largest provisions will in 2019, legir, hhs and education.. the votesti have happened and we continue throughout the afternoon. and for the rest of the week.riy live coverage of the u.s. senate here on the spam too. 10,000 to 20,000 people alone this year who will be working on security the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. crapo: i rise to speak of brett kavanaugh to serve as an associate justice of the supreme court. on july 9, president trump announced his nomination of brett kavanaugh to be our 114th justice. serving on our highest court is

the pinnacle of achievement and nomination to the bench is testament to a distinguished legal career. when we imagine a supreme court justice, we think of respected jurists well steeped in legal questions, rigorous in attention to detail, respectful of traditions, faithful to the law, awed by the recognition of the proud and profound responsibility wielded, and fair to all involved. our legal system requires it and the american people value it among their highest ideals of government. throughout our history the central tension of our republic can be defined as the exercise of government power versus liberty. each expands at the expense of the other. finding a way for both central authority and individual freedom to coexist and support each other remains our biggest challenge and will remain so long into the future.

to preserve the limits on a ever expanding federal government, our founding fathers conceived of a system of interlocking powers that support each other but serve as a necessary restraint against tyrannical behavior. we all know it as the principal of separation of powers. with each of the three powers acting as a check on the others. the constitution's ai don'tment clause -- appointment clause illustrates the working application of the checks and balances dynamic. article 2, section 2, clause 2 of the constitution provides that the president shall nominate and abide with the advice and consent appoint other ambassador and public ministers, judges of the supreme court, and others. this provision interlocks the executive branch with the

legitimate -- legislature. neither can succeed without the other. at best this is a partnership functioning well. at its worst, either side can deny the other success. one popular but misguided criticism made of judge kavanaugh centers around his academic study of the separation of powers in our federal system. in one scholarly writing he explores the legal structures of our government and the dangers presented by overpoliticizing the relationship between the branches. he describes the enormous challenges faced by president clinton and president bush in carrying out their responsibilities while political difficulties swirled around them and the impact that had on the official administration of government. much hyperbole has been spoken about judge kavanaugh's keen observations. whether you find yourself on the political right or the left, few

would dispute his central point that a government system rendered inoperative benefits no one. to quote alexander hamilton in federalist paper number 70, a feeble executive implies a feeble execution of government. judge kavanaugh offers a number of options for the political branches of government to explore and points out the pros and cons of them. the opposite view held by judge kavanaugh's critics is then, by extension, the status quo of washington's dysfunction. as a jurist, his legal -- in his legal opinions, judge kavanaugh has consistently demonstrated a willingness to rein in both congress and the executive when they overstep their constitutional bounds. having a judge committed to preserving the constitutional function of each branch cannot

be overstated. some would have you believe judge kavanaugh's understanding of the proper operation of our system of government is a threat to the very republic and disqualifying to serve on our highest court. i disagree his aalist is -- analysis is insightful. in the weeks since president trump nominated judge kavanaugh for the court, special interests have kicked into overdrive, pedals one imagined conspiracy after another. i have heard people suggest that judge kavanaugh is threat to the people of every raise, creed, gender and age. some have unleashed prophecies of biblical doom and gloom. still others have called on opponents of judge kavanaugh to use every possible tool to stop his confirmation, including the extreme step of shutting down the government should things not

go their way. so facing a nominee with impeccable credentials, opponents must imagine a boogieman. fortunately people see past those attacks because they are the same attacks that they lobbed when president bush nominated justice suiter and when justice kennedy was nominated. failing that, some opponents of judge kavanaugh are hoping to demand an endless stream of documents to delay confirmation proceedings indefinitely. these opponents claim the process is unfair and lacks transparency when in reality the opposite is true. as chairman grassley of the judiciary committee so eloquently pointed out at a recent senate issue meeting, none of these criticisms hold any weight. there will have been 57 days between the announcement of

judge kavanaugh's nomination and the date of his confirmation hearing, a longer period than senators had for sotomayor, kagan and gorsuch. judge kavanaugh has also submitted more than 17,000 pages with his bipartisan judiciary committee committee questionnaire, which is the most extensive questionnaire every sent a nominee. the committee has also received hundreds of thousands of pages of documents from judge kavanaugh's service in the executive branch. this too is already more than any supreme court nominee before him and documents are continuing to be sent to the committee for review. chairman grassley is working tirelessly to make the vast majority publicly available as quickly as possible and i appreciate and applaud his transparency. i recognize the politics and the purpose behind these creative

but misguided attacks. and so does the american public. judge kavanaugh's experience and legal background are not in dispute. his readiness for the supreme court is not contested. his law clerks vouch for him. lawyers who argue before him commend him for his justice, judgment, his fairness, and his temperament. his peers admire and respect his intellect and draw regularly from his opinion. in short, he is a judge's judge. in fact, nearly every one of his former clerks signed a letter extolling the qualifications he has, his virtues, and his temperament. so widespread was the support of their former mentor, only those prohibited by their employer from signing off were left off. newspaper editorial boards from across the country have endorsed his nomination. here are just some of the dozens

of glowing testimonials about judge kavanaugh. the "wall street journal," judge kavanaugh has an exemplary record that suggests that he will help restore the supreme court to its proper more proper role in modern politics and society. he has the experience and intellect to be a leader on the court, not merely a plea democraticable vote on this or that issue. the "detroit news," brett kavanaugh's credentials, his unassailable character, his record as a judge dedicated to the constitution, and his like ability should overwhelm the senate skeptics who will oppose him simply because he was appointed by trump. the "remind times dispatch" if one were to -- president trump's

nominee to replace justice anthony kennedy is more than qualified for the job. indeed, kavanaugh's qualifications are impeccable, unfortunately that won't stop him from being lambasted on the left by those who are concerned about his conservative values. "the las vegas review journal," judge kavanaugh is imminently accomplished. judge kavanaugh is firmly in the judicial mainstream, although democrats will no doubt try to twist him into a rabid, dangerous extremist. he is, in fact, a constitutionalist, who believes that judges should follow the nation's founding document rather than interpret law to achieve desired ends." the global sun" in massachusetts. what democrats cannot question is brett kavanaugh's

credentials. after all the drama and history ontics, democrats should put politics aside and vote to make him the ninth member of the supreme court. mr. president, judge kavanaugh is one of the most qualified nominees ever for the supreme court, and he's been nominated to succeed justice kennedy, man for whom he once clerked and called a mentor. with over 300 authored opinions and 12 queers of service -- 12 years of service on the benefits, he -- bench, he has demonstrated that he applies the law as written and enforces the constitution. he values precedent and has written, along with justice gorsuch and others, the law of judicial precedent, a scholarly piece on the responser of stare decisis. many argue that a judge kavanaugh would be the key to

unlocking any number of supreme court precedents. i wonder, though, how many have read this book and understand he is someone who has given exhaustive and weighty consideration to important legal questions. but we should take him at his own words. quote, the judge's job is to interpret the law, not to make the law or make policy. so read the words of the statute as written. read the text of the constitution as written, mindful of history and tradition. don't make up new constitutional rights that are not in the text of the constitution and don't shy away from enforcing constitutional rights that are in the text of the constitution. judge kavanaugh is a respected jurist with a sterling reputation for intellectual rigor and attention to legal detail. he understands the proper role of a judge in our legal system

to fairly interpret the law, not create it. he thinks deeply about the legal questions before him and strives to build consensus on the court. as stated by his former law clerkses, judge kavanaugh -- clerks, judge kavanaugh never assumes he knows the answers in advance and never takes for granted that his view of the law will prevail. he actively solicits views from all sides of an argument, all the better to form a lasting and well-reasoned opinion. i look forward to the senate judiciary committee's upcoming hearings when the public can hear directly from judge kavanaugh in his own words, the proper role of a judge in our system. and i'm confident that judge kavanaugh will demonstrate the rigorous intellect, the judicial temperament that has long defined his career on the bench. thank you, mr. president.

i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. a senator: i ask consent to vitiate the quorum. young mr. young: i rise to speak about judge kavanaugh. judge kavanaugh's qualifications are undeniable. he's proven over the last 12 years on the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit that he is most well qualified for this next step in his career. i had the opportunity to sit down with judge kavanaugh in my office just last month. he struck me as a man of great character and integrity. he answered questions directly. he spoke forthrightly.

