize senator john mccain. he's been an extraordinary leader throughout my tenure in the senate, someone who has been committed to the welfare of the men and women of the military, someone himself who has spent his life and service to the nation with exceptional self-sacrifice for all of us. i'm sure he is very proud today about this legislation which bears his name has passed and became law. senator mccain did something that some would think not capable, is that to have a -- i

say that with great affection and greats isty. -- sincerity. let me highlight several areas that i think are important in this legislation. the bill includes important personnel funding and policy positions including a 2.6% pay raise for our men and women in uniform. it strengthens the military for 2019. we're going to bring the military, particularly the army, up to the strength of our military leaders. it will impact the local school districts. this is critical for the quality of life for the families that serve us as well as their service members. and the office of personal management system will promote and recruit highly skill officers. the bill fully funds a number of

army programs to include the abrams battle tank. it makes targeted investments for army artillery systems and supports the active protection systems on our combat vehicles in order to better protect our soldiers. with respect to the nation, the conference agreement would provide additional funds with vessels to the navy including three more ship to shore connectors. the agreement would provide additional money to help second and third tier contractors ramp up production to support the class submarine acquisition programs. with regard to the air force, the bill provides for additional funding to support the light attack aircraft or the oax. the agreement also ensures that the air force will maintain the aircraft fleet while improve the

current ground squad capability of the j starfleet. now this bill represents what has been the hallmark of secretary mattis' strategic vision. it reflects the strategic shift toward prioritization of the strategic competition between russia and china. it supports the president's budget request for resources to defend -- deter or defend against competitors. this includes $3.6 billion as a commitment to the security of our european allies. it also requires a five-year plan from the department for the asia-pacific stability initiative on the resources and activities to counter chinese destabilizing behavior in the region. the bill also includes a provision to call on the administration to complete a

comprehensive strategy to counter russian malign influence. russia attacked the heart the our democracy in 2016 and our intelligence experts warn of even more sophisticated russian attacks targeting this year's mid-term elections. yet the administration has failed to bring together our military and nonmilitary tools and national power to counter this russian aggression despite last year's ndaa to submit to congress a whole of strategy for -- this expresses that the administration should complete a counter russian influence strategy without delay. the conference report includes a provision that authorizes the president to deploy department of defense cyber forces to disrupt the actions of russian actions attempting to penetrate our election systems and

campaigning organizations and also who are attempted to plant false information on social media sites. now, as i mentioned, the secretary's national defense policy, which the president endorsed, focuses on the adversaries of russia and china and our legislation reflects that, but we cannot forget the threat from isis and extremist organizations. it persists and this bill continues critical programs aimed at countering these groups. of note it extends the iraqi and syrian train and equip programs at the requested funding levels while requiring appropriate information with respect to the partner forces to be trained at the expected level of engagement with u.s. forces. is this a prudent approach that recognizes the continued threat from isis while assuring appropriate oversight of these authorities in a dynamic environment. the bill also includes

provisions designed to incorporate lessons learned from the campaign against isis that can be more effectively used to account for and respond to allegations of civilian casualties going forward. the bill fully funds a request for u.s. special operations command and includes important provisions to enhance the ability of the assistant secretary of defense for special operations for low-intensity conflict to act as the service secretary like civilian responsible for the advocacy of the special operation forces that do so much for us. as we discussed before the vote, the bill also focuses on the issue of the z.t.e. wawway issue that -- huawei issue. this is governmentwide, from providing grants and loans those using telecommunication equipment services provided by

chinese companies z.t.e. and hallway, due to the concern that they represent security risks and have violated u.s. sanctions. the provision would also ban the use of video surveillance equipment from several chinese companies due to concerns about security risks and infringement of intellectual rights. this will place a ban on some telecommunications provides and include a direction that government agencies shall prioritize available funding to enable these providers to replace the equipment they have procured from chinese companies. i'm also particularly pleased that the conference agreement includes a senate floor amendment that i authored to ensure that as we proceed to develop nuclear weapons, the congress is in a position to provide vigorous oversight to any such request. given the powerful nature-these weapons, it is essential that we

