[inaudible conversations] >> the u.s. senate about to confine on this wednesday morning. lawmakers continuing work today on amendments to a $857 billion federal spending package containing the two largest appropriations bill for 2019 funding defense, labor, hhs and education. the vote on possible amendments today and tomorrow and a final passage vote.

they will take a break 3:30 for about an hour on elections security when national intelligence director dan coats, kirstjen nielsen and christopher wray. now live coverage of the senate on c-span2. the presiding officer : the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal father, you lead us like a shepherd, for we desperately need your tender care. we thank you for life's clouds and storms that position us to receive your deliverance and

assurance. thank you also for refusing to move our mountains, but instead giving us strength to climb them. today, bless our senators and each member of their staffs, who routinely deliver excellence in the midst of frenetic activity. may these faithful staffers never forget your promise to always be with them. guide them today with fresh insights on abundant living, as you supply all their needs out of the riches of your celestial bounty. we pray in your generous name. amen

the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., august 22, 2018. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom cotton, a senator from the state of arkansas, who will perform the duties of the chair. signed: orrin g. hatch, president pro tempore.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: this week i've been highlighting some examples of the strength of the u.s. economy. people of west virginia where president trump visited yesterday evening are no exception to this national trend. during the obama years west virginia's economy was hit hard, manufacturing employment shrunk by 13 are%, -- 13%, but today things are different. the state's unemployment rate has been lowered during each of the last 19 months under this united republican government than it was during any of the months of the obama administration. coal jobs are surging back. according to one industry

estimate, in 2013, west virginia saw faster growth in construction jobs than any other state. as senator capito explained in a recent op-ed, this shows that republican policies are helping the entire state write a new chapter. senator capito said that in wheeling, west virginia, a company is creating a new line of products thanks to the new flexibility brought about by tax reform. in wellsburg, they are buying new machinery. and in jane lou, cause enterprises is hiring up to 30 new workers. it is really amazing when you think that only one of west virginia's senators voted for the tax policies that made this necessary. in recent months, promising

economic numbers are only the beginning. tax reform will also help strengthen our economic foundation for the long term. in particular, one provision of the tax rewrite will specifically helped the most depressed communities in our nation. it will turn these areas into opportunity zones that are especially attracted for investment. the treasury department has already certified zones in every state, including 55 in west virginia and 144 in my home state of kentucky. nearly 35 million americans live in communities within the newly designated opportunity zones. together they have an average poverty rate of around 32%. this program is just one of so many ways that republican policies are providing a boost to the very communities that democratic policies systematically left behind. the opportunity zones were the idea of senator tim scott from south carolina who was able to

insert them into the tax reform bill. so bonuses, pay raises and tax cuts for middle-class families today and the foundation for more investment and more jobs tomorrow. now, mr. president, on a related matter i'm proud on this congress watch our economy has produced so many job opportunities for the american people. here was a.p.'s headline a few weeks ago, open jobs outnumber u.s. unemployed for third street month. but that growth and prosperity need to -- needs to reach all families in all communities. that means expanding america's opportunity to invest in their human capital by building new skills and transitioning into growing industries. that's why the appropriations legislation the senate is currently considering provides billions of dollars for training and employment services, $1,660,000,000 for apresented

isship programs, $220 million for dislocated workers with a special emphasis on displaced workers in rural communities like those i represent in eastern and western kentucky. just under $100 million to integrate ex-offenders back into productive society. these are just a few of the important items that our appropriation for labor, health and human services, and education will fund. it will invest in college affordability through pell grants, federal study work programs and programs aimed at low-income and first generation students. it contains a $2 billion funding increase for the national institutes of health paving the way for new medical breakthroughs. it will spry more resources for treatment prevention and

recovery programs pertaining to the opioid epidemic. state opioid response grants puts states in the driver's seat so local responses can be tailored to local challenges. this legislation funds them to the tune of $1.5 billion. in addition, there are hundreds of millions of dollars for community health centers, hundreds of millions for prevention and public awareness, and more for research into the nature of this addiction and alternatives for managing pain. there's over $100 million in targeted help for rural communities like those in kentucky which continue to bear the brunt of this national crisis. secure $5 million for a brand-new centers for disease control initiative to help prevent the spread of infectious

diseases like h.i.v. and hepatitis b and c which is a consequence of the opioid epidemic. the krrcht d. -- c.d.c. will look at high-risk areas, this legislation also contains provisions for my career act which will dedicate new federal funds to career and training services so recovering substance abuse patients can transition back into the workforce and begin to rebuild their lives. so in sum, mr. president, the appropriation measures we're considering this week invest in human capital from all angles. it will put new tools in the hands of distressed communities of workers who need new skills and of families who need help defeating drug addiction. i want to thank the subcommittee chairman senator blunt and ranking member senator murray for their bipartisan work on the labor, h.h.s. title. i look forward to voting on this

legislation, along with the vital funding for the department of defense in the coming days. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. now, yesterday i met with president trump's nominee for the supreme court, judge brett kavanaugh. our conversation covered many different topics, unfortunately judge kavanaugh refused to answer even the most basic questions about his jurisprudence. he refused to say if rowe was correctly decided. he refused to say if casey was correctly decided. he could not name a restriction on a woman's right to choose that he would consider an undue burden. even when i asked him would a ban on abortion after four to six weeks would be an undue burden, he said he couldn't answer that. he could not tell me if he

believed the affordable care act was constitutional, nor would he answer or recall his level of involvement in a number of controversies during his time in the bush white house, a portion of his record the senate has been denied access to by the republican majority. now, i understand the imperative all judges face not to bias themselves by commenting on cases that could come before their court, but these are some basic questions of already decided cases, and furthermore, i told judge kavanaugh he is in a different place than others. president trump has said he will only appoint nominees who will undo roe v. wade. president trump said that he will only appoint the a.c.a. unconstitutional. judge kavanaugh is under a burden to refute that. i asked him even when he sat with the president. did he tell the president, don't count on him, he will absolutely

vote to repeal rowe. he didn't. so kavanaugh has a burden beyond that of a normal justice because of what president trump, the person who selected him has said unequivocally. so judge kavanaugh's silence or refusal to commit to even the most common sings that should be said. he said he would say brown was correctly decided, why can't he say rowe was correctly decided? his silence, especially given his recent praises of dissent in rowe and casey in 2017 and 2017, he praised judge rehnquist and judge scalise's view that rowe and casey was decided wrongly. what is anyone supposed to believe? given that president trump said he will only nominate people who will repeal rowe, given he has praised the dissents in rowe and

casey, the fact that he was unwilling to refute any of that in any way to even say that an abortion, a limit on abortion after four weeks was an undue burden should raise real questions for any american who believes in choice, who believes in the kiewnality of the -- constitutionality of the government helping with health care, including preexisting conditions. and then there is one issue we discussed yesterday that took on a whole new light mere minutes after our discussion concluded. i asked judge kavanaugh about his remarkably expansive views on executive authority. as context, judge kavanaugh has said that presidents should not be subject to criminal or civil investigations while in office. he said the only remedy for a president who committed a serious crime is impeachment by

congress. so i asked judge kavanaugh a more basic question. does he believe that a sitting president must comply with a subpoena? let me say that again. i asked him a more basic question. does he believe that a sitting president must comply with a subpoena or testify or provide records? he would not say that the president must comply with a subpoena. i asked him that in the most extreme situation, an criminal investigation against a sitting president where our national security is at stake, could the investigator subpoena the president? he wouldn't say he would. now, that was before the news that broke late yesterday. during our meeting, actually, the news broke that president trump's former personal attorney, michael cohen, implicated the president in a

violation of campaign finance laws. the sequence of those two events, kavanaugh's refusal to say this a president must comply with a duly issued subpoena and michael cohen's implication of the president in a federal crime makes the danger of brett kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court abundantly clear. it's a game changer. it should be. a president identified as and coconspirator of a federal crime, an accusation not made by a political enemy but by the closest of his own confidants is on the verge of making a lifetime appointment to the supreme court, a court that may some day soon determine the extent of the president's legal jeopardy. in my view, the senate judiciary committee should immediately pause the consideration of the kavanaugh nomination. the majority of the senate has still not seen the bulk of judge

kavanaugh's record. at the very least, the very least, it is seem -- it is unseemly for the president of the united states to be picking a supreme court justice who could soon be effectively a juror in a case involving the president himself. in light of these facts, i believe chairman grassley has scheduled a hearing for judge kavanaugh too soon and i am calling on him to delay the hearing. i know that chairman grassley and leader mcconnell hold all the cards in terms of scheduling hearings, but the plain facts of the case should compel them to the same conclusion i have reached, the judiciary committee should postpone judge kavanaugh's hearings. at this moment in our nation's history the senate should not confirm a man to the bench who believes that presidents are virtually beyond accountability,

even in criminal cases. a man who believes that presidents are virtually above the law and only congress can check a president's power. over the past year, despite numerous abuses of presidential authority, despite numerous encroachments on the separation of powers, despite numerous attacks on the rule of law, this republican congress has done almost nothing, nothing, to check this president. if congress can be captured by one party's deference to the president, we cannot allow the supreme court to be captured as well. the doubts about judge kavanaugh's fitness for the bench were just magnified by mr. the prospect of the president being implicated in some criminal case is no longer a hypothetical that can be dismissed. it's very real.