he demonstrated at once a strong intellect and a deep humility. he had a wide-ranging conversation with me on the issue that are important to the people in my home state of indiana, including his approach to faithfully interpreting the constitution of the united states. now, as a d.c. circuit judge, he has carried out his duties faithfully and consistently. he's shown by the record that he understands that the judge's role is to apply the law as it's written. it's not to impose his own policy preferences. he is what you might call a technicallualist when interpreting statutes, meaning he adheres strictly to the law as it's written. and he's an originalist as well, meaning he carefully reviews the history of our framers when interpreting the constitution. this is an approach he frequently lectures and writes about as a guest lecturer at

harvard and other top law schools, including notre dame law school back home in indiana where he gave a guest lecture on his juris prudential approach in february of 2017. it's also worth noting that it was supreme court justice elena kagan who hired judge kavanaugh to teach at harvard when she was the harvard law school dean. justice kagan clearly thought highly of the judge's reputation and credentials. so highly, in fact, that she hired him to help shape the minds of harvard law school students. in his writing, judge kavanaugh reminds us that federalism and the separation of powers, quote, are not mere matters of etiquette or architecture, but are essential to protecting individual liberties, unquote. judge kavanaugh has also exhibited a willingness to rein

in administrative agencies when they exceed their authority under the law. he has consistently held that international laws do not govern national security matters if congress has not adopted them as domestic law. after carefully reviewing judge kavanaugh's record, i'm confident he will be faithful to the constitution and preserve the integrity of the supreme court. but i have to say, judge kavanaugh is more than just a highly respected jurist. he's more than an eminently qualified legal scholar and a mind that's well suited for the supreme court. he's also a father, a husband, a coach to his two daughters' basketball team, a man of impeccable character. earlier this month, a group of more than 30 parents sent a letter to the senate judiciary committee praising judge

kavanaugh's character. the judge's two daughters are students at blessed sacrament school here in washington, d.c., and the judge is the girl's basketball coach. the parents wrote brett kavanaugh has been a devoted coach and mentor to our daughters. they continued, in addition to his long list of professional and academic accomplishments, we hope that the committee will also consider brett kavanaugh's contributions as a volunteer youth basketball coach and the service, selflessness, dedication, and commitment his coaching exhibits. now, in two weeks, the senate judiciary committee will begin its confirmation hearing for judge kavanaugh. he's one of the most qualified nominees to ever come before the united states senate. and when all is said and done, the judiciary committee will

have reviewed more records than ever before for a supreme court nominee. the importance of protecting individual liberty cannot be overstated. i'm pleased we're considering the nomination of someone who by word and deed has committed himself to preserving freedom. i look forward to watching judge kavanaugh's confirmation hearing, and after conducting a thorough and objective review of his nomination, i'm confident that judge kavanaugh will be an excellent addition to our nation's highest court. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. and i would note -- mr. durbin: mr. president, i note my colleagues have come before me to discuss the nomination of brett kavanaugh to fill a vacancy on the united

states supreme court at the retirement of justice kennedy. i checked just to make sure i understood the section of the constitution. it's article 2, relative to the president's powers, which talks about the power of the president to fill that vacancy on the supreme court, subject to the advice and consent of the united states senate. 100 united states senators ultimately have the last word on any nominee. i am fortunate to serve on the senate judiciary committee where we get the first chance to review any nominee and take a look at their backgrounds and vote as a committee before the matter is brought to the floor of the united states senate. i have listened to my colleagues who support judge kavanaugh ascending to the bench to a lifetime appointment to the highest court of the land. i am troubled by one particular aspect of this nomination. it is different than any nomination in the history of the united states to the supreme court, different in this respect. this president made it clear that any person who wanted to be

eligible for the united states supreme court needed to pass a clearance by two organizations. one is called the federalist society, and the other is the heritage institute. both of these are conservative organizations which reviewed all of the potential supreme court nominees and produced a list of 20 or more men and women who would be eligible for the supreme court by their judgment. is their judgment important? i will point to one fact in history which illustrates. when neil gorsuch was nominated by president trump to serve on the supreme court, to fill the vacancy of antonin scalia, he was not notified by the white house. the white house called the federalist society head, leonard leo, and asked him to call mr. gorsuch and tell him the good news. so to say that the federalist society and heritage institute

play a critical role in the selection of a nominee is an understatement. if you don't clear their background test, their litmus test, you cannot be considered by the trump administration for the supreme court. that's offensive to me. you don't see any reference to the federalist society or the heritage institute in the united states constitution. there is a clear reference to a president, elected by the people of the united states, but to give to any special interest group, right, left, or center, that kind of authority is way beyond what our founding fathers imagined would be this process for selecting someone from the supreme court. but then it gets even more complicated. before we consider a nominee for the supreme court, we have to carefully review their records. it takes time. literally scores of lawyers sit down and go through the published opinions and speeches and other documents which evidence a person's background, and when it comes to brett kavanaugh, it's an extensive

background. he's had a role at the highest levels of the federal government for years. ken starr's special commission, the gore and bush lawsuit that went down to the state of florida and beyond. the cases that he was involved in as a member of the court are pretty obvious and published, but many of his activities, particularly in the white house when he served as secretary of -- staff secretary to the president of the united states, were extensive for a three-year period of time. 35 months, he was the gatekeeper in the white house as to the documentation which the president would receive and read. it involved a pretty massive amount of time and documentation on all of the major issues facing the presidency for almost three years. should we take a look at it? is it worth our investigation and inquiry into what mr. kavanaugh said and did during those years?

well, there was a time here when republicans thought it was not only important but essential when it came to a nominee named elena kagan. elena kagan had never served on the supreme court or federal judiciary. she was nominated by president obama. and at the time the ranking republican on the senate judiciary committee, jeff sessions of alabama, insisted on the full documentation of her role in the white house. and the democrat on the committee, patrick leahy of vermont, joined him in making that request. 170,000 documents were produced because of senator sessions and patrick leahy's request. it was a bipartisan request. it established a standard. the same standard was applied for the next democratic nominee, sonia sotomayor. documentation had to be presented to the committee and carefully reviewed before there was a vote on whether that person would serve in a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.

most of us assumed at that point that it was a settled practice in the united states senate judiciary committee when it came to the documentary proof we would ask for when nominees came before us for the supreme court. we thought that but we were wrong because when the republicans took control, everything changed. it changed of course with antonin scalia's vacancy, untimely death, a vacancy which president obama sought to fill during his last year in office. he ended up nominating merrick garland, a d.c. circuit court judge of impeccable credentials to fill the vacancy. the republicans in the senate refused to even meet with merrick garland let alone consider him and vote on him. so for a whole year, the vacancy continued on the supreme court while the republicans broke senate tradition and refused to consider president obama's

nominee. then came the election of donald trump, the nomination of judge neil gorsuch, and the process went forward to fill the vacancy which the republicans had kept open for more than a year before neil gorsuch was finally voted on by the united states senate. so here came the second vacancy under the trump administration, a vacancy created by the retirement of justice kennedy, and the question was obviously asked what standard will you use for asking for the documentary evidence of the person's background and public service? many of us assumed it would have been the same standard that was pushed by senator sessions, republican of alabama, and senator leahy, democrat of vermont. we were wrong. instead, what the republicans said is we're going to have a new rule when it comes to republican nominees from the trump administration in the case of judge brett kavanaugh, and that new rule said that we will not ask for documentation for

the 35 months when he served in the white house as the closest advisor to the president of the united states. i can tell you, there were a myriad of issues that were considered by the president in that period of time, and brett kavanaugh, then-assistant to the president, was involved in these decisions. we won't know what he said or did because the republicans have refused to ask for the documentary evidence of his time there. but there is more to the story. they decided that for those documents which they might consider asking, they would have a final filter, and the final filter is a man named burke who has served as counsel, an attorney for not only president bush but also in the past for steve bannon? does the name ring a bell? he has served as his counsel and was assistant to brett kavanaugh in the white house. mr. burke is literally going through the documents to decide

which ones will be given to the senate judiciary committee to consider. so it means that he is the filter of things that he doesn't want us to see, doesn't want the american people to see. this republican advocate attorney is going to be a decision-maker when it comes to whether or not we can see documents that were produced by brett kavanaugh when he serve in the white house and beyond, and it's even worse. it turns out that those documents which he preclears for us to read in the senate judiciary committee are subject to some sort of committee confidentiality. now, i have served on the senate judiciary committee for a number of years, but i know that there are documents which are considered somewhat committee confidential, but it's rare, and it's usually a case which you wouldn't argue. classified information, for example. in this case, the republicans on the senate judiciary committee will be the final, final filter

as to whether or not the american people will know the background of brett kavanaugh. why is there so much secrecy here? why wouldn't these documents be made public? well, let's look back in time. when elena kagan was asked to produce 170,000 documents from the time that she served in the white house, she produced every one of them. how many of those did she assert executive privilege and say i can't produce them? none. every single document was turned over to the senate judiciary committee. now when it comes to brett kavanaugh, i can't tell you what's going on here. there is a concealment which is impossible to explain. what -- what would we find in those documents that have been carefully screened by mr. burke and then again by the senate judiciary committee republican majority? i am concerned about it because this is a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. we know the court's carefully divided. it is legitimate for us to ask the questions about judge kavanaugh's background because

of our constitutional responsibility to advise and consent, but we can't ask those questions if they don't produce documents, and that's where we are today. so my colleagues can come to the floor and talk about judge kavanaugh's record leading up to this nomination. they are limited in the information they've been given and the limitations are unprecedented in the united states senate. the republicans when it comes to the supreme court just rewrite the rules. eric garland, president obama's nominee, no thanks. we're not interested or interested in are canning him for this appointment. when it came to this judge, judge kavanaugh, the ordinary production of documents by a standard established by the republicans, senator sessions, are being ignored now when it comes to the nomination of brett kavanaugh. nevertheless, we'll be given limited information because of this process and have to do our best to carefully review this nominee before he's considered for this lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.

mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: mr. thune: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, is the senate in a quorum call. ifer officer it is. mr. thune: mr. president, i would ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, when it comes to deciding whether or not to confirm a supreme court justice, there are two important questions -- one, is this person well-qualified? and, two, does this person understand the proper role of a judge? when it comes to brett kavanaugh, the answer to both questions is yes. i don't need to tell anyone how qualified judge kavanaugh is. he is a graduate of yale law school, and a lecturer at harvard law school. he has extensive legal experience in government and private practice, and he has spent the past 12 years serving on the court of appeals for the d.c. circuit, sometimes referred to as the second-highest court in the land. his opinions have been endorsed by the supreme court more than a dozen times and are regularly cited by courts around the

country. in short, he is eminently qualified to be a justice on the supreme court. but being qualified, while essential, is not sufficient. a supreme court justice also needs to understand the proper role of a judge, and that role is to interpret the law, not make the law. to judge, not legislate. to call balls and strikes, not rewrite the rules of the game. judge kavanaugh understands this. he understands that as a supreme court justice his job will be to rule based on the facts of the case, the law, and the constitution, and nothing else -- not his personal opinions, not his political feelings, not his beliefs about what the law should be; just the plain text of the law and the constitution.

