is the only true national defense, and that those who walk in integrity travel securely. eternal god, we place our future in your hands. help us to live by faith so that our actions will receive heaven's approval. we pray in your great name. and, lord, we ask you to comfort those who mourn aretha franklin's death. we are also grateful to you for the life and legacy of kofi annan. we pray in your gracious name. amen.

the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk: washington, d.c., august 20, 2018. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable todd young, a senator from the state of indiana, who will perform the duties of the chair. signed: orrin g. hatch, president pro tempore. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: last week the

senate turned to a critically important pair of appropriation bills, those which encompassed the departments of defense, labor, health and human services, and education, and we proceeded to this legislation by unanimous consent. that might seem a like small detail in the scheme of things, but it underscores a fact that should be a real source of pride for this senate. bill by bill, we are rebuilding a regular process for responsibly appropriating taxpayers' money. we are achieving what we set out to do, we are doing it together, because of our chairman and subcommittee chairs and ranking members, all 12 appropriation bills for this fiscal year were reported out prior to the july 4 recess. the process was to bipartisan, that latively -- cumulatively

the committee bills were 363-9. here on the floor we already approved with bipartisan support measures to fund energy and water development, military construction, veterans' affairs, transportation, housing and urban development, interior, environment, agriculture, and other priorities. we've had a normal committee process. we've had amendment votes here on the floor of the senate. we have considered these bills thoroughly, but efficiently, and passed each of them with bipartisan majorities. that's exactly the momentum we need to keep up right now. the legislation before us will be a major milestone. it addresses vital priorities, a pay raise for our troops plus funding for their missions and work to restore combat

readiness, training programs for american workers, new tools for combating the opioid epidemic. these bills will bring billions of dollars and resources and relief to the families and communities that are fighting every day against the crisis of drug abuse and addiction that has inflicted so much pain on our country. i'll have more to say this week on the important things this legislation will accomplish, but first i want to pause and take stock of our progress. when we finish and pass the legislation before us, we'll have approved nine of the 12 bills to appropriate money for the government. together they'll account for more than 87% of the discretionary spending for next year. and it will be the first time, mr. president, in 15 years that the senate will have passed labor, h.h.s. education appropriations bill before the

start of the fiscal year. i'm glad we'll be voting on a pair of amendments later this afternoon, and i hope with consent we'll be able to vote on more amendments this week, and then i look forward to passing this legislation for our service members and for middle-class families across our country. now, on another matter, if i sound like a broken record discussing the pro-growth, pro-worker trend in the economy, it's because the headlines roll in faster than i can remember them. last week this is one headline, small business confidence hits a record high and one survey reports more optimism among small business owners this month than at any time in the past 35 years. another head len, u.s. jobless claims fall for a second straight week, that one comes after the number of americans filing for unemployment benefits hit a 46-year low last month. and another, u.s. retail sales

increased strongly in july. in fact, they are up 6.6% -- 6.4% over one year ago. an economy that is expanding and encouraging investment at all levels, reports like this is what republicans had in mind when we implemented our pro-growth, pro-opportunity agenda last year. when we worked to pass the historic regulatory reforms our democratic colleagues offered up a different set of predictions. they shared our belief that 2018 would be a headline making year for the economy, but they insisted the headlines would be catastrophic. my friend, the senate democratic leader proclaimed that nothing, nothing in tax reform was suited to the needs of the american worker. i don't think i've heard my friends revisit those arguments recently.

i haven't heard too many democrats eager to remind american middle-class families and small business owners that every single democrat in the house and in the senate tried to kill their tax cuts with completely partisan opposition. but republicans were undeterred. we pressed on and got tax reform and so many other pro-growth policies accomplished for the american people. now, like our friends across the aisle, we are talking about these victories practically every day, american enterprise, ingenuity are what made the headlines happen. republicans are just proud we could play a part by getting washington's foot off the brake and leaving them more free to build their lives and pursue their happiness.

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

quorum call:

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: mr. president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: now, mr. president, as we continue the review of the nomination of brett kavanaugh to the supreme court, let's recap what we already know about the judge. judge kavanaugh's judicial opinions reveal a man skeptical about our health care law, reproductive rights, contraceptive coverage, and the basic powers and independence of federal agencies. his public speeches and writings reveal a man with a nearly

unbounded, almost monarchical view of executive power, and yet an incredibly limited interpretation of competitive accountability. those -- of executive accountability. those beliefs are troubling at any moment in time, but they are particularly troubling at this moment in time as the president of the united states routinely belittles the rule of law and as his lawyers pronounced that they will fight a duly authorized subpoena, subpoena that has been obeyed in the past by previous presidents. and, mr. president, there is still much about judge kavanaugh that we don't know, because senate republicans have engaged in a blatant historic obstruction of a large portion of his record. first, chairman grassley broke with tradition and fired off a one-sided partisan request for documents. senator feinstein is known as the most reasonable of members. if she couldn't join with