if judge kavanaugh truly believes that no sitting president, including president trump, must answer for crimes he may or may not have committed, then he should not become judge kavanaugh with the power to make those used manifest in our books of law. most broadly, mr. president, yesterday's news has blackened an already dark cloud hanging over this administration. in addition to mr. cohen's implication of the president, manafort has convicted of eight different counts. to take a step back, president trump's campaign manager was convicted of federal crimes, president trump's personal aattorney pled guilty to federal crimes, president's first national security advisor pled guilty, a prosecutor to his

campaign pled guilty to his federal crimes. cabinet officials have been forced to resign. that's to say nothing of the fact that the first two congressional endorsements of president trump's campaign came from two comment who have recently been indicted on counts of insider trading and campaign finance violations. what a swamp. what a swamp. far worse than the swamp that existed when president trump took over. he has not cleaned the swamp. he has made it more retch the and more getted. no -- getted. no one in america can dismiss what happened as the actions of a few bad apples. there is a cess pool around this. this is a hypocrisy to president trump's campaign slogan, drain

the swamp. president trump brought the worst swamp we have seen in history to town when we came here. this leads me to make two points, first, special counsel mueller's investigation is clearly doing what it was constituted to do and finding criminal activity in the process. already there have been four guilty pleas or verdicts, dozens of indictments. the idea of calling special counsel mueller's investigation a witch hunt was already absurd and laughable, becomes even more so today. second, the president should not even considerpardonning, -- consider pardoning mr. manafort or cohen at any point in the future. to do so would be the most flaying ant abuse of party power and a clear obstruction of justice. the rosenstein mueller

investigation must be permitted to complete its work and the president must resist the impulse to interfere with pardons, or anything other that prevents the work of the justice department from going forward. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 6157, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 500, h.r. 6157, an act making appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2019, and for other purposes. ms. collins: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, it has been 11 years since a labor, health and human services, and education appropriations bill has been

considered on the senate floor, so let me begin my remarks this morning by commending the chairman and ranking member of the full appropriations committee, senators shelby and leahy, for their determination to report each and every one of the appropriations bills so that they could be considered fully debated, amended in the regular order. i also want to commend the subcommittee chairman, senator blunt, and the ranking member, senator murray, for their leadership in creating a bipartisan bill. this bill will make critical investments in medical research, opioid abuse, prevention, education, and treatment. the education of our students and strengthening america's work

force. i appreciate so much that the subcommittee accommodated so many of my priorities in crafting this bill. it has my very strong support. i'm particularly pleased that the bill includes another $2 billion increase for the national institutes of health. robust investments in biomedical research will pay dividends for many american families struggling with disease and disability just as past research has enabled us to prevent, treat, or cure other serious illnesses. notably, this year, for the first time, the bill reaches the milestone of providing at least

$2 billion a year for alzheimer's disease research. the amount that the advisory council to the national plan to combat alzheimer's disease has calculated is needed to find an effective treatment for this disease by the year 2025. tomorrow, i will join senator blunt and others of my colleagues of delivering separate remarks dedicated to this milestone achievement, but i did want to briefly highlight that investment now. mr. president, as founder and the cochair of the senate diabetes caucus, i am also pleased that this bill continues to recognize the importance of investing in diabetes research. since founding the caucus in 1997, funding for diabetes has

increased more than sixfold, from $319 million in 1997 to $2 billion in 2018. and that is only appropriate. we know that treating and caring for older people with diabetes consumes approximately one out of three medicare dollars, so this is a very expensive disease as well as one that causes a great deal of heartache and damage to those who are diagnosed with type two diabetes later in life. i have also worked very hard with the juvenile research diabetes foundation on type one diabetes, which is usually diagnosed in childhood and is a lifelong disease.

the investments we have made have helped us make real breakthroughs in diabetes treatment. the bill will provide a $60 million increase for the national institute for diabetes and digestive kidney disorders at n.i.h. as the n.i.h.'s lead agency for diabetes research, this continued investment is critical to preventing diabetes, improving the lives of more than 30 million americans, including 12 million seniors already living with the disease, as well as providing the foundation to ultimately discover a cure for type one diabetes. this bill provides $3.7 billion in the fight against the opioid epidemic that is gripping our

country. sadly, in my state of maine, the crisis has actually worsened with drug-related overdoses claiming the lives of 407 people in maine last year, according to the new statistics from the centers for disease prevention and control. the crisis in maine shows no signs of abating, and indeed the contamination of heroin with fentanyl has made this crisis even worse, taking the lives of even more who are in the grips of addiction. while i'm very hopeful that the senate will consider a comprehensive opioids package put together by the senate

health committee to which many of husband contributed in the weeks ahead, it is imperative that the funds provided in this appropriations bill reach our communities without delay. this legislation also funds key priorities for vulnerable seniors, including the low-income heeding assistance program, which i know is of interest to the presiding officer because he represents the state of alaska, and that program is critical there as it is in the state of maine. it funds the state health insurance program and meals on wheels, other essential programs that make such a difference to our seniors. as chair of the senate committee on aging, i'm particularly delighted that this bill provides a $300,000 increase to

the administration for community living for the establishment of a family caregiver advisory council. this council was created by a bipartisan bill that i introduced with senator baldwin, the raise family caregivers act. it will help develop a coordinated strategic plan to leverage our resources, promote best practices, and expand services and training for our nation's caregivers. i'm sure that everyone here has had the experience of a parent who is already older taking care of a disabled spouse. perhaps someone with alzheimer's december which is 24/7 for that caregiver. and caregivers need more support

and assistance. they need to know where to go. we need to expand respite care, which is the number one concern that i hear from caregivers, and respite care in rural areas is extremely difficult to find. the hearings that we have held in the aging committee have also put a spotlight on the mobility challenges that many seniors face as they age, such as difficulty climbing steep staircases that can lead to devastateing falls, performing routine household chores, taking care of themselves, or being able to drive. this bill provides a $4 million increase for the creation of a new aging with technology program to support the

development of the system of technology for seniors with disabilities in rural areas. the university of maine center for aging is doing such interesting work in this area after collaborating with assisted living facilities and talking directly to older americans to find out what is it that they need. and sometimes it's merely a matter of renovating a bathroom or putting up grab bars, installing sensors to make sure that the refrigerator door is being opened regularly so you know that the older american is eating properly. sometimes it's more complicated than that. this center will help us explore how technology can allow more of our seniors to age in place, to stay in the comfort, security,

and privacy of their own homes where many of them long to be. maintaining access to care in rural areas is essential, and thus i also support the inclusion of $71.5 million for rural health care services outreach grants. this bill also calls on the federal government to remove arbitrary barriers around collaboration between rural and nonrural health providers that could inadvertently close off opportunities. we have seen that happen in my state where a community health center that is located in bangor, maine, is trying to help a very rural community, which unfortunately recently lost its nursing home and was using the

local hospital for assistance. we need to have more collaboration and not let arbitrary bureaucratic rules prevent that kind of cooperation. it's paramount that we do not discourage innovative approaches in health care. on a related note, i would also applaud the inclusion of increased funding to support community health centers which serve approximately 27 million americans, including upward of 186,000 individuals in the state of maine. community health centers will only continue to play a larger role in health care delivery as we seek to redues and overhaul health care costs as well as provide greater access to behavioral health and substance

use disorder prevention treatment and services. in addition to key health and aging priorities, this bill also supports essential programs at the department of education. notably, this bill provides increased investments in title 1, which helps our public schools serve low-income students. the student-supported academic enrichment grants which help to provide students with well-rounded education is an important program that brings art, music, and technology to our rural community schools. i also strongly support the increased investment in the individuals with disabilities education act, idea, which has provided opportunities for children with disabilities and

helped many of them reach their full potential. across the state of maine, superintendents, principals, and teachers tell me that one of the most effective ways we can support education overall is to better fund the federal share of idea. that would help every single school district. when idea became law in 1975, congress set a goal of providing 40% of the excess cost of serving students with disabilities. mr. president, i regret to say we are nowhere near reaching that goal. but this increase in funding for idea represents a step forward toward fulfilling that commitment, and i hope we can do more next year. this bill also funds teacher and school leader professional development and the rural

education achievement program, a law that i coauthored several years ago to bring additional resources to small and rural schools. students in rural america should have the same access to federal dollars and a good education as those living in urban and suburban communities and it has helped to provide equity for small rural schools in maine and across the country. it has helped to support an array of activities, such as new technology in classrooms, distance learning opportunities and professional development. here's a great example. reap funding has helped maine's small island schools connect together to create an island reading program using videoconference technology that

this program made affordable. in other parts of maine, schools have acquired new technology, hardware and software and to expand teacher training. having worked at a maine college before i came to the senate, i know firsthand that this bill's important investments in higher education, including pell grants and the trio programs, the university of maine is one of those institutions that has a great trio program, will help low income and first generation students access college education. trio often makes the difference in a student's ability to attend and complete a college education. funding for apprenticeships and

workforce development programs are also key priorities that will strengthen maine's workforce, preparing people with the skills and experience that they need to succeed. mr. president, i could go on and on but there are many others seeking recognition. let me just end by urging my colleagues to support the fiscal 2019 labor, health and human services, and education appropriations bill. it is good and much needed legislation. thank you, mr. president. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, before i talk about what i came here to talk about, let me just add my congratulations once again to the vice chairman of the appropriations committee, senator leahy and senator