and that, mr. president, makes judge kavanaugh exactly the kind of judge that all of us -- democrats and republicans alike -- should want on the supreme court. the kind of judge who in the words of judge kavanaugh will decide cases -- and i quote -- without regard to policy preferences or political allegiances or which party is on which side in a particular case, end quote. but, of course, mr. president, that's not the kind of justice democrats are looking for. they don't really want an impartial justice. they want a justice that they can rely on to rubber stamp democrat policies, and so even before president trump had named a replacement for justice kennedy, democrats were already signaling their intention of rejecting anyone the president put forward. one democrat senator formally announced his opposition to the president's nominee the morning of july 9 before the president

had actually nominated anyone. since judge kavanaugh's nomination, democrats have tried to make a case against judge kavanaugh, throwing up accusations in the desperate hope that something will stick. but needless to say, they haven't had much luck. it is difficult to argue that a judge like judge kavanaugh isn't imminently suited to serve on the supreme court. democrats are also doing their best to delay the proceedings by making outlandish demands for documents relating to his time in the white house. apparently, the up to one million pages that the judiciary committee expects to receive from judge kavanaugh's time in the executive branch and his circuit confirmation isn't enough, even though it could be more than the amount of material received for the last five supreme court nominees combined. let me repeat that, mr. president. one million pages that the judiciary committee expects to

receive from judge kavanaugh's time in the executive branch and his circuit confirmation is more than the amount of material received for the last five supreme court nominees combined. one also has to ask why democrat leaders feel the need to see any material for judge kavanaugh given the fact that they've already made up their minds to oppose him? but, of course, it is not about the material. we all know that. democrats aren't really interested in reading every e-mail that happened to be copied to judge kavanaugh. they just with aens to delay his nomination. -- they just want to delay his nomination. mr. president, it would be nice if democrats would abandon their partisan opposition to judge kavanaugh and take a serious look at this superbly qualified nominee. unfortunately, i expect the political posturing to continue. but we will continue to move forward with the confirmation process to deliver another outstanding justice to the

supreme court. mr. president, the good economic news continues to pour in. the economy grew at an impressive 4.1% in the second quarter of this year, bringing economic growth for the year so far up over 3%. unemployment dropped to 3.9% in july, which is close it an 18-year low. worker pay and benefits are increasing at the fastest pace in a decade. consumer confidence is at a nearly 18-year high. disposable income -- that income after taxes -- is up 3.35% this year. -- 3.5% this year. and small business optimism is at record high. mr. president, in short, republican economic policies are working. and i don't need to tell anyone that economic growth lagged during the obama administration. the recovery from the recession was historically weak. and some economists were predicting that 2.growth would

be the -- 2% growth would be the new normal. but republicans disagreed. we didn't think that american workers should have to resign themselves to permanent, sluggish economic growth and the diminished opportunities that come with it. we knew that american innovators and job creators were as creative and driven as ever. but we also knew that american businesses, large and small, were weighed down by burdensome regulations and an outdated tax code that discouraged growth. so over the past year and a half, the republicans, the white house, and congress have focused on moving obstacles to economic growth. we've reduced burdensome regulations and in december we passed historic, comprehensive tax reform legislation. before that bill passed, before the tax cuts and jobs cut act passed, the tax code was not helping grow jobs.

it was doing the opposite. that had real consequences for american workers. a small business owner struggling to afford the hefty annual tax bill for her business was highly unlikely to be able to hire a new worker or to raise wages. a larger business having you s&ling to stay competitive in the global marketplace while paying a substantially higher tax rate than its foreign competitors too often had limited funds to expand or increase investment in the united states. and so we took action to improve the playing field for american workers by improving the playing field for businesses as well. we lowered tax tax rates acrosse board for owners of small- and medium-sized businesses, farms and a.m.,. we lowered the corporate tax rate which used to be the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. we expanded business owners' ability to recover investments they make in their businesses,

which frees up cash which they can reincyber threat their operations and workers. and we brought the u.s. international tax system into the 21st century so that american businesses are not operating at a disadvantage next to their foreign competitors. and now, mr. president, we are seeing the results -- stronger economic growth, as i mentioned 4.1% in the second quarter of this year, giving us an annual growth rate of over 3%, something we haven't seen in quite a while; low unemployment, the lowest unemployment numbers literally in the last 18 years; the number of jobless claims, the lowest in 40 years; better wages and benefits; seeing companies large and small across this country increasing wages and the benefits that they pay their employees; wages, as i mentioned earlier, up, highest level increase in wages in a

decade; and as i said earlier, disposable income up 3.5% since the first of this year. all this has happened since tax reform passed last year. 1.5 million new job have been created since the passage of tax reform. that means more opportunities for american workers. i'm proud of the progress that we've made inest going the economy going again -- inest going the economy again, and i'm going to keep working with my colleagues hopefully on both sides of the aisle to expand economic opportunities for americans even further. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. portman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president, first i'd like to agree with and commend my colleague from south dakota talking about the importance of the tax relief and regulatory reform and what's that's meant our economy. we are growing at rates that some said because impossible. people said you just got to get used to the new normal.

we're going to have the economy grow at 1% ii%. 4.1% last quarter. it looks like we're going to continue to see strong growth. that's because of policies enacted here. i think they're making a dips. i'm going to talk about something today that's making it more difficult to find the workers to be able to get that economy moving forward the way all of us would like to see because as we have lower unemployment and as we have a growingworkforce, we're seeing a number of -- a growing workforce, we're seeing a number of americans out of the workforce altogether. there's some new data from the department of labor and from the brookings institution, some studies that have shown that between the opioid epidemic, which is heroin, prescription drugs, now this new fentanyl and other issues that there are people who are not showing up even to apply for jobs. they're not even showings up in the unemployment figures, and they are at historically high

levels. 8.5 million men between 25 and 55. this recent study is from both department of labor and from the brookings institution shows that almost half of those men acknowledge taking pain medication on a daily basis. in one of the studies when pushed, two-thirds of those men said they were taking prescription drug medication on a daily basis. think about that. this is shocking. 8.5 million men out of work between the ages of 25 and 55. about half of them are saying they're taking pain medication on a dale lay basis. two-thirds prescription. that's underreporting in my view. there are legal issues involved with the opioid epidemic. also there's a stigma ttached to the addiction. so in order to fully take advantage of this growing economy and my colleague is absolutely right about that, we've got to deal with this opioid epidemic. but i'll tell you something

that's even more tragic is that the center for disease control just came out with a new report last week talking about what's happening around the country, and it was another year of tragic results for american families, for communities represented by members all across the country here in the united states senate. this was the center for disease control. the new report shows that last year -- they just got the final numbers for it -- the number of people who overdosed and died from these opioid crises that we have was greater than the year before. and not just at record levels but at levels that really creates this epidemic level. 72,000 americans died of overdoses last year. this is the map that shows where it is. and it's all over our country. now, there were a umcan of

states that made -- now there were a couple of states that made some progress. those are the states in blue -- or purple here. but in all the other states you actually see an increase, overall a 9% increase in overdose deaths in our country from 2016 to 2017. the problem is not getting better. it is getting worse. in my own state of ohio, it increased 9.5% from 2016 to 2017. sadly, that puts ohio third in the country for total drug overdoses and fourth nationally for the number of overdose deaths per capita, per 100,000 residents. 72,000 americans dying of overdoses, that's more than the deadliest year for car accidents or gun deaths ever. it's more than the total number of american casualties in the vietnam war. remember, in just one year -- just last year. overdoses are now the top cause of accidental death in the united states and the number-one

cause of all deaths for all americans under the age of 50. the most recent c.d.c. report illustrating is a lot of us knew -- this is a national crisis gripping every single state represented in this chamber. by the way, this is despite a lot of good work that has been done by this body and by the house, by the administration. over the last couple of years congress has taken on this issue and passed legislation that is helping, one of the pieces is called the cara legislation. i coauthored with a colleague on the other side, sheldon whitehouse. the other one is called the cures legislation which is funding going to the states. ohio got another $26 million this year from cures and we're putting it to work. in the appropriations bill that's before this body right now, the labor, health health an

services bill, the labor- h.h.s. bill, we provide funding for the cara legislation, which also helps our firefighters and other first responders with the miracle drug, narcan, they need to reverse the effects of an overdose. that's all good and it's working. i recently was back home and had a chance to visit, as i do regularly, some of the institution, entities using this funding. for example, i went to a town called white hall outside of columbus ohio. at a fire station we had a roundtable discussion where i got to see what is happening there. they are taking the grant money and training the e.m.s. personnel, paramedics, helping people who are addicted, to get them into treatment. this firehouse has opened up its doors and said no questions asked. you come in here, we'll get you into treatment. while i was there coincidentally a young man showed up.