senator grassley in a request for documents, clearly it indicates how biased that request was. chairman grassley unilaterally declared the papers from judge kavanaugh's time as staff secretary irrelevant, even though those documents constitute the bulk of judge kavanaugh's record, and he himself, judge kavanaugh himself has said that those years were among the most instructive as to his work as a judge. then it was revealed further -- they keep chipping away at what we're allowed to see, what the public is allowed to see about judge kavanaugh. then it was revealed a small percentage of the documents we will receive is being prescreened by a political operative named bill burke, a long-time republican lawyer and former deputy to brett kavanaugh, a man who has counted among his clients, steve bannon, reince preeb bus, don mcgann,

this man is hardly a fount of impartiality. he's a partisan. mr. burke also refuses to provide us with a log of the documents he has withheld. why are you with holding this one but not this one? no one is going to know. could it be revealed some of the information that is being withheld would be embarrassing to judge kavanaugh or at the very least harmful to his quest to become a supreme court justice possibly, but the american people have a right to know. we've been denied the opportunity to evaluate whether the documents are being withheld for legitimate or self-interested purposes by a lawyer who is clearly a partisan. that's two layers of obfuscation already. first, we're not allowed to see the most important documents of judge kavanaugh's time as secretary. second, of the counsel

documents, which is a small percentage of his total documents, those are being prescreened by a republican lawyer, not an impartial observer, who tells us which ones we can have and which ones we can't without giving us any reason as to why one is okay and one isn't. now to make matters worse, chairman grassley has added a third level of with holding documents. he's declared that one-third of the small prescreened universe of documents only from the counsel's office, only prescreened by burke, that wasn't good enough to people who want to avoid judge kavanaugh's record coming out in full. so those are now deemed committee confidential, meaning no one outside the judiciary committee, not even other senators can see those documents, at least by chairman

grassley's determination. it's outrageous. now, chairman grassley is usually a fair minded man. i enjoy working with him on many issues we carry with the ease of the senate. we carry, for instance, rural hospital legislation all the time. and help our rural hospitals. but when it comes to this area, chairman grassley's actions are manifestly unfair, not typical of his character. i understand the pressures he's under, but that doesn't forgive the result. with holding documents from the senate and the american people under the bogus label of committee confidential is a dark development for the senate. committee confidential, by the way, means that senators on the judiciary committee can see the documents but they can't tell anyone about it, not their fellow senators, not the

american people. why shouldn't the american people see them? so there are key issues here that we need to understand better. on friday three of my colleagues raised questions about judge kavanaugh's truthfulness regarding testimony he gave about the bush administration's post-9/11 terrorism policies in 2006. we need to understand the issue better and we also need to know what he thought about the bush administration's efforts on warrantless wiretapping, efforts to curtail reproductive rights, and more. he testified in 2006 when he was nominated to join the d.c. circuit, and we have to see if he was being truthful. this is such an important position, the supreme court. we should see those. the american people should. so locking up documents in committee, even on those important issues, is an affront

to transparency, openness, and to the basic integrity of the confirmation process. we've been given no reason, no legitimate reason why the committee confidential documents are acceptable for some senators but not others to see. and, mr. president, my understanding of the senate rules is that every senator has the right to access documents in the possession of a senate committee, any senate committee. i am now going to ask the chair to confirm that understanding. so, mr. president, am i correct that under rule 26-10-a of the standing rules of the senate, all committee records are the property of the senate as a whole and that all senators, quote, shall have access to such

records, unquote? the presiding officer: that is in fact in part how the rule reads. mr. schumer: thank you. and the word says shall have access to those records. is there anything that undoes those words in the rules? the presiding officer: could the senator restate the question. mr. schumer: yes. i just asked if under the rules, all committee senate records are the property of the senate as a whole and that all senators shall have access to those records, shall have access. and the presiding officer said yes, those are in part the rules. of course, that's not all the rules. is there anything that the presiding officer knows in the rules that would undercut that ruling? in the senate rules? the presiding officer: rule 10-a reads as follows. all committee records, data and charts shall be kept separate

and distinct from the congressional records of the members serving as chairman of the committee and such records shall be the property of the senate and all members of the committee and the senate shall have access to such records. each committee is authorized to have printed and bound such testimony and other data presented at hearings held by the committee. mr. schumer: then it's clear there's nothing that undercuts. i appreciate the chair reading the entire rule. nothing in the rest of the rule undercuts what i have said obviously. so based on your ruling, mr. president, the ruling of the chair, i will therefore be submitting a request to the chairman and the ranking member of the judiciary committee for access for all senators to all of the kavanaugh documents in the possession of the committee. this request will include approximately 81,000 pages of documents that have been deemed, quote, committee confidential by the private lawyer mr. burke and by the chairman of the committee, chairman grassley.