maintain our oversight on this matter. it also includes language to ensure that that we can maintain the plutonium pits. los alamos is the center of producing plutonium and we need to ensure that the department of defense meets their requirements with respect to pit production. the conference report contains a number of important provisions relating to turkey. i want to acknowledge the valuable leadership of senators shaheen and tillis. turkey is an important nato ally and it is multifaceted. however turkey's announcement of the intent to buy the russian air defense system threatens the integrity of the nato alliance and would have a negative impact on the alliance between the u.s. and turkey. also the unlawful detention of

pastor brunson has raised serious concerns about its commitment of the shared values of the nato alliance and the rule of law. the ndaa calls for the secretary of defense in consultation with the secretary of state to report on the u.s.-turkey relationship including turkey's purchase of the system. should turkey proceed with the s-400 purchase, what the impact would be in turkey's f-35 aircraft program. the assessment must include the steps required to of such a change on the united states and other international programs. the provision also pro be hibts the department of defense from delivering -- delivering any f-35 aircraft to turkey until

the report is submitted to the appropriate committeies. one of the issues related to russia sanctions under the countering america's -- or catsa. this was an excellent piece of legislation and the presiding officer knows very well because he was a chief architect of this bill. i want to take a moment to explain what the conference report does with respect to catsa and how the defense department will use limited waivers provided in in year's ndaa. as i said, i strongly supported catsa. it passed this senate 98-2. that is due to the leadership of the presiding officers. it sanctions powerful tool for holding russia accountable for interference on our elections

and its aggression in ukraine and elsewhere. as i said the senate passed it overwhelmingly, 98-2. we found that the trump administration has been resisting fully implementing the tough sanctions against russia that are found in catsa. during the consideration of the f.y.-2019 request, defense secretary mattis raised a concern about caatsa on countries or entities that do business with the russian intelligence or defense secretariors. these mandatory sanctions restrict certain financial dealings with entities engaged in significant transaction to purchase major russian weapons systems. as the secretary testified, these sanctions can have the unintended consequence of punishing certain procedure partners that have russia weapon

systems but looking to transition away from russia. because these countries made by russian systems to maintain current capabilities, section 231 sanctions would block u.s. arms sales to them effectively pushing these countries closer to russia and making them more dependent on russian weapon systems. this is the opposite of what caatsa is trying to achieve. to address these concerns, secretary mattis requested a waiver to section 231. while caatsa has a waiver, it is subject to caatsa procedures which proves congress between 30 and 60 days to review the waiver request. if congress rejects it, they can -- objects, they can have a disapproval, if they fail to have a disapproval within the

review period, the waiver takes effect. this was unworkable the they claim because the mandatory sanctions that would kick in while congress would review the waiver request up to 60 days or more, this would cause significant harm to our defense partners. in response, the house bill authority for the president to waive section 231's mandatory sanctions on countries or entities buying russian defense equipment if the president makes certain certifications, primarily reducing its reliance on the defense secretarior. let me -- once again, the house bill was a wide open waiver. the only representation of certification was that if the nation was attempting to move away from russian influence and russian supplies. we worked very closely with our

house colleagues. the senate version of the ndaa did not have any language with respect to catsa. indeed, one of the reasons that we avoided any sort of discussion with respect to caatsa in the senate was the feeling was that there might be a negative impact on the ongoing bilateral relationship with turkey to persuade turkey to reverse its decision to buy the s.-400. it would trigger mandatory sanctions under section 231 and put our defense cooperation with turkey at risk. the final conference outcome, after discussions back and forth in a very serious and very, i think, thoughtful way was a very narrow waiver for section 231 sanctions only and reflects a

number of important changes to the house provision that raised the bar for the president even to be able to invoke this waiver. first, the conference can preserve all existing caatsa sanctions currently in effect against russia, including sanctions for russia's elections interference and aggression against ukraine. second, the waiver is not available for any transactions wentties in the russian defense and intelligence sectors that were directly involved in russian cyber intrusions, including the russian military intelligence or g.r.u. this preserves the purpose of section 231 sanctions which is to impose costs on the russian defense and intelligence sectors for cyber intrusions. third, the waiver is limited in order to keep the pressure on turkey to reverse its decision to purchase the russian s-400 air defense system. the waiver is not available for any deals to purchase russian weapons systems that would harm the integrity of nato or other alliances in which the u.s.