he had been through treatment three times. it hadn't worked for him. he said he was now ready, ready to go. he was shaking. he was nervous. but i watched the firefighters deal with him. i spoke to him. they spoke to him. i saw him get into the ambulance and go to another entity which is called the addiction stabilization center in downtown columbus which is also doing some innovative work, also funded through these programs, in this case funded by the cures funding. what that is is an old hospital they've converted into a 50 h-bed treatment center with an emergency room right there so people can come in off the street or through e.m.s. personnel and they have a place to go into treatment immediately. it takes away the excuse. they have about an 80% rate of people getting into treatment. that's incredibly high. one of the big problems with the current crisis is that people who are addicted, who overdose and are saved by this miracle drug, narcan, that reverses the

effects of the overdose, those people typically go right back into the same environment. how do you get them into the treatment is the key? how do you get them back on track? how do you keep them in treatment? how do you ensure treatment is successful? those are the things the care and cures treatment legislation are going to do. i will say despite these positive stories you see back home, despite the additional effort we put in, you have this data from the centers for disease control showing last year worse than the year before. why is that? despite efforts here in congress and at every level of government and in all of our communities, something is being done. people are starting to step forward. the private sector is starting to get more engaged. that's all good. i think the primary reason for this is because of the rise of a particular drug, the new scourge. it's synthetic forms of opioids. just as we were making progress in reducing some of these overdoses and deaths and dealing with the terrible consequences

of the opioid epidemic, what happened? we saw a steep increase in a new drug coming into the market. it's more deadly, 50 times more deadly than heroin. it's relatively inexpensive. and that's a fatal combination for thousands of our constituents constituents who wo are dying every year from fentanyl. this drug shows a breakdown of drugs based on the type of drug and its increase or decrease. the one trend that stands out as you'll see here is the growth in synthetic opioids. with regard to other drugs including heroin you see a slight decrease, a flattening. with regard to synthetic opioids, a steep increase. and a steep increase recently.

last year there were nearly 30,000 overdose deaths from synthetic drugs like fentanyls. that's up from approximately 20,000 overdose deaths from fentanyl the year earlier. so 10,000 more deaths from fentanyl just between 2016 and 2017. to give you an idea of how rapidly this drug is infiltrating our country, in 2013, five years ago, there were about 3,000 tpepblts -- fentanyl overdose deaths nationally. this means from 2013 to 2017 there has been a nearly 850% increase in overdose deaths due to fentanyl. last year fentanyl was involved in more than 60% of the 48,600 overdose deaths c.d.c. said were from opioids. in my state of ohio that's consistent. we think it's over 60%, closer to two-thirds. looking at the new data coming in from ohio this year from the

various health departments from the state and coroners, it looks higher than 18%. when i'm home people tell me stories that will break your heart. i've had two teletown meetings in the last month and both of these involve ohioans. people aren't selected for anything other than they get a phone call and we say do you want to speak to your senator and we have 15,000 to 20,000 people on the call. in both of these teletown hall meetings somebody called in a with a similar story, a tragic story about the pain and suffering they experienced from a loved one passing away from a fentanyl overdose. pauline from zanesville called in. she told me her brother had recently passed away. she wondered what we were doing about it. sam from shelby county called at the next town hall and told me his son had tragically overdosed from fentanyl and died. by the way, in both of those cases, they didn't mention that up front.

they called and had a discussion with me about some of the policy issues and it just kind of came out. their voices cracked. you could tell when they are overcome with emotion at the end of our conversation and said well my son, in this one guy's case, just died from an overdose of fentanyl. by the way, in both cases the brother and the son did not know that they had taken fentanyl. they didn't know that they had used fentanyl. in one case with regard to the brother, he thought it was cocaine that he was using, only. instead it was laced with fentanyl. in the other case it was heroin, and the person had shot up heroin before and been successful in not dying of an overdose at least, but in this case fentanyl was laced in the heroin. now i tell you this because this new deadly drug is not just about pure fentanyl. it's about evil dealers, drug

traffickers actually mixing the fentanyl and other drugs as well. and when the coroner reports come in often they are finding out it's fentanyl. i've had first responders tell me somebody wakes up and says thank you for saving my life on this narcan. i'm okay now. hopefully they say i want to go into treatment. but they wake up after being treated by narcan and they say i don't know why i overdosed because i wasn't taking a strong drug. they say this is testing for fentanyl. i wasn't taking fentanyl. that's because now any street drug that's taken, any street drug has the risk of including fentanyl which can be deadly. i hope people who are listening today tell that to everyone they can think of, at work, in their

family, people in the community just to be sure that this message is getting out. this is a new and deadly threat out on our streets, and it can be in any drug. if we want to turn the tide on this drug epidemic that's depriving the people i represent and the people represented by this chamber of their god-given purpose in life, whatever it is, it's certainly not to overdose and die from opioid, then we've got to much more aggressively confront this rise of fentanyl. this is the reality. none of us wish it were so, but it is. shockingly, when you do research on this, you find out that these synthetic drugs actually come to our country from other countries directly through the u.s. mail system. that's what the law enforcement folks have told us. shocking. it's not mostly coming from anyplace except foreign

countries sending it through the u.s. mail system. that's where the majority of it is coming. we looked into this issue in the permanent subcommittee on investigations here in the united states senate. i chair that subcommittee. we spent 18 months studying this. we found out, frankly, how easy it was to purchase fentanyl online and to have this shipped to the united states of america. we learned through this 18-month undercover investigation that these drugs can be found through a simple google search and that overseas sellers essentially guaranteed delivery if the fentanyl was sent through a federal agency, the united states postal service. we found out from talking to law enforcement and our own research that this drug is primarily coming from china, one country. where you have scientists and you have chemical companies that are putting together this deadly mixture and then sending it to

our shores. why do the traffickers prefer the postal service? because it has lower screening standards than the other private carriers. international packages enter into the united states are subject to screening. every private entity like fedex or ups or d.h.l., others, have to provide law enforcement with advanced electronic data as to where the package is from, what's in the package, where it's going. with that data, they can use big data from around the country and around the world, including from intelligence sources, and they can help to identify suspicious packages. otherwise it's like finding a needle in a haystack. the post office, by the way, brings about 900 million packages a year into our country. it's like finding a needle in a haystack unless you have that information and have it in advance and have it electronically.

it allows customs and border protection to identify those suspicious packages, stop them in transit, keep these synthetic drugs out of our communities, stop the poison. i've seen it in action. i visited the customs and border protection port of entry at the greater cincinnati airport and seen how they can get packages off-line. by the way, they have to take these packages into a sealed room that has adequate ventilation and they have to wear protective gear to be able to even open these packages, this stuff is so deadly. i've been to columbus, ohio, and i've seen there in one of these, again, distribution centers for one of the private carriers, our customs and border protection putting their life on the line for us to find these deadly packages, take them off-line to avoid this poison coming into our communities. law enforcement, as you can imagine, is desperate to stop these deadly drugs from reaching our shores in the first place. that's the best way to stop it. they need this critical information in advance to be

able to do that. why doesn't the post office do it? well, because we haven't required them to. by law, after 9/11, we required all the private carriers to provide this information. frankly it was more focused on explosives at that time than it was on contraband like drugs. but we said instead study this issue, get back to us. that was 16 years ago. for the last several years some of us have been pushing the post office hard on this, and unfortunately, some still continue to oppose this effort to provide 100% electronic data. because of congressional pressure, they have recently been getting more data on some of these packages. based on testimony before our subcommittee, last year the post office received electronic data in advance on about 36% of the packages that came in, meaning that the united states received

more than 318 million international packages with no or little screening. even when the post office, by the way, conducted these pilot programs to screen for the drugs to get to the 36% number, 80% at the time, we learned that our investigation, they did not -- 80% of the time they presented the pablgs -- packages to customs and border protection. 20% of the time they did not. 80% of the time was screening provided and in 20% of those cases they didn't present the package to customs and border protection. instead it went into circulation, into our communities. so we have a very simple solution. 100% screening. this is a deadly epidemic. can you imagine tens of thousands of people dying from something that comes in from oefrz through our own -- overseas through our own poefrld

we're not saying let's screen these with the best information. the legislation we have is the stop act, a bipartisan bill i sponsored with my colleague, amy klobuchar, from minnesota. it closes this loophole in our postal services that drug traffickers are using, exploiting, to ship these deadly drugs into our communities. by holding the postal service to the same standard and requiring them to require that advanced data for all packages enter the united states of america, we can keep the fentanyl out of our communities. by the way, talk to your letter carrier about this issue. they will tell you they want to stop this. they don't want to be carrying this poison. the person who walks door-to-door in your community or delivers mail to your post office, they do not want to have fentanyl in their package. of course it's dangerous for them, but more important to them, they know what it's doing

to our communities. they don't want to be any part of it. the stop act passed the house of representatives earlier this summer, and more than one-third of the senators in this chamber are now cosponsors of this legislation. in my view, it is long past time for the united states senate to pass this legislation so that it can become law and begin to make a real difference in our communities. i'd like to thank president trump for his leadership on this issue. some of you may have seen that yesterday he sent out and statement in a tweet supporting moving ahead with the stop act because of the scourge of this fentanyl coming into our neighborhoods, coming into our communities, our homes. he recognized the importance of this issue, by the way, and talked about it during the 2016 campaign and has talked about it a lot since then. he appointed an opioid commission and that commission endorsed the stop act

specifically. and i want to thank governor christie for working with us on that. that was the final report in november of last year and still we have not passed it. on monday, when president trump called on the senate to pass this legislation without delay, i noticed there was more interest and reporters talking about this issue in the halls. i'm glad about that. the president is waiting, pen in hand, he's ready to sign the stop act. let's not make him wait any longer. last year an average of 81 americans died every single day from synthetic opioids, 81 americans died every single day. this year, from what i can tell back home, it's no better, and may, in fact, be worse many we can't wait around for this problem to get worse. we can't do nothing. we've got to do something. the legislation we passed here to help with prevention, treatment, and recovery is good. it's beginning to work, but we