collins, both of whom are critical members of the appropriations committee and who have gotten us much farther than we've gotten in the last 15 years when it comes to the appropriations process. and i'm optimistic we'll be able to wrap this up tomorrow. and if we do, the senate will have voted to fund 87% of discretionary spending. the president told us last time we sent him an appropriations bill, he said don't send me another omnibus. and he's exactly right. omnibus appropriation bills are the worst way to do business, maybe a close -- close behind that is a continuing resolution. but we are not doing our job if we don't act on a bipartisan -- in a bipartisan way to move these appropriation bills forward, especially since we've agreed to the spending caps. so i just would congratulate all of the members of the appropriations committee, chairman shelby and all of the

committee for their good work. mr. president, tomorrow i'll be headed back home to austin where on friday i'll be attending the activation ceremony for the new army futures command. the establishment of this command which began operations last month is the most significant army reorganization since 1973. its new headquarters is in the capitol of -- capital of texas, austin, which is the epicenter of army technology development. it will make that epicenter of army technological development. what does the army futures command do? how does it fit into the existing organizational structure and why is it necessary? let's start with what it does. it seeks to modernize the army, period. it will do this by leveraging commercial innovation, science and technology and delivering them to war fighters in useful,

cutten edge ways -- cutting edge ways. in a world with evolves threats, the futures command could not come at a more pivotal time. the army chose austin because it wanted to be close to a hub of innovation which austin certainly is these days. it has roughly 6,500 high-tech companies nestled among who is affection natalie referred to as the silicon hills. we have the silicon valley and we have the silicon hills. there are major academic institutions nearby like texas state, st. andrews and texas a&m with thousands of students graduating each year in stem fields, science, technology, engineering and math. it's also worth noting austin has become a hub for start-up culture and is ground zero when it comes to youthful talent,

technological ingenuity and ideas that are changing industries and stewses of what are normal -- institutions of what are normal ways of doing things in the past. what sometimes people refer to as disruption, certainly we've seen that but austin, let's not forget, is also a military city. we know camp maybrey is there, the headquarters of the texas army and air national guards and the texas state guard. not far away is the great place called fort hood as well as joint base san antonio to the south. those military installations will now be joined by the army futures command in austin giving the bustling, live music capital of the world an entirely new brand and reason for attention. if san antonio, my hometown is military city u.s.a. , you might call austin military innovation city u.s.a. u.s.a. . you might be wondering how the army futures command fits into the existing organizational

designs of our military. in short, it complements the army's three other star headquarters, the training doctrine command and the army material command. the first trains and prepares combat ready soldiers. the second is essentially the army's architect. it recruits, designs, and builds for the army. and the third, sustains the army by providing the necessary equipment. now, the new fourth command will modernize the army by integrating technology as it's developed in research labs and other facilities. when it's staffed at full capacity, the austin headquarters will be home to 100 soldiers and 400 department of the army civilians. that's just to start. leading them will be general john murray who was nominated and confirmed just two nights ago to be commanding general of the futures command.

my friend and colleague said cruz said it well. just as austin is uniquely positioned to ensure the army succeeds in this new mission, general murray's long career and dedicated service in uniform makes him the right leader for the army futures command. i agree wholeheartedly. general murray and others will help create cross functional teams designed to focus on specific things that the army wants to build or improve. for example, next generation combat vehicles, soldierly lethality, cloud and network capabilities. the next question i want to answer is why is it necessary? i think the only answer is because our country's future military readiness depends on it. that's why it's necessary. our ultimate goal here is to increase the army's three that willty against near competitors and global conflicts that could arise at some point down the

road. so the army futures command is really the hub of modernization efforts for the army. it takes new concepts from the realm of the abstract and it puts them to use concretely in the form of real world technology that the army can acquire for its own purposes. then it helps the war fighters implement and use these new tools in the field. there's a rough consensus in congress that the army's acquisition machinery needs to operate faster and more efficiently. certainly more cost effectively. it's my hope that the mini -- many entrepreneurs, the college graduates and the military reservists collaborating with the army futures command in austin will provide innovative ideas to help remedy these problems. the futures command could reduce red tape making it easier to make decisions or changes quickly, particularly ones involving the purchase or upgrade of equipment and

systems. in a world still marred by conflicts in iraq and afghanistan, strained by escalating cybersecurity threats and threatened by the increased beligerance of china and russia, the u.s. military must keep pace with evolving technologies in order to maintain our strategic advantage and to maintain the peace. modernization is a key to deterring aggression, promoting that peace and protecting -- projecting american strength around the globe. secretary of defense mattis has made it clear this ranks among his top priorityies. in closing, mr. president, let me say the army futures command is aptly named. when it comes to our national defense, we should always be looking toward the future. its incredible to think starting in just under three weeks, young people born in the aftermath of 9/11 will be eligible to insist -- enlist in the army with their

parents' consent. that's an amazing statistic. that tells you something about the rapid pace of modern life and some of the transitions that are occurring right before our eyes. these young people born right after the terrible events of 9/11 have grown up in a world that sees now new forms of conflict as well as terrorism, the likes of which the founders of this great nation could never have imagined. its imperative that as brave men and women continue to answer the call to service, even in such harrowing times as ours, that we do our part to give them the tools they need to be successful. the army's futures command, therefore, is most definitely a step in the right direction. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i thank the senator from texas for his remarks. i do appreciate the encouragement he's given both

senator shelby and myself, again the appropriations through. as he knows, he's been here long enough to know this is the way the senate should work. we've done is it -- done it in a bipartisan way and we're way ahead of where we've been any time in the past few years. i also want to applaud the senior senator from maine. she sits on the appropriations committee. we've served together there and throughout our careers and she is a valuable member of that committee. she has helped us put together with her democratic counterpart good legislation. it's included -- in fact, her committee, we were nearly a

unanimous vote in the appropriations committee. most of this has been either unanimous or virtually unanimous. i said because some felt in the senate, you could not get a majority vote even to say the sun rises in the east but here we've been doing majority votes on things that involve everywhere from alaska to vermont. i'm pleased with it. now, i would -- i take the floor in my role as vice chairman of appropriations and managing this bill. but i want to digress as others have for a few minutes and speak about something else. we're now less than two weeks away from judge kavanaugh's confirmation hearing before the senate judiciary committee. two weeks away and the committee

has received only 6% of its total white house records according to the national archives. this is virtually unprecedented. 6% of his records and not a single one of the records we've received has been provided by the national archives. that's because the archives will not complete its review of the limited number of records requested by chairman grassley until october, a month after the majority leader intends to hold a final vote on judge kavanaugh. actually, every single record that we have received in the judiciary committee to date was hand-selected by a political lawyer representing president george w. bush. he is a partisan lawyer who report directly to judge kavanaugh for the bush white

house, who also represents white house counsel don mcgahn, steve bannon and reince priebus in the russian investigation. i mention this because he's been very selective on the very few things we've been allowed to see. now, i mention this because this is in stark contrast to past precedent. let me talk about the vetting of justice kagan, who, like judge kavanaugh, had served in the white house prior to her nomination. i was chairman of the judiciary committee at that time. i worked hand-in-hand with then-ranking member jeff sessions to ensure that we received every document of interest to the committee. certainly senator sessions demanded on behalf of the republicans an all of lot of

records, and i worked with him to get them. in fact, when we were 12 days away from justice kagan's hearing, we had already received a full 99% of her white house records. 99%. you mention that because now at the same time on judge kavanaugh, we're at 6%. republicans allow 6%. democrats allowed 99%. does this make a -- the confirmation hearing a partisan joke? in fact, every single one of justice kagan's records were provided by the nonpartisan national after kiefs. the -- national archives. the 6% of judge kavanaugh's records were provided by a political partisan p, hyperconflicted attorney. i mean, just on the face of it,

it does not pass the giggle test. democrats provided for the nonpartisan national archive 99% of justice kagan's record. here we're getting only 6% of judge kavanaugh's records, and they are picked by a political partisan attorney with hyper conflicts. and the superficial vetting of judge kavanaugh is all the more troubling because there's still serious concerns about the last time he testified before the senate. during his 2006 nomination hearing for the d.c. circuit court of appeals, judge kavanaugh minimized his work on highly controversial issues in the bush white house, including detainee treatment and warrantless wiretapping. and it's now clear that we will only know the full truth if we

get his full record. anything less is simply rushing to a verdict before the trial. based on the limited -- very limited -- very limited documents that they have allowed us to see, there's an additional reason to be concerned. the committee has received new evidence that sheds light on whether judge kavanaugh was truthful under oath in 2006. unfortunately, i can't even describe these documents because they've kept them in the classified or confidential form, and the american people cannot see them. what bothers me even more is the majority of the senate can't see them either. the majority of republicans and democrats in the senate can't see them. that's because nearly two-thirds of the documents the judiciary

committee has received have been designated as committee- confidential by greater than grassley. -- by chairman grassley. that follows the request of the partisan attorney who the senate is relying on to do the job of the nonpartisan national archives. to date that means that 2% of judge kavanaugh's white house records are available to the american people -- 2%, as compared to 99% for justice kagan. 2%. 2%. and they select what that 2% is. golly ... what's in the other 98% that they don't want us to see? i've served in this body for 44 years. i've been here for every supreme court nomination since john paul stevens. i voted for a lot of republicans and democrats on the supreme court. for 20 years i served as a chairman or ranking member of

the senate judiciary committee. those 44 years -- in those 44 years, i can tell you frankly that the vetting of judge kavanaugh is the most incomplete, most partisan, and least transparent for any supreme court nominee of either democratic or republican president i've ever seen. it's not even close. 44 years -- i take the experience i've had here with democrats and republicans as president. i have never seen such incomplete partisan or the least transparent vetting. yesterday i met with judge kavanaugh. a very pleasant man. i had the opportunity to ask him about many issues, including his work in the bush white house. and following our meeting, i believe even more strongly the documents he authored or

contributed to during his three years as the white house staff secretary should be released and made public now. what he wrote is far more important than what his personality might be. let's find out what he wrote. that tells us what kind of a supreme court member he would be. you know, a vigilant review of a supreme court nominee's record isn't an optional matter. it shouldn't depend upon what party controls the white house or the senate. again, in 44 years i've seen very vigilant review of supreme court nominees by both republicans and democrats, and that's the way it should be. i have agreed with that every single time. but never -- never, never -- have i seen something like this.