participates or that would adversely affect ongoing u.s. or coalition operations or that would harm u.s. defense cooperation with the country involve or would significantly increase the risk of compromising u.s. defense systems or operational capabilities, including the diversion of sensitive u.s. defense technology. these restrictions are intended to let the government of turkey know that the waiver is not a get out of jail card for section 231's mandatory sanctions if turkey goes ahead and purchases the s-400. fourth, the conference outcome allows the continued defense cooperation with countries transitioning away from russia. sanctions may be waived only if the country is reducing its dependence on russian weapons systems or cooperating with the united states on security matters critical to our strategic interests. this restriction should be narrowly understood to mean that the country involved is

cooperating with the united states and the strategic competition with russia or china consistent with the administration's national defense strategy. as set out in the national defense strategy, the central -- the security today is the reemergence of long-term competition by revisionist powers, specifically russia and china. fifth, the conference outcome.s for congressional review under a 30-day notice and wait period as an alternative to the expedited congressional review procedures provided under caatsa. congress would still have 30 days to review the president's certifications with regard to any sanctions activity and weigh in with its concerns. sixth, the conference outcome also enhances congressional -- secondary sanctions by adding a report. this report will provide an important baseline for measuring the extent to which countries are reducing their reliance on russia and requires updated information for the next five years on which countries are

reducing their transactions with the russian defense sector. now, some of my colleagues have expressed concern the conference reports waiver for section 231 sanctions is delinked from caatsa's expedited review procedures. they're concerned that congress may be giving up its ability to conduct oversight on administrative attempts to invoke waivers to caatsa sanctions. first, let me try to clear one thing up. the authority on the caatsa as enacted for a broad national security waiver subject to expedited congressional review process remains unchanged under the conference report and can apply to the vast majority of sanctions against russia under caatsa. more importantly, we should keep in mind how the defense department intends to use the limited waiver to section 231 provided in the ndaa. as sector -- secretary mattis wrote on july 24, the department seeks a limited exception that would, quote, allow the united states to sell military equipment and enable countries

pulling away from the russian orbit. secretary mattis further noted that used arms sales are subjected to congressional notification in advance. in other words, secretary mattis is seeking to avoid the disruption to arm steals to key strategic partners that will result under section 231 sanctions and prevent the negative impact sanctions would have with these countries that they transition away from russia. so even with the limited exception provided in this bill, congress will still have significant oversight of any u.s. arms sales to countries being exempt from section 231 sanctions. any sale of u.s. major defense equipment to these transitioning countries like india, for example, will continue to be subject to congressional review under the well established requirements of the arms export control act. and this means that congress typically will have at least 30 days and often more to review and approve any foreign military sale for major defense equipment

to a country that received the waiver to sanctions under section 231. large arms sales are subject to the review process but significant direct commercial sales must also be notified to the arms committee 30 days in advance of the license being issued. the result is that congress has the ability to conduct oversight of these transactions. furthermore, under the arms export control act, congress has procedures for pursuing a resolution of disapproval, prohibiting or modifying the proposed arm sale. congress' oversight of any major u.s. armies sale may flow from a waiver of sanctions under section 231 provides us an additional ability to provide and to supervise the administration's implementation of this waiver authority. there are specific cases that one could talk about in terms of countries that we are actively trying to engage, such as india, indonesia, and other countries,

but, mr. president, i think what we've tried to do is structure a very discrete and in terms the secretary of defense has used, very stringent conditions to the exercise of this sanction. let me conclude again, mr. president, by thanking senator inhofe, chairman thornberry, and ranking member smith and all the conferees for their bipartisanship throughout the process. this process has been collegial and is an example of strong piece of legislation that addresses concerns of members on both sides of the aisle. i'd also like to thank the staffs of the senate armed services committee and the house armed services committee for all their hard work in drafting a thoughtful and comprehensive bill. their extraordinary work is a tribute to us all. i would be remiss if i didn't single out these extraordinary individuals. senator mccain's staff director chris did a superb job.