my colleagues should do the same. and again, the purpose here isn't dilatory. we'll work hard day and night to go through these documents and see if anything worth questioning judge kavanaugh arises in them, but we certainly have that right by the rules of the senate. and i'm glad the chair so interpreted it. now, this is not just about rules, mr. president, or about having more reading material. this is about the senate and by extension, the american people, understanding the stakes and consequences of elevating judge kavanaugh to a lifetime appointment on our nation's highest court. this is about our constitutional duty to advise and consent on a supreme court nominee. senators cannot do that in an informed manner without fair and full access to a nominee's record. and of course the constitution assigns this duty to senators on

behalf of the american people. without access to the nominee's record, the american people will be in the dark. that is unacceptable. finally, on another matter, and i see that my colleague from. a vermont is here who is doing an excellent job on the appropriations bill which he will discuss but one more matter. last week the trump administration announced that it was reveeking the security clear rans of a former director of the c.i.a. the action was taken not after a thorough review of the security clearance process. it did not affect a new policy. the revocation of the former c.i.a. director's security cler rans was a gratuitous act of political retribution taken out of spite and malice, sometimes unfortunately attributes the president shows. it was an attempt to silence critics of the president, something the president

regularly tries to do visual -- usually unsuccessfully. my republican colleague senator corker said this in july about the possibility of the president, president trump, revoking security clearances, quote -- this is republican senator bob corker, a well respected man in america. he said, quote, when you're going to start taking retribution against people who are your political enemies, that's the kind of thing that happens in venezuela. it's a banana republic kind of thing. unquote. senator corker is right. the abuse of the powers of public office to silence critics, punish political enemies is exactly what goes on in dictatorships in banana republics and we're not one of those, thank god. then we found out on saturday the president is openly considering reaching into the justice department to revoke security clearance of current

career professionals who worked, this professional the president mentioned works drug case, antigang cases, based solely on rumors and innuendo spread by the chairman of the house intelligence committee, hardly a credible source, and spurious other sources. revoking the clearance of current justice department officials without cause is so far out of bounds for what can be considered the proper use of presidential power that it is appalling. in the words of senator corker -- and the words of senator corker are even more strongly felt. what's next? will president trump decide to revoke the security clearance of everyone working for special counsel mueller because he thinks it's in his craven political interest? there's enormous potential for gross abuse of presidential power.

congress on a bipartisan basis ought to make sure that the president does not politicize the security clearance policy. revoking a security clearance is a decision that should be done for national security reasons and national security reasons alone. i yield the floor. are. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 6157 which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 500, h.r. 6157, an act making appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2019, and for other purposes.

mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator for vermont. mr. leahy: i know senator shelby has spoken and will speak again. also, we're coming up on time for some votes. let me speak in my capacity as vice chairman of the senate appropriations committee. today, as you know, the senate -- today senate begins consideration of defense and labor, health and human service, education, related agencies, a

minibus appropriations bill. this will actually be the third appropriations package brought to the senate floor this year, and once we complete action, the senate will pass nine out of the 12 committee-reported appropriations bills for the fiscal year 2019. certainly much faster than it's been done in years. but i want to thank chairman shelby for his commitment to a bipartisan process. that and the fact that we have been friends for decades has made this progress possible. but i also want to thank senators blunt and murray and durbin for their work on these bills. again, a bipartisan effort. but i think the bipartisan process is due to the shelby-heahy-mcconnell effort to move ahead on appropriations bills that have bipartisan support, spending levels agreed

to in the bipartisan budget deal, and reject poison pill riders and controversial authorizing language. the two bills in this package meet that test. actually, we should look at the fact the minibus before us represents 65% of all discretionary spending, but it also demonstrates the importance of the bipartisan budget agreement reached earlier this year. in this package we see the priorities outlined in that agreement made into real policy to improve the lives of americans. it's no secret the budget control act of 2011 and the result of sequestration cuts damaged our military readiness that resulted in canceled deployments and de deferred mint nantz. it was july of last year, i remind my fellow senators, that senator mattis testified before

the senate appropriations committee. he said for all the heartache caused by the loss of our troops during these wars, no enemy in the field has done more to harm the readiness of our military than sequestration. but damage to our military readiness was not the only consequence. sequestration has led to schools that fail to prepare students for a challenging world, a steep decline in federal investment for job training, and employment services, health care crises left unaddressed, child care services eroded. in fact one thing when thinking of the defense budget, as reported in 2017, seven out of ten people -- seven out of ten, ages 17-24 in america, would not qualify for military service because of reasons related to their physical health or education. that means 24 million out of 34 million young adults are ineligible due to obesity and