never, never have i seen a record hidden the way this one is. it is undeniable the documents of clear public interest are being hidden from the american people, documents that would shed light on both his views and fitness to serve on our nation's highest court. wearing blinders at this moment is fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional obligation to provide advice and informed consent. mr. president, the united states senate is supposed to be the conscience of the nation. this is a sad conscience. the federal judiciary stands alone. unlike any other branch of our government, the judges, for good reason, never face the scrutiny of the electorate. once a supreme court is confirmed, he or she serves for life. barring impeachment, which has happened just once in our

nation's history, they serve with essentially no oversight. that means the senate has no second chance when it comes to vetting a nominee. we have to get this right now. we can't have a vote now and then two months from now get the record and say, oh, golly, gee ... if we had known this, we would have voted differently. we have to have all the records now and then vote. and there's time to do so. the senate should not be focusing on having judge kavanaugh confirmed by october 1, some artificial -- artificial deadline. instead, the senate should be focused done its job, and that requires allowing the national after kiefs to -- archives to complete its review of judge kavanaugh's record, as required by the presidential records act. in time, when the president -- and in a time when the president is facing unprecedented legal

jeopardy, it would be an extraordinary disservice to the american people to break all precedents -- all precedents -- and confirm his selection to the supreme court without an actual review. have the review. then every senator, he or she, can make up their mind how they are going to vote. don't vote blindly without all the material. the fact that judge kavanaugh has a longer record than prior supreme court nominees, something the president was keenly aware of when he selected him, does not excuse the senate from doing its job. if confirmed, he is going to shape the lives of all americans for generations to come. if when the national archives completes its review in october we learn that we did not get it right, it's going to fall squarely on the shoulders of this body. every senator that finds out

because we rushed this, if they find out later there was material there they should have seen, they will have absolutely no excuse whatsoever because they concurred in the rushing. we should set this partisan vetting aside. we should work together, as we have in the past, to actually vet judge kavanaugh's record in a way that honors both our constitutional obligation. the job of american people sent us here to do. mr. president, i feel honored to be here, as a u.s. senator from the state of vermont. i do strongly believe, as i heard when i first came here that this body can be the conscience of the nation. we're not following our conscience p. -- if we don't do the real work to find out what we're voting on.

we've voted on a lot of things. some are routine. this is not. this is voting for a person who can serve on the supreme court long after most of us will have left this body. we owe it to all americans -- i don't care what their politics are or where they're from -- to get it right. that's what our oath calls for. that's why we're here. i have voted more than all but three or four people in the history of this country. every time i vote, i'm hoping i do it right. i hope i do. i try to do it in an informed way. so, mr. president, i know we're going to go back now to the appropriations bills.

here is a case where i think we have done things right. senator shelby is the chairman. i am the vice chairman. it is one of only three committees that has a vice vice chairman. we've worked very, very closely together. we've done it in a way to get bills through in a bipartisan fashion. we actually work the way the senate did when i first came here, the way the senate has under great leaders on the democratic side like mike mansfield, on the republican side like howard baker. and we've gotten things done. so i'm proud of the appropriations committee. i am concerned about the judiciary committee. i've had the privilege of serving on it for over 40 years. the privilege of being chairman and ranking member. but i have to say, it is not

doing its job if it's not requiring all the material to be here. senator shelby and i on the appropriations committee have worked to make sure everybody is heard. everybody had the material. we should be doing the same thing on the judiciary committee. i see the chairman of the committee on the floor, and i've spoken on the matter i wanted to speak on. i will yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: i see senator boosman is here. i will yield the floor and speak after he's done.

mr. boozman: it's okay. i'll yield to you. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: i'll yield to you. mr. mur uz -- mr. murphy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: included in the underlying appropriations bill are funds to continue the u.s. support for the saudi-led bombing campaign inside yemen. i will speak about an amendment that i have that would stop the u.s. support for this campaign pending a determination by the administration that we are in compliance with u.s. and international humanitarian law regarding the targeting of civilians. at this point i would ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment number 3793. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. shelby: i object.

before i -- the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. shelby: i would just like it to say that the senator from connecticut has got a worthy amendment here. we're all concerned about what's going on in yemen. i would hope that we would not do it on this bill because we're trying to keep a lot of riders off, but this is something that we're going to have to address. i would like to work with him, and others would on both sides of the aisle because what's been going on in yemen is atrocious. i object, though, at this point in time. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. murphy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. i'm of course disappointed by the chairman's objection but i take his commitment to work on this issue to heart. i look forward to doing that. i'd like to speak for a moment about the amendment and about the reason why i was very hopeful, and remain hopeful, that we may get the chance to

vote on this before the consideration of this bill is passed. because in this legislation is substantial funding in order to perpetuate a bombing campaign inside yemen that is making this country less safe. and i would argue that since this bill was debated in the appropriations committee, some new information, some horrifying new information has come to light that should cause us to reconsider whether this is something that is so urgent that we need to deal with it now, this week, that it can't wait. mr. president and my colleagues, these pictures unfortunately are a dime a dozen. you could find any number of them every single day coming out of this theater. this picture in particular is of a community center that was bombed by the saudi and uae-led coalition that the united states finances and supports. inside this community center a

funeral was occurring when it was ostensibly targeted and bombed by the united states, the saudis, and the u.a.e. this is a horrifying scene in and of itself, but to know that a funeral was occurring there makes it even worse. what we now know is that the targeting of civilians inside yemen is getting worse, not better. the new information that i spoke of is something i think that is on the minds of many of my colleagues, information that last week the saudi-u.s. coalition hit a school bus in northern yemen intentionally. the saudis' initial reaction was that it was a legitimate military target. there's no way a school bus is a legitimate military target.

that school bus was carrying dozens of children, dozens of children that are now dead because of a 500-pound bomb made in the united states and sold to the coalition. and over the course of this year, the targeting inside yemen has gotten more catastrophic and more catastrophic. on june 11 a doctors without borders cholera treatment facility located in the center of a humanitarian compound with no military value was hit. there's no way that that's a mistake. everyone knew about this humanitarian compound with a cholera treatment facility inside it, and the saudi coalition bombed it anyway. no way that's a mistake. no way that's a military target. that is an intentional bombing of a cholera treatment facility. two weeks later, on july 24, a

unicef water treatment facility was hit. i'll talk a little bit about the cholera epidemic in yemen in a moment, but the reason that there is a cholera epidemic, the biggest in recorded history, is because of these water treatment stpeuplts which are being taken down by the saudi-led coalition. another one hit on the 24th. on the 28th a water main supply is hit for yemen's most important port city. and then on august 9, as i mentioned, the school bus full of children. kids 1 years old to 11-year olds, 44 children died, many were left without arms, legs or other injuries. there was a video and photos of the wrepblg and the coalition -- of the wreckage and the coalition initially denied that there were children on the bus, and they still claim that it was a legitimate military target. the united states is a key player in this bombing campaign. the united states has personnel

that sits in the targeting center when decisions are made as to what sites on the ground will be bombed. the united states pays to put planes in the air, to refuel the fighter jets flown by the saudis and the emiratis and the united states sells the koelg, -- the coalition, the bombs that are used. we in fact have authorized, i've taken votes on in this congress several sales of precision-guided missiles. we sell them, p.g.m.'s, because we believe they will make fewer mistakes. and that probably is right. they are probably making fewer mistakes with the p.g.m.'s. the problem is their targets are school buss, funerals, water treatment facilities, and water mains. they can more effectively hit their civilian targets with the bombs that we are selling.

so my amendment which was objected to would simply say that we should not continue to fund this bombing campaign until we have a certification from the administration that the campaign comports with international and u.s. humanitarian laws, humanitarian laws that the united states has signed on to. these laws effectively say that bombing campaigns such as this need to be proportional to the threat, but most importantly, that they need to refrain from targeting civilian populations. at some point we need to believe our eyes rather than the reports we get from the administration that the targeting is getting better and that without the united states in these targeting centers, without the p.g.m.'s, without the refueling missions, that the targeting would be worse, that the civilian casualties would be worse. it is hard to imagine it being any worse than it is today. it is hard to imagine anything worse than school buss and water treatment facilities and cholera treatment centers being targeted by this coalition.