also need to reduce the supply and at least increase the cost of this deadly drug 50 times more powerful than heroin. we need to pass the stop act. we need to pass it now so we can make a meaningful difference in combating fentanyl, the new scourge of this opioid epidemic. i yield back my time. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: i would ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: mr. president, thank you. yesterday i attended the funeral services of he'd rolf -- of ed

rolf of junction city, kansas. i come to the floor to pay tribute to his contributions to his community and to our tate. mr. rolf was born on december 13, 1924, in junction city kansas. he attended school there p and graduated from junction city high school and attended the university of kansas and received degrees from columbia university and the university of madison, wisconsin. he was a lifelong student and always busy. he was an avid reader and researchers. he studied economic friends and stuck to his roots as a farmer and worked on the family farm until his passing this week. the community and state know him as a strong supporter of schools and education, and he supported scholarships and mentored many young men and women in the

junction city area. he was a banker and he began his career at thing bank his father first started in 1915, central national bank, and in 1967, ed was promoted, named president of the bank and served in that capacity for over 35 years. he saw a great deal of growth, expansion in the bank and it spread in communities across the state and region. he was a president of a big bank but he was a president of a community bank that had relationships with its customers. the banking community knew him to be a visionary leader and he was, by many people's account, they explained he had a brilliant mind. he took care and focused on his employees and their success. he was a dedicated member of the junction city community. junction city is a community

that is surrounded by fort riley and it's a community that understands the importance of civic engagement, understands the importance of caring for those who serve our nation and who -- whose families often remain behind while that service occurs. he was active in his community. it's what you, mr. president, and i know about many communities across our states in which people devote a significant amount of their time to making sure good things happen at home. it's also a generational things in which you see those the age of ed who make certain that their life is more than just their careers. he was a member of the rotary club since 1950. he joined the mow sonic lodge and held posts as president of the rotary club. he was engaged in the highland cemetery association, he was president of the central

charities foundation, he was chairman and he was -- excuse me, he was a treasure and trusty on the kansas council. i've known ed for many years and i, as well as those who honored him at his funeral service yesterday, described him as a humble man, despite his many successes, who kept quiet about those accomplishments. over his lifetime, he received many awards, ranging from the earnston young entrepreneur of the year to the arts award in kansas in 2007. he served his country, in addition to his community. makes us proud he was a veteran of both world war ii and the korean conflict and a 73-year member of the american legion post number 45, serving and sacrificing for others is simply

who ed rolf was. ed had a deep understanding of the temporary nature of life. he was a devoted and lifelong member of the first presbyterian church, he was a member of the choir, he was a trustee and sunday school teacher, a dedicated family man and loving husband, father, grandfather, and great grandfather, ed leaves behind him wife, eunice, and i will indicate to my colleagues, eunice is the daughter of the former governor of -- from the united states of kansas, he has three children, four grandchildren and four great grandchildren. one of the things i observed in judging a person on their abilities, their character, who they are as a human being is

what's their family like? and in every instance that i had any dealings with ed rolfs and his family, you knew he was good at what was really important in life, he raised a good family. he and eunice raised a good family. ed represents the kind of values that our state was built on, his sense of care and compassion, his service to community, his church and his family has made our world, made the world and our part of the world a better place. he had a vision for a stronger community and a more prosperous kansas and he will continue to inspire me personally. another observation is the attendance, my attendance at the funeral services yesterday caused me to remind myself that the people that you hope come to your funeral service when it

occurs are there because they admire and respect you, they honor you and the life you lived. ed had a significant responsibility, a significant position in the community, but it is unusual to see so many people of all ages at a funeral. it wasn't about his position, it was about his relationship with those he knew and cared about. in the coming weeks rob and i will continue to keep ed and his wife eunice, along with their family and friends in our prayers as we celebrated his life at the funeral services on monday, may we continue to live our lives in a way that honors the way that he lived his life. may ed rolfs rest in peace. mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. inhofe: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent that the -- are we in a quorum call right now? the presiding officer: we are. mr. inhofe: i ask that it be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: i think it's appropriate after what happened with the announcement this morning -- it's a great announcement. long awaited, that we talk a little bit about it. when president trump withdrew from the paris agreement and pulled back the clean power plan, we heard from the environmental extremists and the liberals declaring that the administration's actions, quoting now, is that endangered public health, endangered our environment and economic prosperity. that was governors brown and cuomo. he further declared if we don't decarbonize our future, people are going to die. people are always going to die. that's what the extremists always say. i guess there must be a

population out there that actually believes that. however, the opposite is happening without a one-sided international agreement for the punishing clean power plan in effect. in 2017, the united states led the world in co2 reductions while china and india led the world in increasing co2 emissions. how many people know that? all you ever hear about is that we are -- we were the guilty one over here in terms of our emissions. that's not true at all. just think, china and india both led the world in increasing co2 emissions. now, these are the guys that our previous president, president obama, would have us believe actually were making great sacrifices, because here they are leading and increasing co2 emissions. when we passed tax reform, the democrats claimed we would experience armageddon.

that was nancy pelosi. a tax increase would be on middle-class families. as we have seen, tax reform has been a resounding success with 4% unemployment and nearly 4.1 g.d.p. growth over the last quarter. "the washington post" -- now, this is right after congresswoman pelosi made the statement about the taxes would increase on all american families. "the washington post" fact checked the democrat claim, giving them four pinocchios as 84% of middle-class families are paying less taxes. in other words, 80% of the families, middle-class families are paying less taxes now than they were. yet she was saying that all middle class are going to have to increase. you hear these things. you can't look at success and see what's happening and really appreciate it without rousing

everyone on the other side with extreme accusations. with every executive order, the congressional review act resolution that rolled back burdensome regulation after burdensome regulation, we heard that the end of the days were coming. now, let's pause for a minute here and see how you get rid of some of these regulations. you have two ways of getting rid of regulations. one is you do it with an executive order. sometimes that adopt work, you can't use an executive order in certain types of regulations, so you have to go to the congressional review act. it's kind of interesting because we started the congressional review act over 20 years ago. only prior to this administration it had been used successfully once in 20 years. now it happens almost every day. with every executive order and congressional review act resolution, rolling back the regulations, we heard that the end of the world was coming. you would not know if you looked at the economy and see that the increases in energy production,

manufacturing consumer confidence, g.d.p., and job opportunities of what's happening in this country today. meanwhile, jobless claims dropped to a near 45-year low. 45-year low of jobless claims. and the social security disability claims last year were the lowest we have seen since 2002. i think it's kind of interesting to go back and look at the fact that they have 4% unemployment. you know, i have always considered for as long as i can remember, 4% unemployment is full employment. there is always going to be some unemployables, but 4% is considered to be full employment. that's what we have. it's kind of interesting. i was in texas last week. one of my liberal friends were down there. i was talking about what can you say now? look at the economy. the economy has never been better. he said no, the economy is bad. he said it's hard to find anyone to work in restaurants anymore.

in other words, we have full employment, but that's supposed to be bad. anyway, we are at that position right now. the growth, 4.1% growth in the economy in the last quarter, stop and think about that. this is something that no one disagrees with. for every 1% growth in economic activity, that translates into $2.9 trillion of new income coming into the federal government every ten years. now, let's stop and think about it. we have a president who is trying to undo the damage from the last administration when the military was cut to the bone, and we didn't do anything in the way of infrastructure. this president is committed to that. people are saying where is the money going to come from? there is where it is going to come from. my gosh, if we can just average 3% of growth, and we have been doing that, we are far exceeding that, that's going to be close to $6 trillion of new funding that will be there in the next

administration. so with each action the president takes, we hear that the consequences will be dire and that people will die. it's always that people will die. yet those predictions have never materialized. we have seen the opposite happen. when it comes to president trump's pick to replace justice kennedy on the supreme court, the predictions are just as hysterical. now, if there is not any logical reason to be against something, you start name calling, and that's what's has been happening. in a recent speech, hillary clinton worried that with the nomination of judge brett kavanaugh, republicans, quote, want to turn the clock back to the 1850's. that came from -- from hillary clinton. her meeting was very clear. she wants people to believe that judge kavanaugh and the republicans are taking the country back to the days of slavery. despite no evidence to back up this reckless claim.