other health problems, a criminal background, or lack of education. now, up to the talk about our -- you want to talk about our national security. that strikes at it. the statistics should make it alarmingly clear that investments in our domestic priorities like health care and education are also national security investments. the military agrees with that. that's why we have fought so hard for a budget deal to reverse the cuts on both defense and nondefense programs. but now we've reached a bipartisan budget deal, and because of it, the defense appropriations bill before us gives the men and women of our armed services the resources they need to carry out their missions effective. and safely. that's a goal that both republicans and democrats have shared throughout this process. and the lhhs bill makes important increases, increasing funding for the national institutes of health by $5

billion over f.y. 2017. that's so they can aggressively pursue cures for diseases like cancer, diabetes, alzheimer's. it backs our commitment to increase access to higher education by increasing college affordability spending by $2. 3 billion over f.23017. and by increasing access to child care by $3.2 billion over f.y. 2017, it supports working families in communities in every part of our country. and in doing this, we've rejected the president's shortsighted budget proposals which would have cut important programs in the bill by $12. 5 billion from fiscal year 2018's funding level. now, the immediate thing of course we take into effect our

immediate national security needs. you have to think about the future of the country and the deep ties that run between defense and nondefense priorities make it fitting that we take up these two bills together, and i applaud the chairman for doing that. by combining these bills in one package, we increase the certainty they will be enacted into law, on time, and avoiding the devastating effects of long-term continuing resolutions. and i urge our house counterparts when they come back to washington to commit, as we have, to producing a conference report that contains both bills so we can move swiftly toward final passage. and finally i want to highlight the new funding in this bill that helps our country address the scourge of is opioids. every member in this chamber has seen the toll this epidemic has

taken on their states. in 2017, 72,000 people%, a 10% increase over 2016, lost their lives to drug overdoses in it the opioid epidemic. in that one year, more lives were lost than in the entirety of the vietnam war. just think of that, mr. president. 72,000 people from the opioid scourge. i know marcelle and i hear frequently from vermonters recovering from the opioid abuse. we also hear it in the grocery stores or church on on the streets of vermont from families talking about a member who did not recover and talking about their funeral.

marcelle is a nurse. i am a former prosecutor. some of these tales have brought us to tears because these are men and women with the same hopes and dreams shared by all americans. and that's why i say, mothers and fathers see us and say, we want to talk to you. they have tears streaming from their eyes. we know we're going to hear they've lost children to this epidemic. and this has touched the lives of every american -- black, white, rich, poor, urban, rural. it's an american problem. it affects all of us. and this package represents the second installment in investing in serious desolations. it would invest $3 billion in rhea sun suh sources to address this crisis. this is on top of roughly $500 until additional funding contained in other appropriations bills and similar funding levels in the f.y. 2017

omnibus. but it is because of bipartisan budgets and bipartisan budget deal these new investments will surpass $billion over two years -- $6 billion over two years. of course there is more we can do to help those americans who are trying to pull themselves out of addiction and turn their lives around or to keep their children align but this is a good start. i think it is a start the american people can be proud of. it is into the democratic plan. it is not a republican plan. it is an american plan, and that should unite us all. mr. president, i see my dear friend from alabama, the distinguished chairman, on the floor, and i yield the floor.

mr. shelby: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator for alabama. mr. shelby: mr. president, this afternoon, as most of us realize now, the senate has begun debate on amendments to the fiscal year 2019 defense, labor, h.h.s. appropriations bill. these are the two largest bills to come out of the appropriations committee as a whole, both of them together make up a great part of all the appropriations process, the numbers. at the end of last week here, i offered a more detailed outline of the critical funding of this bill for america's military, so i will not repeat myself on that, mr. president. today i simply want to remind my colleagues on what is at stake with this legislation and our path to success hopefully this week. mr. president, first and

foremost, our national security sat stake. earlier this year the president signed into law the largest increase in military spending in 15 years. this legislation accelerates that increase and provides our men hand our women in uniform with the largest pay raise that they have seen in nearly a decade. so the number one thing at stake here is rebuilding our military and taking care of our troops. this bill, mr. president, also provides for a wide range of critical domestic priorities, including education, medical research, and funding to combat the opioid epidemic -- all very important to america. recent history suggests that we face a tall task in passing these bills on the senate floor. the senate, mr. president, has not passed a labor-h.h.s.