and so at some point we have to believe what we are seeing rather than what we are being told by the administration. there's been a 37% increase in civilian casualties from airstrikes in 2018 compared to 2017. 70% of the civilian deaths inside yemen are caused by these coalition air strikes. i can spend time talking to you about the atrocities that the houthis have committed who are on the other side of this civil war. but the fact of the matter is the majority of the civilian casualties are caused by the side that we are supporting. that we are supporting. and let me lastly make the case to you that even if you don't buy the unconscionable nature of targeting civilians with u.s. support, this bombing campaign is making the united states less safe every single day. what we know is that aqap is the

most lethal arm of al qaeda. it has the greatest capacity to hit the american homeland. it has gotten nothing but stronger inside of yemen since the civil war started. and there are new reports that our coalition partners, the saudis and u.a.e., have been cutting secret deals with these terrorist organizations, not killing them or defeating them. just cutting deals with them to push them out of the way. new reports that the u.a.e. is aligning itself with radical militias inside yemen, maybe not groups that are technically labeled isis but groups that trade back and forth with these groups that are aligned with the u.a.e. and the saudi coalition on the ground. the very people that want to kill us are getting stronger every single day inside yemen. every single day that this civil

war goes on. we've been told by the saudis and the u.a.e. that if we keep on backing their play here, eventually there will be a political settlement. we are getting further and further away from a political settlement every single day. they are going after new data now. the houthis are going to fight to the end to protect hudata, never mind if there is an assault on sanaa. the campaign is not expediting a political end. it is prolonging the misery and giving more opportunity for our mortal enemies there, the terrorist groups to get stronger and stronger. lastly the rationale we're given is we have an interest here because the iranians are backing the houthis. no doubt, no doubt the iranians are backing the houthis. no doubt we have an interest in trying to push back against growing iranian interest in the region. every day we k participate in this campaign the iranians go in

harder and stronger. the military campaign which postpones the political settlement is just making the iranian presence in yemen worse. they have more advanced weapons than ever before inside yemen including short-range ballistic missiles because they are readying to defend sanaa. just remember that when things like this happen, when things like this happen, it is not that the yemenees who survive blame the saudis or emiratis. they blame the united states. the world blames the united states. we are radicalizing a generation of yemeni children against urbgs and that -- us and that will hae implications for u.s. national security for years to come. 22 million people inside yemen today require humanitarian assistance. 75% of the country cannot live without humanitarian assistance. eight million people are on the brink of starvation, meaning they have one meal a day.

one meal a day. and one million have been affected by cholera. and we are, by the way, according to w.h.o., on the brink of the third cholera outbreak in that country in the last year and a half because we continue to bomb water treatment facilities. the bombing, the humanitarian catastrophe, it just shouldn't be on our conscience as a nation to be part of something like this, but it is making our country less safe every single day. every single day that we continue this unchecked, unconditional support for the saudi-led bombing campaign, we're making iran stronger in the region, postponing a political settlement and we are radicalizing the yemenees against us driving them to aqap and to isis. i'm going to try to convince my colleagues to allow us to take a vote on this amendment. i reiterate what in amendment says. it doesn't cut off support for this campaign. if i were king, i would cut off american support for this bombing campaign. i would. but i understand that that's not

where all of my colleagues are, and so i'm offering an amendment to say simply that we should require the administration to certify that civilians aren't intentionally getting targeted in contravention of u.s. law before we continue to support this funding. i really do think that if we took a vote on this, we would get the majority of the body to support the idea that a certification that civilians are not being targeted is a worthwhile precondition to continuing funding for this brutal, brutal military campaign. i will continue to press this. i appreciate the support that i've gotten from many republicans, a growing number of republicans are supporting the idea that as the facts change, we need to change our approach here. and i will just finally, finally note before i wrap up here that we have come together on an amendment to the authorization

bill that we thought moved the ball forward here. we did actually in the authorization bill require that the administration make some of these basic certifications before continuing to fund the refueling missions. in the president's signing statement, he effectively told us that he would ignore that section of the authorization bill because he did not think it was in the authorizing power of the united states congress to put those conditions on the refueling missions. i disagree. i think that is clearly within our authorizing power but there is no way the president can object to conditions of appropriations because appropriations is within the power of the united states congress. given the fact that we all came together on these conditions under the leadership of senator reed and senator corker and senator shaheen, amongst others, this is simply reiterating what we did on the authorizing bill in the appropriating bill to make sure that we are doing our

due diligence as the united states congress to make sure that this kind of horror isn't undertaken unnecessarily with u.s. funds. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: thank you, madam president. i rise today to pay tribute to our nation's purple heart recipients. the purple heart is one of the most recognizable medals of our armed forces. the military decoration, the heart-shaped medal featuring a bust of george washington in his coat of arms, is bestowed upon the men and women in our military who are wounded or killed in action. this is a powerful symbol of the sacrifice made by our nation's military service members. this month we recognized purple heart day, observed annually on august 7. this day commemorates the

anniversary of the badge for military merit, the precursor to the purple heart created by george washington. purple heart day recognizes those men and women who have borne the wounds of battle in paying tribute to the recipients of our nation's oldest military medal demonstrates our respect and gratitude for their sacrifices. i've also been working on new ways to honor and acknowledge the men and women who put themselves in harm's way in defense of our nation. in july, senator schatz and i introduced the purple heart and disabled veterans equal access act of 2018 to expand commissary eligibility to purple heart recipients and other deserving groups of veterans. i'm pleased that the recently passed national defense authorization act included this

language that opens access to purple heart recipients. additionally, last year congress passed the forever g.i. bill. at the beginning of august, several provisions took effect, including the eligibility for post-9/11 hummer heart recipients to receive full education gists for up to -- benefits for up to three years. an estimated 1.8 million purple hearts have been awarded in our nation's history. it is symbolic of the price or men and women serve in uniform are willing to pay and the debt of gratitude we owe them for their selfless service. the story of these heroes who earned this military honor continue to inspire us all. purple heart day honors the sacrifice of erin mankin. in may 123005, while deployed in

iraq as a combat correspondent, he survived an i.e.d. attack near the syrian border. he sustained intense burns and major lung damage. the injury to his lungs was so extensive that he was placed 0en a ventilator. he had third-degree burns on his arms, lost his thumb, two-thirds of his index firn finger on his right. to date he has endured nearly 70 surgeries. during ceremony by in i yetville, arkansas, earlier this month, air ron spoke about the medal's significance to him. he said that his purple heart medal reminds him that we have those among us who are willing to shed their blood, their sweat, their families' tears to protect the values and ideals we hold most deer. he told adeniedees, "it is up to us to ensure that we are living lives worthy of such a

sacrifice, end quote. aaron has faced many challenges but his enthusiasm for life has opened many doors, including selection to serve in the wounded warrior congressional fellowship program. he has fought through this continued adversity and continues to inspire me. it is important to recognize and not forget the sacrifice of aaron and his brothers and sisters in arms defending our way of life. patriots like air force sergeant john chapman who gave his life in defense of this country while brave lay fighting against al qaeda. he exemplified the air force core values of integrity first, service before self and excellence in all we do during his efforts against the enemy in afghanistan on march 4, 2002. he continued his defense against the enemy saving the lives of

american rescue team members despite his own grave injuries. today president trump will celebrate this american hero by posthumously awarding him with the medal of honor. we owe all the men and women killed or wounded in combat our heartful gratitude for their selfless sacrifice. though they often are not seeking out a recognition, awards, honors, or things in that nature, they certainly deserve nothing less than our public and private displays appreciation. the purple heart symbolizes their patriotism, dedication and commitment in defense of a grateful nation, a fitting tribute to those whose own hearts overflow with a fierce love for their country and who are willing to defend it with their life. i yield the floor, madam president.

mr. burr: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: madam president, i rise today to talk about the land and water conservation fund and i would ask unanimous consent that these remarks be included in the appropriate place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burr: madam president, today we have only 39 days until september 30, which is the expiration of the current authorization for the land and water conservation fund, and i'm committed more than ever to get lwcf reauthorized with authorization across the finish line. i have been waiting to get a vote for the entire 115th congress. i've been told to wait. and i was patient for a while. the last time i was on the floor, i offered it as an amendment to the last appropriations bill, knowing that it was not germane but knowing that the issue needed to be brought to the forefront of the united states senate because it is at the forefront of the

american people. well, i will reiterate again, i can't wait any longer. in 2015 it took the expiration of the land and water conservation fund before congress got serious about reauthorizing the program and allowing these vital conservation efforts to continue p. i'm putting this body on notice once again. i'll not allow it to expire again. several pieces of legislation have come before this body over the previous months, and yet again i'm being told by my colleagues, many of whom profess, by the way, to be supportive of this legislation, that we should wait just a little bit longer, that i can't even receive a vote on a matter until then. i've offered my colleagues a very simple proposition -- give me one vote, reauthorizing the land an water conservation fund at a 60-vote threshold. i am tea not asking for us -- i'm not asking for us to forego the requirements for a 60-vote

threshold. and i've asked for an amendment for months on any legislation coming through the senate and have repeatedly been told no. so i'm here offering a somewhat different solution. the bill that i will ask unanimous consent on shortly is different, in that the language hasn't been offered as a standaloan bill, but it is actually language that has been passed by the united states, this chamber, by a vote of 85-12. it's a bipartisan bill -- or bipartisan language that was part of the energy package that chairman murkowski negotiated with the ranking member. it includes reforms that both sides would like to see. there's one change that i'm offering today, and that's the ability for lwcf to be reviewed

every three years for all future congresses, if they believe it is warranted, and it does so by including a joint resolution of disapproval every three years in perpetuity. meaning an individual from this body can come to the floor, and with the appropriate votes for disapproval, can eliminate the automatic reauthorization. this is a permanent authorization of lwcf, but every three years the senate as a body can vote to disapprove the automatic reauthorization and, in fact, they would essentially bring an end to the program. now, the provision gives congress a chance to take another look at the program every couple of years, which seems to be in line with what a number of my colleagues currently want, given the short period options that i've been offered in the past few years.