senator inhofe's staff director, lou and tony. on my staff, jodi bennet and john clark and gary, creighton, guzelzu, john, irene, carolyn, megan, mike, jerry, bill and my staff director elizabeth. i also want to thank jen and paul. they are the staff directors respectively for chairman thornberry and ranking member smith. they did a superb job. with their work and with the inspiration of senator mccain, we were able to pass an extraordinary and i think very effective piece of legislation and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: will

the senator withhold? under the previous order, the chair points the following as conferees on the part of the senate, on the disagreeing votes of the two houses within -- with respect to h.r. 2. the clerk: senators robert, mcconnell, boozman, hoeven, earn tion, stabenow, leahy, brown, and heitkamp. mr. reed: mr. president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. kennedy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. the senate is in a quorum call. mr. kennedy: i ask that the quorum call be suspended, mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kennedy: mr. president, i'd like to talk for a few minutes about our farm bill. as you know, our farm bill is the primary agricultural and food policy tool for the united states. we pass it every year or rather every five years. we just passed it this year. the bill is going to conference. as you know, the senate passed

its own farm bill and the house passed its farm bill, so we're going to go to conference and try to work it out. again, the bill is a five-year bill, but it spends $860 billion in taxpayer money. let me say that figure again. $860 billion in taxpayer money. we throw a billion around these days in washington like it was a nickel. a billion is a lot. if i started counting to a billion right now and counted one numeral a second, i'd finish in 2050. i probably wouldn't finish. i probably would die first. that's how big a billion is. and this bill is about $860

billion. 75% of it deals with our food stamp program. now, in the house version of the farm bill, there is a work requirement for food stamps. and this is what it says, that the american taxpayer will happily give you its hard earned -- his or her hard earned money to help you get back on your feet. we don't want you to be hungry. but if you're between the ages of 18 and 59, the house bill says, and you're not disabled and you don't have a child under 6, then in return for those food stamps, we're going to require you to get a job. you don't have to work a full

week. you just have to work 20 hours a week. and if you don't want to work, you can go to job training for 20 hours a week. that's what the house bill says. the senate bill is silent on that. crickets. doesn't even address it. and i'm speaking today, mr. president, to try to encourage our friends in the house to stand firm and insist on their work requirement for food stamps to remain in the bill. now, i'd like to spend a few minutes to explain why. i get a little tired, mr. president, of politicians and others saying the american people, they're stingy. they don't help their neighbor. well, that's not true. the american people are the most

generous people in the world. they're the most generous people in the history of the world. you think about it. first we spend about a trillion dollars a year, $1 trillion a year in state and local programs that are funded by people's money. the money that funds those programs, it didn't fall from heaven. we thank heaven for it but it came out of people's pockets. and we spend a trillion dollars a year, state and local tax money, helping our neighbors who are less fortunate than us. in our country -- and i'm really proud of this. in our country, if you are a homeless -- if you are homeless, we'll house you. if you're too poor to be sick, we'll pay for your doctor. if you're hungry, we'll feed you. and that separates this country from just about every other country in the world. and it's one of the reasons that so many people across the world want to come to america.

because our people are so generous. i mean, when is the last time you heard somebody trying to sneak into russia? when is the last time you heard somebody trying to sneak into north korea? when is the last time you heard of somebody trying to sneak into china? we should be complimented and it's because of our giving spirit. but, mr. president, it doesn't do any good -- it doesn't do any good in my judgment to be generous with people who need our help without also helping them get out of the circumstances for which we need to be generous. let me put it another way. by suggesting we need a work requirement for food stamps, i am not trying to take away food stamps from people in need. i do not want to take away food stamps from people in need. but i do want fewer people to