appropriations bill in more than ten years. it has been even longer since the president was able to sign a defense appropriations bill into law before the end of the fiscal year, which ends september 30. why, mr. president? because in the past poison pills have blown occupy the process or foreclosed it altogether. i appreciate the fact that one senator's poison pill is of course another senator's priority, but i strongly urge my colleagues today to focus on accomplishing the big picture priorities that i've underscored here. we know where the fault lines run and i hope we can avoid them. there are reasons to believe that this year will be a different year, that we will produce a different outcome. first among them, a unified desire to avoid another omnibus spending bill. second, mr. president, we come

to the floor this week on the heels of a stream of recent successes in passing appropriations bills. and, third, each of the bills in this package passed the appropriations committee by a vote of 30-1. these factors paved the way for the full senate to consider this package, and i want to take a minute to thank the leaders on both sides, senator mcconnell, senator schumer, for agreeing to bring this bill to the floor. i also want to thank the vice chairman of the appropriations committee, senator leahy, for you sticking to the -- for sticking to the agreement he and i made to move these bills in a bipartisan manner. and, mr. vice chairman, you're here on the floor. we would not be in this position without your efforts. and i want you to know how much i appreciate that. and i want you to know how much i believe most of the senate appreciates that. i say to my colleagues, we collectively called for regular

order in the appropriations process, and now we have it. i'm optimistic, mr. president, that we will continue to show the american people that we're here to work and that means debating and disposing of amendments, passing appropriations bills, and accomplishing the job they sent us here to do. mr. president, i hope my optimism is not misplaced. the stakes are simply too high. we have a lot to do this week, but we can do it. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator for florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, i ask consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: mr. president, folks are voting today in

florida. as a matter of fact, they've been voting for some now weeks since florida has started voting by mail, which started a couple of weeks ago, and they're voting in early voting, a period of time of up to two weeks prior to the august primary, the 28th of august. they're voting early in these elections. they're exercising their most fundamental right, which is to vote. and of course there's so much at stake for florida and our country in this year's elections. last month a federal judge in florida overturned a 2014 ban on early voting, and it was a ban

on college campuses. back in 2014, the legislature passed and the governor signed into law a series of restrictions to make it harder to vote instead of easier. and one of them that was then implemented by the division of elections, secretary of state, was that there could not be a voting place on a college campus. well, mr. president, we have state universities just like other states do that have huge numbers of students. and of course if you want to make it easier for students to vote instead of having to go out in the community, it's quite logical to have a place for them to vote on the campus. well, that has been the attempt

in the past, was to ban the voting. and the particular case that i weighed in on a few years ago was they were banning voting from the student union building at the university of florida in gainesville, a campus, by the way, that enrolls some multiples of tens of thousands of students. well, a federal judge, in a scathing opinion, overturned this ruling, saying that the ban by florida law was unconstitutional and that it seemed to put in place a prohibition of a geographical location of voting as a means by which to hinder younger voters,

specifically students, from casting their ballots. and because of the judge's ruling, the federal judge, there now will be an early voting location on the campus of the university of florida during the general election in this coming november. but according to press reports, it doesn't look like that's going to be the case in all places around florida's colleges and universities. we have just read a newspaper report that supervisor of elections in duval county -- that's jacksonville -- says he might not be able to set up an early voting location on the campus of the university of florida in time for the general election due to logistical and

financial concerns. well, i hope now that the federal judge has ruled in this case, making it very clear the judge's displeasure of not making it convenient for students to vote by refusing to set up a precinct on the location of the college, in this case university campus, i'm hopeful that the logistical and other issues can be resolved as quickly as possible and that florida's universities can host early voting during the general election. early voting is a key to ensuring access to the ballot for all voters. what we've found with the early voting, and now with vote by

mail, that increasingly larger percentages of the voting electorate are utilizing that opportunity to vote instead of waiting until the last day, election day, november 6. unfortunately we've seen some efforts in florida over the last decade to curb access to early voting, particularly among young, low-income, and minority voters. we ought to be making it easier to vote, not harder. and i hope in all of the multiplicity of universities and colleges all around florida that the supervisors of election will pay attention to the federal judge's ruling and act accordingly. madam president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the

majority whip. mr. cornyn: i'd ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: madam president, it's august and the senate is in session, getting the people's work done. as the majority leader said last week, the reason we can't afford to take this time off is because we have so much to do. of course one of those things we could do would be to agree to an expedited consideration of noncontroversial nominations, something our democratic friends that have not been willing to do to this point. and indeed they engaged in unprecedented obstruction to some of president trump's nominees, even those that aren't controversial. for example, we just confirmed two federal appellate court judges in a strong bipartisan manner just last week. these of course are both highly distinguished lawyers, and i'm sure they'll do a great job on

the fourth circuit. but when you see nominations get overwhelming bipartisan votes, you wonder why we've had to delay these nominations not only for the judiciary, but also other important nominations like at the state department and in other areas that, frankly, because of the vacancies, it impairs the ability of government to be responsive to the needs of the american people. and it's a shame that we've seen that kind of mindless obstruction to president trump's nominees that, again, are not even controversial. but while we focus sometimes on how divided we are, and i know the american people sometimes feel like we're unwilling to find common ground, it is not true that we don't occasionally come together and do important things. this week marks the continued collaboration between republicans and democrats that started last week when we agreed to address two important funding

bills, one for the department of defense, which is my personal priority, and i know the presiding officer would agree with that, and the other involves labor and health and human services, which i'll mention in just a moment. but working together to do both of these appropriations bills is something that "the new york times" described as a bipartisan breakthrough because in the past we've lurched from continuing resolution to omnibus appropriations bills, much to the frustration of not only our constituents, but to many of us in the senate, because we've seen many of the resolutions under fund. we have seen large appropriation bills that basically four members of congress negotiate and present to the rest of us which is a terrible way to spend the people's money. but we're doing something good here, i believe, this week.