now, madam president, let me talk about the reason that this is permanent, because when lwcf was created in the 1960's, it's original authorization was 25 years. and when it came up for reauthorization in 1989, we reauthorized it for another 25 years. it wasn't until three years ago, where it was up for reauthorization, that all of a sudden the senate in their infinite wisdom decided, well, we're only going to do this in three-year increments. and even as late as a month ago, we were offered a one-year reauthorization. now, how does a one-year reauthorization say to the conservation community that plans for generations, what programs they will have to work with. it was only in 2015, after lwcf expired, i might add, that

congress chose that short-term extension. i believe that to embrace what the creators of this program believed, we've got to get back to a longer-term reauthorization, and i would propound in this that that be permanent, with a three-year review and the ability to pass a disapproval of that authorization. it's a responsible proposal. this chamber agreed to pass these reforms on a bipartisan basis, and i'm offering even more opportunity to appeal to the keynes of my colleagues -- appeal to the keynes of my colleagues than we have ever done. i would urge my colleagues a how me -- to allow me to get this bipartisan language passed so that we can concentrate on other pressing matters. now, madam president, i think it is important -- i can never miss an opportunity to talk about what lwcf is. it is a popular and successful, bipartisan program.

and there is a house companion bill. it has 233 cosponsors. let me say that again. it has 233 cosponsors. lwcf is a dedicated means for the conservation and protection of america's irreplaceable natural, historic, and cultural, and outdoor landmarks. over its 50-plus years in history, the land and water conservation fund has conserved iconic landscapes in every state and is responsible for more than 42,000 state and local outdoor recreation projects. it is far way the nation's most -- it is far and away the nation's most important conservation program. lw ct has protect the -- lwcf has protected the great smoky mountains, the blue ridge parkway through the federal programs. in places like white hovers

force, camden community park and four-mile creek in mecklenburg county through state and local programs. lwcf is the already paid for using a small percentage of receipts off of the oil-drilling revenues. so, let me naught in layman's terms that every member of congress can understand. it requires not taxpayer money. -- it requires no taxpayer money. we use a percentage of receipts that we collect off of exploration, and it funds the land and water conservation trust. i might add that this doesn't bypass appropriateors, and i remind everybody, i am not here amending an appropriations bill. this requires appropriators on an annual basis to appropriate money. the pot, though, is accrued based upon the royalties off of

exploration. so not a dime of taxpayer money. i might also add that the current account balance for the land and water conservation fund is $21 billion, and this year the congress of the united states will appropriate roughly $450-some million dollars. so if we were to appropriate the same thing and never increase the size of the trust fund, this program would run well over 30 years on the existing money that's in the fund. that's assuming that there was no increase in the fund's balance because of money it might make off of it. lwcf helps make access for outdoorsmen easy by purchasing hedge holdings. with changing land holdings,historical recreational access can be cut off or blocked in many areas. and oftentimes vast spans

expanses of public lands are separated by narrow strips that are privately helped, necessitating a long trive to access -- drive to access hunting or fishing only a few miles away. america's growing population needs more outdoor recreation and access to activities. if we want our children and grandchildren to enjoy the same hunting, fishing, camping and paddling opportunities we enjoy today, protection of habitat and watersheds must be kept. this program is supported by cos and those who appreciate american access to public assets. the u.s. outdoor recreation economy generates $887 billion in consumer spending and $65 billion in tax revenue.

north carolina has received approximately $246.7 million in lwcf funding over the past five decades. now, madam president, this just happens to be a newsletter that i got in the mail over the weekend from the blue ridge parkway foundation. i just want to highlight a few things in this because this is all about the parkway. the first one is the community of stewart thanking project parkway volunteers, highlighting an effort where 200 volunteers devoted their time for cleanup projects along the blue ridge parkway, this spring high pass pwaog tkpweu riders were a hit. riders raised $13,000 for the parkway. happy camper memories, here's a

story of an individual who is a child actually spent her summers camping in the blue ridge parkway. and this is her story of what it meant to her. talk about a generational impact, it's right there. overlooks get a clear perspective. some of my colleagues say this empowers park service or somebody, and they limit access. i just talked about we're using this to expand access. but here's one where the park service took on the opportunity with private funding to begin to clear the view over overlooks so that people who ride down the blue ridge parkway can stop at the overlook and actually see the beautiful land that's out there, where it had been encroached by scrub trees, something some of my colleagues would never think that the park service would actually go in and cut down something. and not only did they do it, they did it with money that was

donated to them by people who use the park. a fresh look at flattop. flattop happens to be a property that was, when the parkway was created in the 1950's under the jobs program, this was a residence that was absorbed into the property, and now 100 years, hopefully the restoration on this will let this property last for another 100 years, all driven with volunteer dollars, not with appropriations. and we know the backlog we've got with maintenance needs on our parts. and last one i'll highlight is the farm aid. repairs to historical humpback rocks are underway. you know, i'll just read the last sentence of the paragraph. this is a much-needed transformation and a great example of your donations at

work. you see, this isn't something that we're trying to pull the wool over the american people. this is, we're actually highlighting the things that are great, that we've preserved. we've got an opportunity to use the land and water conservation fund with zero taxpayer dollars to leverage these private donations for projects like farm aid. the last one is leave your mark on the mountains, where there's a will, there's a way. and it basically says give to the blue ridge parkway foundation. again, i say to my colleagues, this makes such common sense to me. across this country we've got individual americans who give of their own money not just to protect but to maintain these valuable pieces of land. and here we've got an opportunity to use money that was designated over 50 years

ago, authorized, that we accumulate in a pot, and we use that to leverage the private donations. maybe this is a model for us to look at as to how we do park maintenance, where we might be able to leverage more private sector dollars to help with park maintenance. because in essence, it is maintenance but it's preservation of national treasures. north carolina, the program has been so successful that just a decade after its original enactment, congress in 19 # -- 1977 decided to triple its authorization level to $900 million, the level it remains at today. it's authorized to be appropriated $900 million a year. it has $21 billion in its fund. and this year we will appropriate about $455 billion. i'm not here to fight an

appropriations battle. i'll save that for when we've got permanent reauthorization because i think it's high on the passion list of many members. as of march 30, about $2.51 billion is in the lwcf fund from 1965 through 2018. about $39.8 billion was created -- or was credited to lwcf. less than half that amount, $18.4 billion, has been appropriated. i want every member to understand what i'm asking today. i'm going to ask unanimous consent that the senate take up a bill with an hour debate and an up-or-down vote that does this: it permanently authorizes the land and water conservation fund.

it does not appropriate. it still leaves up to appropriators the annual amount that's appropriated. the language of this bill is a negotiated bipartisan reform package led by the chairman of the energy committee. and most importantly to those who have been uncomfortable with the extension of reauthorization in the past, every three years the congress is given the ability to pass a disapproval for reauthorization. and if they collect those votes, the program is not authorized. i'm not sure that we've left any concerns that have been raised over the past year and a half out of the equation in this bill. i want to thank the chairman of the energy committee for her diligent work with negotiating the bipartisan language, her willingness to be supportive of the reauthorization. i firmly believe that she will

have to object because in some cases that's your job when you chair a committee. but before i make my unanimous consent request, i want to make a promise to all my members. if i've got to come down here and do this morning and afternoon day after day after day, i'll do it. i've got enough iterations of this bill that i can accommodate anybody's concerns that they have. and find a way to get permanent authorization not because i want it. it's because the american people want it. it's because the next generation deserves for us to do this. and for some unknown reason, a small number of people won't even allow a vote to happen. so at this time i'm going to ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the democratic leader in the senate, the senate proceed to the

consideration of my bill which is at the desk in relation to lwcf and that there be one hour of debate and that the senate vote on passage with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: madam president, reserving the right to object, i do stand reluctantly and in the unenviable position, as my friend from north carolina has noted, as the chairman of the authorizing committee, the energy committee, i will be objecting at this time. but i want to acknowledge not only the work of the senator from north carolina, but the passion with which he has put himself into this issue which is one that i would think that all of us, whether we're from north carolina or alaska or points in between, coastal, inland, we

care about our nation's environment. we care about the land that supports us. at our heart i would think that we are all conservationists. and when you think about the purposes for which land and water conservation fund was established, it is to do just exactly what senator burr has outlined, some of the good work that you see in north carolina, some of the good work you see with state side lwcf in my state and all of our states, i think we have seen that role. what the senator has laid out here today, i think is, in fairness, very right. it is a very popular program. i think individuals look at it and see the concrete benefits. and in the places that they love. it does have good support in both bodies. i think that that is an absolute when you look at the skpeurp particularly on the house