need food stamps. and the best way we can do that for those who are able to work is to help them get a job. the brookings institution, which the president knows, is hardly a bastion of liberalism, recently did a study, and the brookings institution said, if you do these things -- these four things, you have only a 2% chance of living in poverty in america. and this is brookings, now. the brookings institution said if you'll do these four things, you have only a 2% chance of living in poverty. number one, get a job, any job, even if it's minimum wage. number two, don't get married

until you're 21. don't get married until you're 21. number three, don't have a child before you get married. don't have a child before you get married. i said four, but i meant if you do those three things, get a job, any job; get -- don't get married before you're 21, and don't have a child before you're married, you only have a 2% chance in this country of living in poverty. now, obviously, a job is a critical part of that. this is what the house bill does. and i hope we in the senate will join with our colleagues in the house and keep this provision in the bill. if you're between the ages of 18 and 59 -- 18 and 59 -- and you're not disabled and you don't have a child under six,

then we will gladly give you food stamps, but in return we're going to ask you to work 20 hours a week. and we will help you get a job. if you look at the numbers, mr. chairman, right now we have about 21 million people on food stamps who are able-bodied. and let me tell you how i define that universe. 21 million people. they're 18 to 64. so the numbers are slightly different from the house. and they're not disabled. those 21 m able-bodied americans receive about $34 billion a year in food stamps. now, those 21 million americans who are able-bodied, who don't work, not disabled, 40% of them don't have children, 63% of them

are white, 50er p of them are -- 50% of them are under 35. now, the house bill, mr. president, is even more generous, if you will. it's just 18 to 59, no child under six, and you can't be disabled. and in return for the food stamps, we would ask you -- we would ask you to get a job. i want to repeat what i sta with, mr. president. the purpose of this bily idea, e provision to take food stamps ay from people in need. but i do want fewer people to need food stamps. ho g to help other people whoedt even free up a nickel or two for ngsto spend on thi lik an roads and cops. now, the senate in its wisdom decided not to put in a work ent. some of my colleagues said, oh,

we already have work requirent for foodta no, we don't. no, we don't. it's optional for the governors. and guess what my governor did? he implemented a food stamp work requirement without work. i mean, it looks beautiful on paper, except when you actually read the thing, it's a work requirement without work. the house bill is different. it's getting serious about this problem. and i hope that our conferees will open their minds and open their hearts and open their ears and listen to our house colleagues, and i hope that our house colleagues will stand firm. thank you, mr. president. with that, i yield the floor.

mr. leahy: what is the -- the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: what is the parliamentary situation? are we just in morning business? the presiding officer: we're in morning business. mr. leahy: i thank the distinguished presiding officer. i do have a few comments i will make. mr. president, i've had the privilege of serving in the u.s. senate for 44 years. 20 of those 44 years as either the chairman or the ranking member of the judiciary committee. and during those 44 years, i've seen 19 nominations to the supreme court. most of the nominees i voted for by both democratic and republican presidents. the first one was john paul stevens, and it was president ford.

and i voted on every current member of our nation's highest court. when i was in vermont over the weekend, i was thinking back over this, and i don't think i've ever seen so much as stake with a single seat as with the current nomination of judge kavanaugh. now, one thing we can all agree upon, republicans and democrats, like many supreme court nominees before him, judge kavanaugh has impressive academic credentials and judicial experience, but unlike most of his predecessors, judge kavanaugh also has a lengthy, partisan career. prior to his time on the bench, judge kavanaugh was a political operative engaged in some of the most divisive fights in our nation's recent history, including kenneth starr's investigation of president clinton, including bush i's

gore, and five contentious years has a senior official in president george w. bush's administration. so it's really no surprise that judge kavanaugh has quite a paper trail. actually, over one million pages. his lengthy, controversial record was something the white house was well aware of when the president selected him. the president selected him, nonetheless. that means that under the advise and consent clause of the constitution, the burden falls first to the judiciary committee to review his record. it should be self-evident that records related to a n especially significant period of a supreme court nominee's career should be closely examined by the senate. indeed, the methodical review of a federal court nominee's full

record is not optional. it is the most fundamental part of the senate's constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent. in fact, we just saw a few weeks ago such vetting led to the withdrawal of a circuit court nominee where they found a record of very offensive college writings. well, the process has been a lot more exhaustive for a nominee to our nation's highest court. one need only look to the senate's consideration of justice elena kagan. like judge kavanaugh, she served in the white house prior to her nomination. i was chairman of the judiciary committee at the time, and i worked with then-ranking member jeff sessions, and we requested a full universe of her documents from the clinton presidential library.