these appropriation bills are the two largest of all the appropriation bills, and after we pass them this week, as we will before we leave for the week, we will have passed nine of the 12 appropriations bills which fund 87% of discretionary spending. to do more -- to do this with more than a month before the end of the fiscal year is something that we haven't done in a long time. we're ahead of the house which usually moves at a pretty fast clip. although we're working and the house is taking a little time off, i might add. i want to offer my appreciation to chairman shelby, chair of the appropriations committee, and ranking member, vice chairman leahy, who i was just talking to. he was telling me how nice the whether is in vermont, and how

he would rather be there, and i told him if he would help us work on the backlog of nominations, maybe there's something we could discuss. i would like to thank chairman shelby and ranking member leahy for having a smooth appropriations process so far. as i said, there have been seven of them and the chairman marked up each prior to the state work period. they've done a good job of managing the jobs on the floor and avoiding the quagmire that would only kill the process. i'd like to highlight a few of the aspects of each appropriation bill that we'll be working on this week. in the defense bill we'll be including a provision requiring the department of defense to issue two reports to congress on implementation of a bill called fix nics. this is a piece of legislation that we passed with broad

bipartisan support, went to the president, but i introduced in light of the shooting last fall in sutherland springs, texas, that killed six peopled and injured -- people and injured 20 more. what happened is that a person in the air force was discharged but his record was not uploaded in the legal database is. that is how he was able to commit this mayhem and inflicting this misery. that's why this report from the department of defense is so important, how they have hopefully remedied this failure to upload this derogatory and disequaling information from people who cannot legally purchase or possess firearms, and we want to make sure that in light of this legislative change that the right changes are being implemented and that lives will be saved as a consequence. the defense bill will also

greatly benefit the nation by providing additional funding for the f-35 joint strike fighter and the v-22 osprey aircraft, both of which happen to be made in texas. this is important not only to make sure our war fighters have the most advanced air frames and aircraft available, but also make sure that the jobs that go along with it are secured as well. the joint -- the f-35 joint strike fighter is the latest and greatest warplane in the american arsenal, and we have put literally all of our eggs in that basket. as the saying goes, when you put all of youration in one -- all of your eggs in one basket, you better take care of that basket. we are ensuring that these are

being produced in a responsible way and to ensure that our war fighters will have the best equipment in order to do the job that we've asked them to do. this bill also provides $30 million for local schools that provide education to military children. this is sometimes called impact aid because our military bases aren't taxed by local school districts when they are then called upon to provide education to the children of military -- active duty military or military dependents, it's important that the federal government makes sure that they have the financial resources they need in order to make that happen. and, indeed, $30 million in impact aid will be provided for local school districts. finally this includes a 2.6% increase in military pay and increases active duty troop levels by more than 7,000. both of those are really important.

obviously it's an all-voluntary military, and it's important to compensate our service members appropriately. this isn't about the money for them, but we have to make sure that that they can provide for their families while they serve our nation and help keep us safe. in terms of troop levels, it's important that the troop levels match the commitments we made around the world to help stabilize unstable regions and to provide safety, not only for ourselves but for our friends and allies around the world. and, unfortunately, because of extensive and lengthy commitments that we made with a small force, our active duty service members are likely to be deployed over and over and over again with a lot of stress, not only on their families but on the force effectiveless in general. both of these are really important, the 2.6% increase for

pay for our military and increasing troop levels by about 7,000. in the second bill that we will be passing in addition to the defense appropriations bill, this will fund the department of labor and health and human services and provide more funds for biomedical facilities to expand their research capabilities that will benefit a multitude of institutions including those like texas biomedical research institute in san antonio. we know that in the health care field that nurses are always in short supply and this bill will also benefit nursing programs like the one at texas tech university which will assist veterans in making the transition from military life to civilian life and will finally in the education sphere will provide $4,775,000,000 for charter -- $475 million for charter school programs.