in fact, republicans want more freedom, not less. others are equally as bold in their predictions in saying that the confirmation will be the death -- listen to this -- the death of millions. his confirmation will be the destruction of the constitution. his confirmation will mean we will usher in the end of civil rights in america and make us complicit and evil. in other words, it will be the death of millions of americans who logically can even look at that without smiling and think that they have to be totally just -- just desperate in what they are -- the accusations they make on this guy. so with all these extreme attacks, brett kavanaugh is an excellent pick for the supreme court. after meeting with him last week and looking into his record, reading about his character, some of the stories i have heard from other people, it's clear that he is a solid choice to

become our newest supreme court justice. for 12 years on the d.c. court of appeals, judge kavanaugh has amassed a record of over 300 opinions, and the worst opposition research we have seen against him so far is that he charged baseball tickets to his credit card and then paid for them. so by all accounts from those who know him, brett kavanaugh is a respected member of his community and of his profession. professionally, he is known as a serious jurist who studies the law and is evenhanded in applying the law. in his op-ed for "the new york times," it was tiled a liberal's case for brett kavanaugh, yale law professor aceo reed amar made the statement, and this is a quote, he said good appellate judges faithfully follow the supreme court. great ones influence and help

steer it, referring to kavanaugh. by this measure, judge kavanaugh has been a great appellate judge. he ranks second among the current judges who have law clerks who have gone on to clerk for the united states supreme court. more impressively, the supreme court has agreed with the positions that judge kavanaugh has made in his last 13 of his opinions, adopting his logic in the prevailing opinion for the court. in other words, they fell down on his side in the cases that he had made in the last 13 of his opinions. nine of those times, the supreme court has adopted dissenting opinions as the majority opinion. in fact, he has only been reversed by the supreme court just once and then only in part. those dissenting opinions the supreme court adopted as their own, one of them includes his dissent in coalition for

responsible regulations versus the e.p.a. in which he concluded that the e.p.a. defined ire pollution too broadly in its regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. the obama greenhouse gas resolutions for power plants exceeded its authority and argued the court should not likely conclude that the congress intended to impose enormous costs on tens of thousands of american businesses with corresponding effects on american jobs and workers. again, the supreme court agreed with him. they're on his side. this opinion is also instructive to see his thinking on proper -- the proper role of the courts in our system of government. in his opinion, he wrote, quote, as a court, it is not our job to make the policy choices and set the statutory boundaries but to

emphatically our job is to carefully and firmly enforce the statutory boundaries. this is the consistent part of his jurisprudence. because of his position on the d.c. circuit court of appeals, kavanaugh has had many opportunities to check the federal government's overreach. i served as chairman of the environment and public works committee for quite a number of years. one of the big problems we had at that time was bureaucrats were actually making the determinations. this is something that he has actually overruled the bureaucracy many times. in fact, he has overruled the federal agency action 75 times in his 12 years on the bench. that's really saying something. when the e.p.a. wanted to impose massive emissions regulations but did not want to consider the costs, judge kavanaugh rejected that effort in white energy

center versus e.p.a. the supreme court agreed that the e.m.e.omer city generation versus e.p.a., in that case judge kavanaugh held that the obama e.p.a.'s cross-state air pollution rule was unlawful and imposed excessive regulatory burdens on the states. he also rejected the department of interior's position to designate 143 acres of property as critical habitat for a shrimp based on a single 2001 citing of four san diego shrimp on the property. he reversed it. these are just a few examples of judge kavanaugh's efforts to ensure that our agencies are acting and regulating with their authorizing statutes in the u.s. constitution and this is the real reason why we're seeing such a vitriol from the left.

they have long used our courts and our agencies to impose their unpopular agenda mostly because they couldn't get it through congress as a majority of americans recognize how stifling and burdensome the agenda is. having another judge on the supreme court that recognizes the proper role of the courts and agencies when it comes to setting policy that affects all americans and threatens their ability to force costly, ineffective, and unpopular burdens on our economy, our job producers, and our land owners. with judge kavanaugh on the court, we will preserve the u.s. constitution and our system of representative government for decades to come. as i told brett in our meeting, he's been good enough to go around to have meetings with all the members of the senate. in fact, i had told him from his reputation, he didn't need to waste his time meeting with me because i knew all about him. i was going to support him.

as i told the majority at that meeting, though, his nomination and the work that president trump and the senate have done to process judicial nominations are to save our country, not for me but for my 20 kids and grandkids. so i look forward to the confirmation. we're going to hear more of the accusations, more of the extreme left making comments about this great judicial success. i look forward to having him there for many years to come and i'm convinced that that's going to happen. with that, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: i ask unanimous consent that proceedings under the call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: madam president, i also request unanimous consent that my defense fellow, john paul mantone, be granted floor privileges for the length that the current debate on the appropriations bills that are before us. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, as a member of

the defense appropriations subcommittee, let me begin my remarks by thanking chairman shelby and ranking member durbin as well as vice chairman leahy for their leadership on the committee and their advocacy for the men and women who defend our nation. at a time when the threats to our nation are increasing rather than decreasing, the work the defense subcommittee is vitally important -- the work of the defense subcommittee is vitally important to ensure that our men and women in uniform as well as our d.o.d. civilian employees have the training, ships, planes, vehicles, and other equipment that they need to defend our country. the bipartisan bill reported out of committee reaffirms the strategic importance of our navy

and our shipbuilding programs. by including funding for three arleigh burke-class destroyers in fiscal year 2019 while also including $250 million in advance procurement funding for an additional destroyer in fiscal year 2020. mr. president, this funding signals our strong belief that the navy should sustain an aggressive rate of growth for large-surface combatants in fiscal year 2020 and beyond in order to project strength in an increasingly dangerous and complex world. in recognition of national security imperatives, the navy's own 2016 fleet structure assessment increased the target

number for large-surface combatants to 104 ships from the 88 ships called for under the previous 308-ship navy requirement. maintaining a steady and predictable production profile for large ships will not only protect the health of our shipbuilding industrial base but also ensure that the navy maintains an adequate number of these ships into the future. in maine, mr. president, we are very proud of the vital role that baath ironworks plays in contributing to our national security by building and maintaining ships for the fleet. b.i.w. is known throughout the fleet for the high quality of its ships that are built there.

with many sailors using the motto, baath-built is best built. b.i.w. is employs the finest shipbuilders, energies and designers in the world. this build rightly recognizes the great value that these tried and tested warships bring to the navy. i'm also proud at the continued investment this bill makes at our nation's public shipyards. the additional $350 million provided for facilities' sustainment, research, restoration and modernization as well as the $176 million for shipyard investment acceleration, will help the portsmouth naval yard in kittery, maine, and other public shipyards keep our nation's submarines at sea for years to

come. this bill also makes critical investments in research and development programs which are being carried out in partnership with research institutions such as the university of maine. these programs include producing jet fuel from maine's forests biomass, using structural thermo plastics for army ground vehicles, conducting cellulose nano deposit research for the army, developing hybrid constructors for the navy and participating in the navy's advanced hull form development initiative among many other essential research and development projects. our legislation invests in cutting edge fifth generation

aircraft by funding 89 f-35 aircraft. these state-of-the-art planes are truly the future of aviation, and i am proud of pratt & whitney's contributions to this program through its construction of the f-135 engine at its facility in north berwick, maine. additionally, our legislation procures eight heavy-lift helicopters for the marine corps. the rotating drive shafts are a critical component of this aircraft and are produced at huntington dearborn's facility in fryeburg, maine. the national guard, as the presiding officer is well aware, provides our country with both a strategic and operational reserve which has proven itself

time and time again. i applaud the bill's inclusion of providing $900 million to the national guard and reserve equipment account to modernize our reserve forces and ensure their full interoperability with the active duty force. finally the committee report ensures that congress has sufficient oversight over any efforts to close or realign facilities of the defense finance and accounting service. dfas, ass if called, maintains , maintains a facility in limestone payments. it is responsible for payments to our service members, d.o.d. employees, vendors and contractors. given this critical responsibility, i applaud the

work done by the hundreds of hardworking employees at limestone and i welcome their continued support for our armed forces. mr. president, i'm very pleased that we are proceeding with the defense appropriations bill as well as with the labor-h.h.s. appropriations legislation. i look forward to working with my colleagues to pass both bills in one package this week. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i'd ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, this week marks the continuation of a bipartisan effort to actually do the work we were elected to do. "the new york times" recently published an article that said the senate got its groove back. i don't know if i'd go that far, but certainly we're making some progress when it comes to these important funding bills. these two appropriations bill are two of the largest ones in

the federal government. one, of course, is for the department of defense, which appropriately is the number-one priority of the federal government, to maintain the peace and keep our nation safe. and the other funds the department of labor, health, and human services, and education. after we pass these bills this week -- which we will -- we will have passed 9 of the 12 appropriations bills which cover 87% of discretionary spending. when i mention discretionary spending, it's noteworthy that about 70% of what the federal government spends is not discretionary spending. it's mandatory spending, which is another story in and of itself. but insofar as congress' responsibility to appropriate the funds in discretionary spending, we will have covered about 87% of that.

i want to express my gratitude again to chairman shelby and vice chairman leahy for their efforts in facilitating a relatively smooth process on all of our appropriations bills so far. they have done a good job managing the bills, and even more importantly, managing the people and preventing this process from devolving into a quagmire, as it occasionally does. but to give an idea of how difficult this can be, it bears mention that it's been 15 years since the senate last passed the labor, health, education bill in time for the start of the fiscal year. so hats off to senators shelby and leahy. as the majority leader, senator mcconnell, said yesterday, these two bills represent the big strides -- represent big frieds toward avoiding another omnibus which the president said he want to do and appropriating the taxpayers' money the right way. the funding bills we're working

on this week are important, but they're not the only developments worth noting. we remember recently we heard the second quarter of this year, the second three-month period of this year our economy grew at an astounding 4.1%. after years of economic stagnation and wages that never seemed to go up, we were able to pass the tax cuts and jobs act at the end of the last year, which helped provide a needed stimulus to the economy by putting more money in the pockets of the people who earn it. we were successful in lowering rates across the board, and we doubled the child tax credit and standard deduction. over the last nine months, my constituents in texas have been writing to me about the effect it's had on their lives. these are the men and women like virginia davis, a small business owner, who said the changes will help keep expenses down and help

her company buy new equipment. then there's susan case circumstance a widow in new bronsville, texas, who's working part-time even when facing health issues. she wrote saying she appropriate h. appreciate -- appreciated our efforts saying that every little bit helps, close quote, especially when she's been saving up the money to go visit her grandson in california. in texas, our economy has been robust for a long time now, and we heard that the last month, more than 23,000 jobs were added. the 25th consecutive month of job growth in my home state. in some places like midland, in the permian basin, the center of the universe when it comes to oil and gas production, it seems, the unemployment rate was as low as 2.2%.