we worked together. we wanted to assure the request was expedited. we wanted the production to be complete. and crucially, president obama made no claims of executive privilege. in fact, less than 1% of the documents were withheld on personal privacy grounds. the other 99% we had. in fact, to this day, you can find those e-mails still posted online for anyone to see. i also then supported senator sessions -- then-senator sessions' request for documents related to military recruitment at harvard -- military recruitment at harvard. not the sort of thing one thinks of as a background for a supreme court nominee. but elena kagan had been dean of the law school.

that request everybody agrees was way beyond the scope of our committee's usual practice. but i agreed with the republicans that the records could potentially be of public interest, and so i joined with senator sessions and we sought them because they thought they should be subject to public scrutiny. transparency weighed in favor of disclosure. but then transparency almost always does. and then for justice sotomayor, when i was chair, i joined then-ranking member jeff sessions when we requested decades' old records from justice sotomayor's time working with a civil rights organization during the 1980's. i remember she was a sitting court of appeals judge, and we had that record, which is what

some of the republicans are saying is all we should look at with judge kavanaugh. but they wanted the time she worked with the civil rights organization decades before. we did have 3,000 opinions that she had written over 17 years as an appellate and district court federal judge. every republican wanted those records, and those of us who were in the majority of the democrats said, fine, the public should know what they are, and we agreed. what as a change -- what a change. what a change. they wanted to have the records from justice kagan and justice sotomayor. they said she had to come up with those records. but he doesn't have to. well, every document of public

interest should be made public. no artificial restrictions. no abuse of executive privilege. the american people deserve the unvarnished truth of this man, just as senate republicans rightly demanded of the two women, highly qualified women that president obama nominated. they wanted the records from them. we wanted records from him. but unfortunately the judiciary committee is not on track to uphold this bipartisan standard of transparency. two weeks ago my republican friends expressed a willingness to request white house documents that judge kavanaugh authored or contributed to as staff secretary to president bush. they thought it was very similar to the request made of justice sotomayor and justice kagan. but then they had a private

meeting with the white house counsel last week and, whoops! suddenly is we can't do that. suddenly the white house, a different branch of government, is telling the independent senate judiciary what they have to do and suddenly is all of judge kavanaugh's staff secretary records were off-limits. then last friday in a stark departure from committee precedent, chairman grassley, who is a friend of mine -- and i was shocked when he sent a partisan request that omitted any and all records from judge kavanaugh's three contentious years as staff secretary. this is a particularly extraordinary omission given that judge kavanaugh himself had singled out his three years as staff secretary as among the most instructive for him as a judge, where he said he provided advice on any issue that may

cross the president's desk. during this time, judge kavanaugh said he helped pull together legislation and he worked on drafting and revising executive orders. karl rove described judge kavanaugh as playing a major role in reviewing and improving practically every policy document that made it to the president. judge kavanaugh said his experience gave him a keen perspective of our system of separation of powers. now senate republicans don't want to see any of it, not even those memos and other documents that judge kavanaugh himself authored and edited. just as i worked to provide these same documents when republicans requested them of a democratic administration, i do not believe the senate can fulfill its constitutional duty to provide advice and informed

consent to a nominee of our nation's high of the court without vetting three years of such critical records. that's why yesterday i joined ranking member feinstein and the other judiciary democrats who associate own records request to the bush presidential library. the request mirrors, not surprisingly, almost word for word the request i sent with then-senator jeff sessions for justice kagan. we simply can't have a lower standard of transparency for donald trump's nominees than for the past nominees of both republican and democratic presidents. the fact that the judiciary committee is willing to move forward without judge kavanaugh's full record is especially in alignment -- is especially alarming because the last time judge kavanaugh testified before the senate under oath, he appeared to provide a misleading account of his work in the bush white