madam president, while we're doing that, at the same time we're doing work on the nomination of judge kavanaugh who will succeed justice kennedy. his hearing is set for septembee will work quickly thereafter to work it on his confirmation. i have perhaps benefited from my familiarity, my acquaintance with judge kavanaugh dating back to 2000. many of my colleagues are just meeting him for the first time and becoming acquainted with his outstanding record for -- record as a lawyer for the white house and as a judge. the judiciary committee received another production of documents on judge kavanaugh dispatched that amounted to about 64,000 pages. just so everybody can keep count of all the documents produced as

part of the confirmation hearing, the committee has more than 248,000 pages of executive branch material related to the nominee. now, the reason i mentioned that number is because it really dwarfs previous record for judge gorsuch, which was roughly 180,000 documents for judge gorsuch. the committee was also handed a list of documents that were withheld on grounds that they are personal records as opposed to government records under the presidential records act. chairman grassley has appropriately, and i think wisely, asked the national archives to review those withheld documents and confirm this determination by making their own determination with whether they are responsive or should be withheld. i think this speaks volumes to the transparency of the process since day one, and i am particularly grateful to our chairman, chairman grassley, for

his leadership as well as for the efficiency p and thur -- efficiency and thoroughness of the committee so far that they displayed in reviewing the documents. we worked hard to accommodate our democratic colleagues' requests all along the way. let's not forget that for nearly two weeks before issuing the committee's request to the george w. bush presidential library, chairman grassley attempted to seek an agreement with the ranking member to jointly request documents related to judge kavanaugh's legal work at the white house. these efforts of goodwill and collaboration, unfortunately, were to no avail. the chairman received instead unprecedented counterproposals designed to unnecessarily draw out the process. although the chairman is right to prioritize review of some of the documents coming from president george w. bush's administration, we all know that the best evidence of how judge

kavanaugh will perform as a member of the supreme court is how he has -- he has already performed as a judge during the last 12 years on the d.c. circuit court of appeals, and he's written more than 300 opinions during that time. of course, his work as a judge is the best lens for how he will evaluate real cases in the future. our friends on the other side used to agree with that. back during justice sotomayor's hearings they made this identical comment that her judicial record was far more important than any comments or speeches that she may have made outside of that context. and so maybe belatedly for them we are -- we agree with them that this is the best evidence, and it's really just common sense. but in judge kavanaugh's case, reviewing his judicial record, i think what the record reveals is that he's diligent and

thoughtful in his reasoning and his rulings are clear, impartial and just. in the recent questionnaire he returned to the judiciary committee, which is a standard part of the vetting process, nominees are sent a questionnaire and they respond and attach copies of speeches, law review articles and other things that they've spoken on or written. judge kavanaugh listed what he saw as his most significant cases, and i want to mention a couple of those pause i think they are illustrative of thend kind of work that he has done not only on the d.c. circuit court of appeals but what he will do as a member of the supreme court and his standing in the federal judiciary. first is a case called the free enterprise fund. judge kavanaugh found himself in dissent, in other words, he didn't join the majority decision finding that the structure of an independent agency in the executive branch

violated the constitution. but interestingly when the case was appealed thereafter to the united states supreme court, a majority of the justices on the court sided -- cited judge kavanaugh's dissent in reversing the panel's decision on the district of columbia circuit court. when the supreme court agrees with a lower court judge and cites that author's opinion, that's a pretty good sign that he or she deserves to be taken seriously. in judge kavanaugh's case it didn't just happen once. consider a second case blewman, which involved a federal ban on election contributions by foreign nations. when the supreme court took the case thereafter, it unanimously agreed with judge kavanaugh -- unanimously. the entire court, all nine members, sided with judge kavanaugh's position.

and in a third case, wesby, judge kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion on questioned qualified immunity afforded to law enforcement officers, even though judge kavanaugh's views did not win the day in the d.c. circuit, the supreme court took the case and reversed the panel decision and embraced judge kavanaugh's position in the end. and once again, it bears repeating the decision was unanimous. 9-0, judge kavanaugh's view was virgin vindicated. madam president, these are just a few of the 307 opinions that he authored while on the d.c. circuit, and of course there are many more, and in the coming weeks, i know the lawyers on the judiciary committee as well as my colleagues will have a chance to thoroughly delve into each of them and then ask the nominee probing questions about those when he testifies before the committee during the first week of september. but for now, we will continue with the great paper chase which includes the largest production

of documents ever in the senate's consideration of a supreme court nominee. unfortunately, as i have said before, many of our democratic colleagues aren't likely to be ever satisfied with the boxes upon boxes of written materials, it will never be enough. in some cases, it's because they have already decided to vote no against the nominee before even meeting the nominee or reviewing any documents whatsoever. but emblematic of this phenomenon is one of our colleagues on the senate judiciary committee who threatened to sue to obtain even more records. the problem for that senator is that the night that judge kavanaugh was nominated by president trump, he said he had done enough due diligence to reach a conclusion on whether the nominee should be confirmed or not and said he would not vote for the nominee, yet this is the same senator who is now saying we ought to file a suit

to get more documents. i think the american people are smart enough to figure out what's going on here, and it's gamesmanship plain and simple. so my question is why, if our colleagues have done enough due diligence to make a decision not to support the nomination, why did they need more paper? to what avail? why should we extend this process, cost the taxpayers more money, and create a lot of confusion when they have already made their decision? well, despite these games, the truth is that judge kavanaugh is imminently qualified and well respected by all that know him, and i look forward to confirming him as justice kavanaugh early this fall following the judiciary committee hearings the first week of september. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: 1