it's hard to find anybody who will work in the permian basin in the midland-odessa area because the economy is so strong. these are posse signs, although obviously -- these are positive signs although there are stresses and strains that a long with it. tax reform and the good economic news are complemented by other legislative victories we've had on behalf of the american people during this congress. we've found funded rebuilding efforts following catastrophic natural disasters like hurricane harvest. we enacted the fix nics act and the stop school violence act to help protect americans from gun violence. we delivered real health care choices to american veterans with the v.a. missions act. we passed occupational licensing reform, as well as banking reform, which helped our small banks and credit unions, our community banks to get rid of

some of the rules that never should have been applied to them in the first place. because they weren't the cause of the huge crisis that led to the great recession just a few short years ago. it wasn't the community banks; it was wall street and some of the overreach there. but community banks in small towns in and around texas and elsewhere were the collateral damage. this last year and a half we fought sex trafficking by passing legislation targeting internet predators, and we have worked hard -- and i think helped to reduce the rape kit backlog. and of course we've confirm add total of 53 judges this congress including 26 circuit court judges, 26 district judges, and a supreme court justice, neil gorsuch. of course, two weeks from today we'll start the confirmation hearing of the next supreme court justice we will consider,

and that is judge brett kavanaugh, who's been nominated to succeed justice anthony kennedy as an associate justice on the united states supreme court. as i said, this hearing is set for the first week of september, and i hope we'll move quickly to vote on his confirmation after the hearing. his confirmation process includes the largest production of documents ever in the senate's consideration of a supreme court nominee. and i appreciate chairman chuck grassley spearheading the effort in such a transparent, efficient, and thorough manner. of course, to see how a judge will behave once elevated to the supreme court, the best evidence of how they will perform their job is how they have performed as a lower-court judge, as judge kavanaugh has been over the last 12 years on the d.c. circuit court of appeals. the best way to find out about

his judicial philosophy, his temperament, and how he actually handles cases is how he's done exactly each of those things during the 12 years while serving on the d.c. circuit. and, yes, we've heard some of our colleagues on the other side, including the minority leader, and former judiciary chairman leahy, who actually used to agree with us that the best way to evaluate a nominee -- for example, during justice sotomayor's hearing -- was by looking at her judicial here but now they've changed their tune. what the rulings show is that judge kavanaugh is a diligent and thoughtful judge. his rulings are clear, impartial, and he strives to achieve justice in each one. yesterday i mentioned some of the cases in which judge kavanaugh's opinions, whether written as part of a majority opinion or a dissent, were vindicated by an adoption of that position and that opinion

essentially by the supreme court on a 9-0 basis. but i'd like to talk about a couple of other arguments that have now started to bubble up. as i like to say, a charge unrebutted, a false charge unrebutted is sometimes a charge believed. so we have to work hard to remind people that just because someone says something about judge kavanaugh's record, it's not necessarily true. the first claim that's now popped up is that he is somehow an anti-worker radical. anti-worker radical. now, this is a phrase coined by the pundit paul krugman of the ukraine times, and it sounds pretty ugly. and i guess it means that a judge is predisposed when deciding cases defineed against employees and hardworking men and women. but the fact is that judge kavanaugh's records indicate exactly the opposite.

in one case, a pro se litigant had been terminated after filing a discrimination complaint. judge kavanaugh joined the majority in a ruling for the employee finding that a reasonable jury could have found unlawful discrimination, harassment, and retaliation against the plaintiff. that doesn't sound like a -- what was the phrase? -- an anti-worker radical to me. judge kavanaugh wrote a separate concurrence to explain that a racial epithet that may have been used could create a hostile work environment, even if uttered a single time. in another case involving a terrible accident involving the trainer of a -- of all things -- a killer whale at a theme park, judge kavanaugh did not simply defer to the large corporate interests. in fact, the strict question of liability, which would have

implicated state and federal tort law, was not even before him; nor was the question of whether the work environment at the theme park was unreasonably dangerous. instead, the question before the court and before judge kavanaugh was one of administrative law. judge kavanaugh argued persuasively that a federal agency had ignored congressional intent when interpreting a statute in self-serving ways to give itself, the federal agency, authority that congress had not conferred. he argued that this agency had made arbitrary distinguishes between -- distinctions between different kinds of events and departed from long-standing agency precedent. that trial was the crux of his -- that actually was the crux of his decision, despite the character decision -- or i should say, mischaracterization from some of the critics. and we can count on judge kavanaugh to appropriately consider overreach by the

administrative state. i think we've got plenty of evidence of that. now, one additional line of attack is that the judge has somehow been insufficiently protective of 4th amendment privacy rights. but one expert at the libertarian cato institute who has analyzed the judge's record in detail, found that judge kavanaugh is a, quote, big step forward for constitutional liberty, close quote. among other things, this expert noted that judge kavanaugh had been a leading advocate of interpreting statutes to include a robust mens rea protection. in other words, in criminal statutes, before you can be intelligence committee requested of a crime, you have to have criminal intent. that's mens rea. well, mr. president, judge kavanaugh has authored 307

opinions on the d.c. circuit and has attracted praise across the ideological spectrum for the clarity of his thought and his expression. and the precision of his legal reasoning. he respects the roles and responsibilities that are assigned to the different branches of of our government by the constitution, and he sees the proper role of the judiciary as a narrow one, albeit an important one. it does not make policy. it interprets the law. and it applies it to individual cases one at a time, impartially, with no eye toward the outcome or the politics of the case. the truth is, i believe, after the hearing that we will have the week of september 4, the american people will conclude, as i have concluded, based on my knowledge of judge kavanaugh for the last 18 years, that he is an imminently qualified and well-respected jurist by all

those that know him and are familiar with his work. i look forward to confirming him as a justice early this fall, hopefully in time for the october term of the supreme court. -- the first monday in october. 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:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: mr. president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. warner: i ask the proceedings of the quorum quorue eviscerated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. warner: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to offer an amendment to the legislation that we're working on that would make, that would make sure that security clearances are revoked on a going-forward basis only for valid national security reasons, not to change the subject on a bad news day, not to threaten career government employees, and especially not to carry out political retribution. mr. president, virginia is home to tens of thousands of dedicated men and women who serve in our intelligence and defense communities. over the years, as senator and vice chairman of the intelligence committee, i've met literally thousands of f.b.i. agents, c.i.a. officers, military service members,

contractors, and other public servants who hold security clearances. these men and women work day in and day out, often thanklessly, to keep america safe. you know what? i have no idea amongst those americans who have those security clearances, which of them are democrats and which of them are republicans. and that's the way our system is supposed to work. the federal government grants security clearances only to those individuals who can be trusted with our nation's secrets. applicants go through intense, lengthy background checks, interviews, and even in many cases lie detector tests. not to mention extensive re-checks for suitability aefr few years -- every few years. only then, only then after this

process do we allow them to serve in some of the toughest intelligence and national security jobs. mr. president, we ask a great deal of these dedicated professionals, but we don't ask -- what we don't ask is about their political views. since the 1990's is the code of federal regulations has governed the 13 criteria under which personnel are deemed eligible or ineligible for security clearance and access to classified information. among those 13 reasons to get a security reasons or lose one, include, allegiance to the united states, financial considerations, and others. when you along through -- when you look through that list of 13, and i've got it over here, none of those criteria include

political speech, nor should they. our national security is too important to inflect with political partisanship. i believe that more than ever in light of the president's actions last week. when this president broke the clearance of former c.i.a. director brennan and equally important, if not more important, threatened to revoke the clearance of current and former national security directors. they have hundreds of years of honorable service to our country under their belts. no one -- no one can seriously question their fitness or loyalty to this country. unfortunately, what we know -- what happened last week and unfortunately happens too many times out of this white house, what we know happened last week is really all about politics.

according to media reports, white house officials have discussed how to issue the revocations on a going-forward basis to other enumerated individuals to distract from bad news stories. now i hope those reports of the white house's plans are mistaken, but true or not, we need tole only listen to the words of this president to know these efforts are politically motivated. i'll admit, i had missed the widely publicized press event where the white house announced the quote, unquote, enemy's list many anyone who looks at this list will notice some common factors many they all served in the previous administration, and in the time sense, several have exercised their fertility amendment right to -- first amendment right to criticize this president or his policies. many of those on the list had also had some involvement in the investigation into russia's assault on our democracy in

2016. and for that, -- for that, in many cases doing theirjob, they are now being punished or potentially by this president and the white house. in the president's own words, and i quote, these people let it, so i think it's something that had to be done. unquote. this is truly a dangerous precedent. for the first time since president eisenhower created the security process as we know it, the president of the united states is abusing one of his most important national security tools to punish his political opponents. as somebody mentioned, one of my friends on the other side of the aisle, something that would be more be akin to coming out of a banana republic. but perhaps even more troubling is the message this president is

sending to those currently serving in government service. it's pretty clear. he's sending a message that says, think twice before working on anything that this president doesn't like, think twice before you express a political opinion, even if it's in private. the white house broadcast this message loud and clear when it threatened to revoke the clearance after mid-level employee of the department of justice. mr. president, this is a clear attempt at intimidating others in the bureaucracy, and if this president is successful in revoking this first wave of clearances, there's no question it will threaten the ongoing russia investigation. an investigation that, again, today claimed two more guilty convictions, an investigation that has already resulted, prior to today, in five guilty pleas

and 35 indictments. and, as i mentioned, today included the conviction of the president's campaign manager. unfortunately, the president's actions don't just harm the individuals involved. these tactics threaten our national security institutions themselves. the pentagon, the intelligence community, the f.b.i., the department of justice, and the rest of our national security structures depend on sea sond ka -- seasoned career pro ferms who do not -- professionals. threatening their clearances, threatening their livelihoods and their families. this is a clear attempt at undermining an ongoing legitimate criminal investigation into what russia did in 2016, and if successful, the president's actions threaten to politicize our national security institutions even more so than he's already done.