side -- the cosponsorship particularly on the house side where sometimes it is difficult to get strong numbers. the senator points out that the language he used was part of an energy bill that enjoyed strong, strong support on this floor. 85-12 a year or so ago. and the provisions, the language that he has utilized in this proposed bill is language that we had included for the most part in our bill, with the addition of what he has suggested with the opportunity every three years to revisit this. so it takes the good core of a bill that has already passed, kind of stood the test of fire, if you will, there. but i think it is important to note that with that energy bill, that lwcf piece was part of a negotiated package that did include other components. i think we would still like to see those other components moving through. i'm certainly committed to working to advance them and have

told the senator from north carolina that that is my intention. i also believe senator burr when he says that he will continue with this effort, that he will continue to bring this issue to the fore, because he believes it is the right thing to do. a permanent reauthorization is timely. i will note to colleagues that while this authorization does expire september 30, it is important to remember that the outlays from lwcf, those will continue, so the appropriations that he has referenced, the $450 million for this particular year, those still go out. but he raises a very valid point, that we have an authorization that is coming due at the end of this next month. this is an opportunity for us to act. it seems that we act best when there's a little pressure from

behind or with the timeline. and my commitment to him this morning is to continue this work, continue this effort. i appreciate what he has done to address some of the concerns. i think we both know that there are still outstanding issues that we have with some colleagues. and in an effort to not only move this across the senate floor but allow it to get to that point where it is, it is successfully implemented into law, i want to work with him to achieve that. but at this point in time, i reluctantly will object to the senator from north carolina. the presiding officer: objection is heard. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. donnelly: madam president, as a parent, i know there's nothing more important than the health and safety of our children. it's the most basic desire of

any mom or dad to watch their child to grow up happy and healthy and to achieve his or her god-given potential. sadly, for too many children in this country, the chance at a healthy life and a bright future is stunted by external environmental factors beyond their control. until some communities -- in some communities and states like my home state of indiana with a long history of commercial and industrial manufacturing the potential for exposure to hazardous contamination is a reality that must be constantly monitored and carefully managed. for that reason, i'd like to talk about why our work on this appropriations bill that would fund agencies including the departments of labor as well as health and human services, is so important. last week the agency for toxic substances and disease registry, also known as atsdr, held a

community meeting in east chicago, indiana, to discuss the ongoing impacts of lead exposure in particular neighborhoods built over an old united states steel lead smelter. at the meeting, atsdr released a report that indicated in these neighborhoods 30% of children tested between 2005 and 2015 had blood lead levels above the c.d.c.'s reference level. that's 12 times higher than the national average of 2.5%. the impacts of lead exposure are dangerous or are irreverse able. it affects the ability to pay attention, academic achievement. think about what that means for

their families, their community, for our country. in east chicago, the fight to combat lead exposure is a team effort and it also includes partners from the city, the state department of health, idem, as well as the environmental protection agency, and the departments of housing and urban development and health and human services at the federal level. it's critical our federal partners continue to support these efforts by providing the best science, research, and resources to help identify and reimmediate contamination as well as educate our impacted communities. that's why i'm pleased this appropriations bill more than doubles the current level of funding for c.d.c.'s efforts to reduce childhood lead poisoning. this funding is critical for lowering children's blood lead levels and to prevent future

harm. it also helps educate health care providers and the public about lead poisoning, monitor childhood blood levels, and provide funding to states for childhood lead poisoning information. another important tool we have to protect the health and safety of our communities is treffors law, -- trevor's law, authored by my good friend frank lautenberg and part of the 21st century act in 2016. it was designed to provide federal agencies to help conduct investigations and to take the necessary actions to help address factors that may contribute to the creation of cancer clusters. additionally, the law is intended to better enable federal agencies to coordinate with state and local agencies

and the public in investigating and addressing potential cancer clusters. it's the type of commonsense support and coordination americans expect when they face the fear that something may be putting the health and the safety of their community and their beloved children at risk. for the community of franklin, indiana, in johnson county, trevor's law is the type of federal support they need today as they work with the state to seek answers to reports that nearly 50% have been diagnosed with various types of cancers in the last eight years. unfortunately for these families, many of whom i've had the privilege and opportunity to get to know, trevor's law has not yet been implemented. that's why i'm offering a simple

amendment. it provides $1 million to fund the implementation of trevor's law so we can leverage every bit of knowledge and research and expertise and ingenuity to make sure our communities are safe places to raise our families. we're blessed to live in a great country, founded on the idea that our children can grow up to be anything they dream of. our job is to keep that promise for future generations and to give our young people every chance there is to succeed. i urge my colleagues to join myself and senator crapo in taking this important step to ensure we employ the very best scientific research and knowledge and response and coordination to ensure our communities remain safe places to raise our children.

madam president, i yield back. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: madam president, i rise today to support judge brett kavanaugh and to join the chorus of members of the senate and millions of americans who are coming to the conclusion, as i have, that judge kavanaugh will be an excellent addition to the united states supreme court. he has outstanding qualifications for the court, but some of my friends on the other side of the aisle are desperately seeking to find an argument, any argument, to derail his nomination. the latest attempt is to claim that my friends on the other side of the aisle simply do not have enough information about him to make an informed opinion. yesterday the distinguished minority leader of the united

states senate came to the floor and suggested republicans and judge kavanaugh are hiding something. this raises the question, madam president, how much can you hide about a distinguished judge who's been issuing opinions for 12 straight years on the circuit court of appeals? how much can you hide about that person's legal philosophy? now, in the past my friend senator schumer has asserted the best way to evaluate judicial nominees was to review their judicial record. perhaps he should follow that advice this year, 2018, in our approach to judge kavanaugh. back in 2009, when considering judge sotomayor's nomination to the high court, my friend, the senior senator from new york,

encouraged this body to focus on the nominee's 17-year record as a judge rather than engage in what he called fishing expeditions. to supplement judge kavanaugh's 12-year record of judicial opinions, the senate is receiving a lot of documents, more than one million documents so far. the largest volume of records ever reviewed for any supreme court nominee. the largest volume of records ever. so if our democratic friends want documents, we've got them for our democrat friends to read. in addition, judge kavanaugh has submitted more than 17,000 pages in response to the senate judiciary committee's questions. the documents that have been turned in from his time in the

bush white house total more than 238,000 pages. most of these were already available to the public. in comparison, judge gorsuch made available 182,000 pages, justice kagan, when she was being confirmed, made available 170,000 pages for review. in comparison judge kavanaugh's number is 238,000 pages. so what has changed? madam president, i think the american people know what is happening here in this debate. the senate should not be distracted by these stall and delay tactics. instead, let's focus on the facts. judge kavanaugh brings with him a respected reputation and legal

record. he's written some 300 published legal opinions. let's use the schumer rule and judge him on those legal opinions. judge kavanaugh's positions have already been adopted by the supreme court. no less than 13 times the supreme court has adopted for the law of the land an opinion put forth at the circuit court level by judge brett kavanaugh. i will admit that on one occasion the supreme court partially, partially, reversed judge kavanaugh. so, to me, it's 13 -- better an -- than a 13-1 record of being adopted and upheld by the united states supreme court. judge kavanaugh has earned positive attention and praise for being a good mentor, producing a number of clerks who

have gone on to work for the united states supreme court itself. one of his former clerks wrote in july, no court of appeals judge in the nation has a stronger, more consistent record than judge brett kavanaugh. indeed, judge kavanaugh is known for being thoughtful, principled, and a jurist who will will uphold the sanctity of the constitution, and that's exactly what the american people want and exactly what the american people have voted for. now, recently i had the opportunity to meet with judge kavanaugh, like many of my colleagues, and i found him to be just as his reputation and record suggested, smart, genuine, approachable, and well qualified to serve on the highest court of the land. what i've not found in my view -- review of judge kavanaugh's

records is that he is radical or outside the mainstream. it is disappointing to see that negative assumptions about judge kavanaugh were reached almost immediately after his nomination or even before the nomination took place, well before lawmakers could meet with him or take a serious look at his background. one activist group hastily set out a press release opposing judge kavanaugh before filling in his fame. it's clear the message would have been the same no matter whom president trump chose. just fill in the blanks. oppose president trump's nomination of judge blank. he's radical and outside the judicial mainstream. the american people understand this.

the american people also chose president trump in large part, i believe, to fill the vacancy left by the late justice scalia. this was a decision we preserved for the american people on election day. president trump has selected an excellent jurist in judge gorsuch and i'm certain that judge kavanaugh will follow in the same great tradition. the outside noise involving judge kavanaugh should not deter the senate from upholding its constitutional duty to provide advice and consent of judicial nominees, and, manning -- frankly, we need to get this done before the first monday in october before the new session of the supreme court will meet. if we follow the president of the last two confirmation processes, we will, indeed, have plenty of time to do that. i look forward to our consideration next month of

judge kavanaugh. i look forward to the hearings which will deal with his many qualifications for the supreme court. i think the american people will be watching and they will see that he is a jurist capable and willing to do what is right and fair under the law. a former professor summed it up very well in writing about judge kavanaugh for "the new york times." professor reed amar say this, good appellate judges faithfully follow the supreme court -- faithfully follow the supreme court -- great ones influence and steer it. as a circuit judge, judge kavanaugh has influenced the supreme court, has steered the supreme court.