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: thank you. madam president, i rise today to call on my colleagues to vote in favor of the menendez-murkowski amendment number 3705 which i understand we'll be shortly voting on the floor, to provide implementation funding for the fire fighter cancer registry act. many of our colleagues supported the authorizing bill when it was before the senate earlier this year, and it was subsequently passed and signed into law by president trump. there are many words that come to mind when we think of firefighters: courage, heroism

and compassion. but tragically there is another word all too often associated with firefighters, and that word is cancer. according to the international association of firefighters, cancer is now the leading cause of death among firefighters. we know that firefighters confront more than smoke and flames while on the job. they also encounter dangerous fumes and toxins and known carcinogens that pose serious health risks. the firefighter cancer registry act that we created is the first ever national cancer registry for firefighters and the law directs the centers for disease control and prevention to study the relationship between career, long exposure to dangerous fumes and toxins and cancer. our nation's first responders put their lives on the line every day, whether it's charging into a burning building on september 11 or fighting

wildfires out west today. every day our firefighters strive to protect us. this is the least that we can do as a nation to protect them. i hope all of us can unite in support of this amendment which will enable the centers for disease control and prevention to carry out its mission in the in the firefighter cancer registry act. i want to thank my colleague from alaska, senator murkowski, for her stalwart commitment to this effort on the legislation that became law and in the process of trying to get this appropriation. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: i rise today to offer a bipartisan amendment with my colleague, the junior senator from wisconsin. our measure would provide much-needed funding for the defense, p.o.w.-m.i.a. accounting agency or the dpaa, so that they can continue the important work of identifying

and accounting for our missing service members from conflicts around the globe. tragically, more than 83,000 americans remain missing from world war ii, the korean war, the cold war, and the vietnam war. many more remain unaccounted for as a result of more recent conflicts. the defense, p.o.w.-m.i.a. accounting agency is an agency within the department of defense whose mission is to recover personnel listed as prisoners of war or missing in action. their core task is to provide the fullest possible accounting for these personnel to their families and to this nation. the value of the work being done by dpaa cannot be overstated. no matter when an american service member goes missing, our commitment to fully

investigating what happened and bringing closure to their families should never waiver. i'm honored to represent one of dpaa's forensic laboratories located at offit air force base. there they are currently working to identify the sailors lost in the sinking of the u.s.s. oklahoma during world war ii and conducting forensic identification of the tuskegee airmen who remain listed as missing in action. as a result of north korea's recent agreement with the united states, dpaa's work has taken on added significance. in july, north korea turned over 55 boxes containing the possible remains of d.o.d. personnel lost during the korean war which must now be processed and identified. on several occasions north korean officials have indicated they possess as many as 200 sets

of remains that they have recovered over the years. to this day, there are still 5,300 u.s. military personnel who remain listed as missing in action and are presumed deceased during the korean war. their remains still located in north korea. for the families of those lost, this is a long awaited opportunity to gain closure and to give their loved ones the respectful, dignified remembrance that they deserve. for that to happen, we must ensure that dpaa has the resources it needs to conduct the forensic analysis of these new remains and continue working to locate and account for american service members. and that is why i'm offering this amendment which will provide $10 million in fully offset funding to allow dpaa to

cover this additional workload. by supporting this amendment, we can ensure that this influx of new work can be handled without delay and that the talented men and women of dpaa have the support necessary to continue this important task. for the families of those lost in service, it is never too late to offer closure. and for our heros in uniform, it is never too late to remember and to honor their sacrifice. i would like to thank the junior senator from wisconsin, the junior senator from massachusetts, and all of our cosponsors who have aided in this effort. and i urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment and lending our voice to the memory of our missing and fallen service members. thank you, mr. president. i would yield the floor.

mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: i would ask unanimous consent that the 5:30 votes take place immediately. are. the presiding officer: the question occurs on amendment 3705. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: anyone wishing to vote or wish to change their vote? if not, the yeas are 85. the nays are zero. the amendment is agreed to. the question occurs on amendment 3706.

is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber that wish to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 85. the nays are zero. the amendment is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up en bloc and reported by number: nelson 3773, kennedy 3703. i further ask consent that at 12:10 p.m. on tuesday, august 21 the senate vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed and that there be no second-degree amendments in order to the amendments prior to the votes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky mr. mcconnell for others proposes amendments

numbered 3773 and 3703. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to executive session to the consideration of calendar 1033 through 1038, that the nominations be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order, that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tuesday, august 21. further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour 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. and that following leader

remarks the senate resume consideration of h.r. 6157. further, that the senate recess following disposition of the kennedy amendment until 2:15 to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until