house. at his 2006 confirmation hearing, i and other senators asked about his knowledge of several bush-era scandals, including wireless wiretapping, torture, detainee treatment. judge kavanaugh testified he had no knowledge of it at all until he read about it in the paper. he testified in response to a question from senator durbin that he was not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants, again under oath. but a year after his confirmation, press reports indicated that he had participated in a heated discussion in the white house over the legality of detainee policies. judge kavanaugh discussed whether the supreme court would uphold the bush administration decision to deny lawyers certain enemy combatants. judge kavanaugh advised his former boss, justice kennedy,

would likely reject the argument that the white house is putting forward. now, this conversation, i try to look at it every way i can. i was a trial lawyer. i took dpogz. i argued cases. i'm trying to reconcile it with judge kavanaugh's sworn testimony, testimony under oath. you can't reconcile it. it makes it all the more critical that we review his complete white house record to find out what he really did. and the only record that i see from judge kavanaugh's time as staff secretary are a handful of e-mails previously released to an unrelated foia request. one happens to show very clearly that judge kavanaugh was looped in. notwithstanding whatever he said, he was looped in on the bush white house efforts to message the famous torture memos.

that is of one million records that exist on judge kavanaugh, we have this one drop in the bucket. that one drop in the bucket, they are discussing torture. something he said he only read about in the papers. turns out he knew about it long before it was in the papers. now, i'm afraid that our republican friends clearly don't want records from judge kavanaugh's three years of staff secretary to be published, but just because records are controversial doesn't mean they should be hidden from public view. just as we gave all the records from president obama's nominees, we should do this. actually, the opposite principle applies. the american people must not be in the dark about controversial aspects of a nominee's record. certain principles are more important than parity. transparency is one of those

principles. we have learned this lesson before. we wore blinders when considering a former administration official for a lifetime judgeship. we found out that presents grave risks. when president bush anonymous justice department jane barberry in 2003, i and other senators asked about his involvement in the legal issues surrounding the war on terror. he didn't answer our questions, but a year after he is sworn into a lifetime position on the federal court, the american people learned that judge beibe gave the green light for the official use of torture, something most people agree now is one of the darkest chapters in our nation's history. had we known that at the time, judge beibe would still be known as mr. beibe. he never would have been confirmed. i'm sure both republicans and

democrats would have voted against him. this shows that judge kavanaugh was directly involved in some of the most politically charged moments in our recent history. the senate owes the american people an unsparing examination of his nomination, a nomination which could shape their lives for a generation. it's my hope the senate republicans and chairman grassley will reconsider their partial records request for judge kavanaugh and join the democrats' request for all his records. i agreed when they demanded that from justice kagan and sotomayor, i joined them with that. that's the standard we followed for both of those tremendous jurors, sonia sotomayor and justice elena kagan. shouldn't we demand the same of judge brett kavanaugh?

he is no different than they are on that -- on the issue of what he had to say. we ought to find out what it is and then mike up your mind. vote for him or vote against it. but, mr. president, i'm pretty sure that if we had gotten the right answers on then-mr. bybee, he never would have become judge bybee. i don't find many senators of either party who will stand up here and defend and say it was great that we broke the law on torture for dubious reasons. mr. president, i was going to suggest the absence of a quorum, but i see my friend from missouri on the floor, so i would just yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri.

mr. blunt: mr. president, today the senate overwhelmingly supported the conference report for the 2019 john s. mccain national defense authorization act. that report is now on the way, that bill is now on the way to the president's desk. and, mr. president, many americans have bravely fought to uphold the values that our country holds dear. many people in the senate have been stalwart supporters of the military during their time here, but the legislation we passed today is named for one of these senators. our colleague from arizona, the chairman of the armed services committee, senator mccain. senator mccain not only has given much of his life in military service, but he has given tirelessly in service to the country himself in so many ways, including service here. he has been incredibly effective at voabting for the men and women who serve in uniform and defend us.