now, the president has significant authority as head of the executive branch, but there is widespread agreement that he should not be able to use these powers to get payback against americans who criticize him. now, all of us in this body all agree that no president should be able to order the i.r.s. to audit political enemies, and we all agree that no president should be able to order wiretaps against those who displease him. we should also all agree that the president should not have the power to remove clearances for reasons that have nothing to do with national security. and certainly not because an individual expresses his or her right to free speech. mr. president, i ask my colleagues to support the warner amendment. i ask the majority leader to make sure this amendment gets a fair vote up or down on the floor of the senate because i believe this senate must take a

stand against any attempts to punish political speech or to threaten our national security professionals by arbitrarily taking away their security clearances. we currently have in place real and prudent guidelines for issuing and revoking clearances, guidelines that are based on national security and not on political considerations. we cannot allow those to be supplemented by crass partisanships or attempt by this president to punish his enemies. we've come way too far from the dark days of watergate to allow this type of attack against career professionals who faithfully served our nation with honor and dignity. we should demand better from this president. we can take that action by passing this amendment. thank you, mr. president, and i yield back.

mr. grassley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: before i speak, i ask unanimous consent that nathan williams, a law clerk with my judiciary committee staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: as i have for several weeks now spoken to my colleagues about the nomination of judge brett kavanaugh, i return again to further elaborate on where we are on that process. two weeks from today, judge brett kavanaugh will appear before the senate judiciary committee for the first day of his confirmation hearing. i'm quite excited to finally hear from him in that forum. he's one of the most qualified nominees ever picked for the

supreme court and he's contributed a great deal to his community and the legal profession besides being an outstanding judge on the d.c. circuit court of appeals. now, the other side has apparently found very little in his record that's objectionable. the only thing that i keep hearing about is their unprecedented demand for millions and millions of pages of irrelevant documents on top of hundreds of thousands of pages that we have already received. indeed, the senate democratic leaders have demanded the search of every e-mail and every scrap of paper from every one of the hundreds of white house aides who came and went for the entire

eight years of the george w. bush presidency. and the senate democratic leaders even refused to utilize search terms and other ways to limit the universe of millions of pages of records that would require the consecutive review by the archives in both the former and incumbent president's teams of lawyers and do this even before the senate judiciary committee could begin its own search. these reviews would have taken many, many months, and some people say it could take beyond this year. we know the true reason for their unprecedented document

demand, that is to deny judge kavanaugh confirmation until after the mid-term elections when the senate democrats hope to win back the senate and block judge kavanaugh's nomination forever. democratic leaders announced their opposition to judge kavanaugh immediately after he was nominated. now, can you believe that? some senators announced opposition to any one of the 25 potential nominees before the president even announced that he was picking judge kavanaugh. the minority leader said that he would oppose judge kavanaugh with everything he's got. this desire to obstruct -- to obstruct the entire process

explains their partisan push to bury the senate judiciary committee in a mountain of irrelevant paperwork. they also want to divert attention from a very impressive record that judge kavanaugh has. democratic leaders know that judge kavanaugh is the exact type of justice that the american people want, and by the way, the president, as a candidate, told the people that he was going to appoint when he announced way before his election the names of the type of people that he was thinking about. judge kavanaugh has served for 12 years on the d.c. circuit court of appeals. during that time, he authored

more than 300 opinions and joined hundreds of others. the supreme court has in 13 separate cases adopted a legal position advanced by judge kavanaugh's in his opinions on the d.c. circuit. that is a very impressive record that few people on a circuit court of appeals can claim. the majority staff on the senate judiciary committee is -- has already received more than 10,000 pages of judicial opinions that judge kavanaugh wrote or joined, more than 17,000 pages of materials that judge kavanaugh provided in response to the most robust questionnaire ever submitted to

a supreme court nominee. and more than 260 pages of e-mails and other records from judge kavanaugh's executive branch legal service. this morning the committee received close to 170,000 pages of additional records from judge kavanaugh's executive branch legal service. we now have more than 430,000 pages from judge kavanaugh's time in the executive branch. by far the most ever received from a supreme court nominee. the majority staff will finish reading every one of these pages before judge kavanaugh's hearing which starts the day after labor day. i'm following the precedent that

was established during justice kagan's confirmation when the senate asked for many, but not all, of justice kagan's executive branch documents. we received documents from two out of three executive branch positions that justice kagan held. we received documents from justice kagan's time in the white house counsel's office and domestic policy counsel. senators from both parties agreed not to request internal documents from her time in the office of solicitor general because of their sensitivity. likewise, then, we're asking for documents from two of judge kavanaugh's positions in the executive branch but not from a

third following the practice of justice kagan's confirmation. we have asked for documents from judge kavanaugh's time in the white house counsel's office and the office of independent counsel, but we didn't ask for documents from his time as staff secretary because even more so than justice kagan's solicitor general's documents, they are incredibly sensitive to the executive branch. i will add that both positions for which we requested judge kavanaugh's documents were legal positions. those documents could shed some light on his legal thinking. the staff secretary, another

position that judge kavanaugh held at the white house, is a nonlegal position and wouldn't reveal anything about judge kavanaugh's legal thinking. for justice kagan, on the other hand, we didn't receive documents from her time in one of the two legal positions that she held. we didn't receive her solicitor general documents despite a heightened need for them to assess judge -- justice kagan's legal thinking. after all, justice kagan had no legal judicial experience. in other words, she was not a judge prior to going to the supreme court, as judge kavanaugh is. in contrast to justice kavanaugh's 12-year judicial track record, the 307 opinions that kavanaugh wrote and the

hundreds more he joined, judge kagan wrote or joined zero opinions. judge kavanaugh wrote or joined over 10,000 pages to judicial opinions compared to justice kagan's zero pages. in short, then, we have received many more pages of more relevant documents for judge kavanaugh than we did for justice kagan. this more thorough and more transparent production is also on top of the thousands of pages of judge kavanaugh's publicly available materials, including his extensive and impressive judicial record. democratic leaders nevertheless accuse me of hiding documents.

i will consider the hundreds of thousands that are available, and i'm being accused of hiding documents. they are doing that because i have agreed to hold some documents as committee confidential, but during justice kagan's and justice gorsuch's nominations, we agreed to receive, as committee confidential, documents that contain material that are restricted by the federal law that we call the presidential records act. as the current chairman, that's exactly what i agreed -- i have agreed to do this time. as i have explained many times over the last month, i agreed to receive documents on a committee confidential basis as an initial

matter to allow the committee to accelerate our review of judge kavanaugh's record, while at the same time making sure that restricted material like social security numbers for individuals, bank information for individuals, or confidential advice given to the president are not exposed to the public, as everybody would expect us to be that careful. then-chairman leahy also agreed to receive documents on a confidential -- committee confidential basis in 2010, quote, to permit the committee prompt access to them, end of quote. i have done exactly the same thing in the case of judge kavanaugh. all of those documents don't necessarily remain confidential

forever because there is a process they are reviewed a second time. if they don't contain any materials restricted by law for public access, we quickly release those documents to the public. we thus end up in exactly the same place as we did with justice kagan and justice gorsuch. material restricted by the statute is held committee confidential, while nonrestricted material is released to the public. i'd like to add that all documents that we have received including committee confidential are at this very moment available to every member of the senate. my staff is happy to make these documents available to any

senator interested in reviewing them. now, my friends on the other side of the aisle complain that a lawyer by the name of bill burke, rather than the national archives, is deciding what is considered restricted. but that's not true at all. the archives have been reviewing judge kavanaugh's e-mails as i requested. these archivists are public employees, and they have informed president bush and president trump that in the opinion of the professional archival staff, nearly two-thirds of the e-mails that these public servants have reviewed thus far contain restricted material and should not be released to the public.

that means that under the same standard applied to justice kagan and justice gorsuch, the committee will have to hold two-thirds of the documents reviewed by the arrest ciefs as committee confidential when we receive them. following historical practice, officials' records generally are produced to the senate for our review. personal records generally are not. and the obama-appointed archivist of the united states and his team of career archivists are making the ultimate decision on whether judge kavanaugh's executive branch records are official, available to the committee and to the public, or personal.

so it is simply absurd to suggest that anyone is hiding anything. so i hope i don't hear that complaint anymore. i hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle put aside politics and reconsider their reckless demands for immediate release for the whole world to see of documents that con taken whole names, dates of birth, social security numbers, bank account numbers, personal communications with family members, other sensitive matters affecting personal privacy, and of course some of the most sensitive issues related to the president's core constitutional duties. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, we're making good progress on the rather large package of appropriations bill, including defense and labor-h. just to make sure we're in a position to wrap it up before we depart for the week, i send a cloture motion to the desk for senate amendment number 3695. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring

to a close debate on senate amendment number 3695 to 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, signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk for bill h.r. 6157. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of raoul of -- rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on calendar 500, h.r. 6157, an act making appropriations tporb the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2019 and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators -- mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading of the names be waived. i ask consent the mandatory quorum calls be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with

senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m., wednesday, august 22. 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 from 3:30 to 4:30. the presiding officer: without objection. 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 10:00 a.m., wednesday, august