mr. president, no member of the senate for honeymoon my admiration and appreciation has increased more during the opportunity i have had to serve with him. as a house member, i knew senator mccain, but i only knew him in the kind of passing that occurs when the house and senate are trying to work out an issue or deal with a specific problem. i didn't really get to know john mccain until i came to the senate, and that daily contact with him made a real difference in the way i felt about him. his courage, his sometimes seemly short fuse, but also always his desire to do the right thing as he saw the right thing has continued to make him an important advocate here, even in recent days when he couldn't attend the senate, he was the first to let his -- let his views be known.

certainly senator mccain and i didn't agree on everything, still don't agree on everything, don't make any particular pretense that we agree on everything, and there has been more than one occasion when he expressed to me his absolute dismay that i voted the way i voted on a certain issue, but that's when i began to think really we maybe had a relationship that i could treasure and i do treasure it, and bs -- and, mr. president, i'm pleased we named this bill after senator mccain. one of the principal responsibilities that we have is to defend the country. it's the one job the federal government does that almost no american will argue that somebody else could do that better, either personally or at a different level of government. it's the number one priority i think of the federal government, and this bill addresses that priority.

in our state, we have lightman air force base, we have fort leonardwood, rosecranz air national guard base where people from all over the world come to train on how to use the c-130's, we have a national guard facility in springfield, missouri, that repairs helicopters for the armed services and saves a lot of money in doing that. we're the home of the national geospatial agency's western headquarters, and proud to be. missourians serve in uniform and proud to serve, missourians serve in other ways, and all of those organizations i have just mentioned, and they are proud to do that as well. the people who serve in the military, the people who served in the intelligence branch of our government really are increasingly challenged. i think the missions we have around the world, the challenges we have around the world, the

national security threats we have around the world, as you know from your job as foreign affairs chairman are as complex and complicated and multifaceted as they have ever been. some have said more threats from more directions in more ways than any other time, and i think this bill begins to recognize that, tries to recognize that, understands that to remain successful, america has to have a military that creates a military advantage. it has to -- be able to counter the potential -- the potential that our adversaries have. we have to be able to defend international order and protect ourselves and those who rely on us in their defense of freedom. to that end, secretary mattis and the senior leaders throughout the department of justice put together the plan,

the thought that really is the backbone for how this legislation has been crafted. this national defense authorization act authorizes the necessary investments and establishes the policies to carry out our national defense strategy. first and foremost, president trump and his administration have prioritized rebuilding the military. this bill with a total of $716 billion in authorization provides the resources, the equipment, and the training necessary to do so. now, for two years in a row, we have authorized a substantial increase in defense spending. we'll have a chance when we get back in a week or so to bring the defense appropriating bill to the floor which hopefully will be the second year in a row that our defense spending has matched the plan that's been

authorized. this defense bill, the national defense authorization act, provides our service members with a pay raise, the biggest pay raise in ten years. 2.6%. our troops and their families make a tremendous sacrifice to serve. they move often on a minute's notice, but in the last year's legislation, we gave more flexibility to families on that topic, but still when you're in the military, you know you're not likely to be wherever you are for very long, and that increase in pay is something that we should be pleased about as a country. this bill authorizes critical multiyear procurement authority. and why does that matter? why does multiyear -- that doesn't sound very exciting, multiyear procurement authority. but it allows people to plan, allows people in the military to plan, not only what they are getting this year but how that

gives them the ability to build on that next year. the super hornets, for instance, that are made in st. louis, missouri. we have been using those at pretty high volume with desert warfare. the desert is harder on our equipment than other places might be. the serious shortfall of fighter aircraft in the navy. all of those things are taken into consideration as this bill moves forward. it's a bill that recognizes the importance of readiness issues. we had more people die in training accidents last year by a substantial number than were killed in combat. that means we hadn't been providing the kind of training or the kind of equipment because we had budgets that didn't allow that. these budgets that we voted on in the last few months hopefully get us back to where we're going to close that readiness gap,