it's now time for him to be elevated to the highest court in the land, and i support his confirmation. and, madam president, i yield the floor. what is the pending business? the presiding officer: h.r. h.r. 6157. mr. wicker: thank you. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the

senator from texas. mr. cruz: is the senate in a quorum? the presiding officer: we are not in a quorum call. mr. cruz: madam president, i rise today to recognize the first anniversary of hurricane harvey's destruction along the texas gulf coast. this saturday marks one year since the most destructive storm in texas history made landfall. hurricane harvey is now considered the second most costly hurricane in u.s. history. second only to hurricane katrina. but, more importantly, more tragically, hurricane harvey took many, many precious lives. harvey started out as a category 4 storm hitting south texas, making landfall at corpus christi and victoria and port aransus and aransus pass, and refurio, doing devastating

damages with 135-mile-an-hour winds. it took down power lines, it clogged sewage systems, it devastated people's homes, people's businesses. i visited each of those communities many, many times in the weeks and months that followed hurricane harvey. and i've seen the transition those communities have undergone. dealing with the disaster and then rebuilding. but harvey wasn't done after making landfall. then it moved north and east parking over the city of houston and just sitting there. over a six-day period, harvey dumped 27 trillion gallons of rain over texas and louisiana, causing historic flooding, flooding that has not -- not a

100-year flood, but a 1,000 year flood. the rain dropped exceeds the annual rainfall on average for that region p. over 300,000 structures were flooded in southeast texas and a half million cars. more than 200,000 single family homes were flooded across the state, many of which were not in floodplains, not deemed at risk of floods. but we don't mark this anniversary in a spirit of tragedy. rather, in a spirit of triumph. there were many bright lights that cut through the darkness of the storm. there were the police and first responders who led thousands of families to safety.

some, shrike sergeant peres of the houston police department, who made the ultimate sacrifice while protecting his community. there were over 17,000 national guardsmen who answered the call from texas and from all around the country. the u.s. coast guard rescued 11, 022 people and 1,384 pets during the storm. countless acts of heroism from folks next-door. from church basements offering shelter to neighbors making human chains plucking one another out of the floodwaters. from our countrymen in the cajun navy who boldly answered the call with memories of katrina still fresh and vivid, to business owners like my friend mattress mack who threw open the

doors to give entire communities shelter, warmth, and comfort. madam president, you've never been prouder to be a texan than i was in the days during and after hurricane harvey. when you saw ordinary texans risking their lives to save each other. there were no party lines. there were no republicans and democrats. there wasn't black and white and hispanic and asian. we were simply texans helping texans, standing as one united. and lifted up by prayers from millions across texas, across the country, and across the world. i remember one gentleman i met. it was at the george r. brown convention center which had been stood up as a center for home who had lost their homes. i was there one morning

volunteering serving oatmeal. next to me someone else was volunteering, serving out-meal as well. and i said to them as i tried to say to many, many people throughout that tragedy, thank you. thank you for the difference you're making. thank you for helping out your fellow texans, thank you for being here. and i remember he laughed he said, well, i've got to be here. my home is under water. i don't have another place to sleep. and even though he had gone to seek shelter, once he got there, he wasn't content simply to receive aid and assistance. he wanted to help out. that was the spirit, the community that we saw all up and down the gulf coast. i remember visiting with two young boys. they were eight and ten years old. they were in their home when water rose to waist level and

they had to be rescued by boat. i remember visiting with these boys and saying, you know, was that scary? how are you doing? and both boys started laughing and they said, are you kidding? we got to swim in our living room! that kind of joy sufficient fused -- suffused dealing with the tragedy. since the floodwaters have receded, many, many families have returned home. some bravely made a home in new surroundings and the long, important work of rebuilding has continued. one year ago you could take a boat through city streets -- i still remembering riding on a boat down clay road, a road in northwest houston. i became a christian at clay road baptist church. clay road was under eight to ten feet of water. i remember taking a boat over cars, over trucks, going right

down the middle of clay road. today our communities are coming back stronger than ever. our businesses are once more a part of the texas booming economy. our neighborhoods ring with laughter and lawn mowers and barbecue grills. i am humble and grateful to say, the the amaze success of recovery has been helped by the willingness of congress to recognize the extraordinary crisis caused by harvey and to step up in a bipartisan manner to address it. since harvey made landfall, congress has appropriated over $140 billion in emergency funding to respond to the 2017 hurricane season and to the california wildfires. over three separate bills we came together and made it

possible to clean debris, to open schools to rebuild homes for families, to give entire towns a new start. my colleague, senator cornyn, and i have worked hand in hand in each of these relief bills in the senate, increasing the funds available to hurricane victims from those that originally had come over from the house. increasing the overall amount of funding for the u.s. army corps of engineers for flood prevention projects as well as for funding other mitigation activities under the community development block grant and the disaster recovery program. last month, as part of this funding, the army corps announced that texas would receive nearly $5 billion for projects in the state as part of its disaster supplemental funding plan, projects dealing with long-term flood mitigation to prevent this sort of tragedy from occurring again, to rebuild in way that is stronger and more resilient, that protects homes

and businesses and families. this means that roughly half of the relevant army corps construction funds will go to projects in texas intended to help prevent future flooding events. the department of housing and urban development has awarded over $10 billion in community development block grant disaster recovery funds to texas. these crucial funds will go a long way and already have to meeting the needs of texans who have continuing to repair and to rebuild from harvey. we also join together to pass an emergency tax relief bill. i joined with senator cornyn and senator rubio and together the crews-cornyn-rubio bill granted over $5 billion in emergency tax relief to those who had been impacted by these hurricanes, allowing people who had lost their homes or had seen devastating damage to their homes to deduct those damages from their taxes. allowing people to take money from their retirement savings,

their ira's and their 401(k)'s and use that savings to rebuild their home without paying the ordinary 10% early withdrawal fee. giving a tax credit to employers, the many, many small businesses who kept the paychecks coming, even as the business may have been under water, even as the employees couldn't come into work because their homes and cars were flooded. until recently, houses of wore ship had been excluded from -- houses of worship is this been excluded from federal disaster assistance just for being faith-based. that policy was wrong. it was discriminatory. many religious institutions were badly damaged or destroyed during hurricane harvest. i remember visiting a synagogue in mireland, a neighborhood in houston that had been flooded repeatedly and badly. i went to work with my colleagues introducing legislation to fix this problem. a few months later, fema

announced a critical reversal in their policy so that houses of worship would no longer be discriminated against and would be eligible for the safe relief funds as everybody else. and then in february our legislation codified fema's decision into law, ensuring that religious institutions were not discriminated against. we protected first amendment rights of our chunks our temples, our synagogues, which had suffered so much, and had contributed so much to the relief efforts. that was one of the striking things is how many people who were helping themselves had been damaged. just over a week ago i visited ellington base meeting with the coast guardsmen, the swimmers and pilots who had gone into harm's way, many of whom their own homes were under water. i visited with one coast guard pilot who had to walk through

waist-high water to get to a parking lot where a helicopter could go and pick them up so they could fly and save others. that story over and over again was the story of harvey. one year after harvey's devastation, the work continues. the texas gulf coast continues to recover, and it will take years for the rebuilding to be complete. but as the lone star state rebuilds stronger than ever, we will keep moving forward. may we never forget the tragic days that harvey hit our shores, but may we always remember the heroes who triumphed in the midst of dark in the brave men and women who were a light to their countrymen. they are the best of america. they are the best of texas. god bless them all and may god

continue to bless the great state of texas. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. reed: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: madam president, is there a quorum call in place? the presiding officer: there is not. mr. reed: thank you, madam president. madam president, i rise today to support the senator from florida, my dear friend, senator bill nelson, and to thank him for his leadership in, woulding on a bipartisan basis to enact the military lending act in 2006 which caps the annual interest rate for an extension of consumer credit to a service member or his or her dependents at 36%.

because of his efforts, service members and their families have strong consumer protections that defend them against unscrupulous lenders who unpatriotically in my view prey upon these young men and women while they are selflessly and valiantly serving this nation. it has been my honor to work with the senator from florida in enacting, protecting, and strengthening the military lending act since 2006, and i must say that my experience is not just legislatively. i had the privilege of commending a paratroop company and before that i was the executive officer and i spent many, many hours with young soldiers who had been taken advantage of by not all businessmen -- in fact very few -- but unscrupulous operators who would prey on them, who would leave enemy a financial condition which ruined their careers and their lives. and because of senator nelson's

efforts in passing the military lending act, we took some steps to protect these young men and women who are protecting us. and we owe the senator from florida a great deal of regard and respect for what he's done because he, too, has recognized the demands of service to the nation and the uniform of the nation. for generations, americans have set aside partisanship and made every effort to provide service members and their families with all the resources and protections they deserve. it should not matter to service members when the commander in chief is a democrat or republican or independent. they -- there should never be a question whether the administration should make every effort to support men and women in uniform. unfortunately, this administration is forcing service members to question whether they really have their backs, whether they -- are they really going to protect them. light of recent reports that the consumer protection financial bureau under the director

mulvaney's leadership will no longer make efforts to protect under the lending act due to their purported lack of authority. let me be clear. the cfpb has all the authority it needs and should not be abandoning its duty to protect its service members and their families and ensure they continue to receive all of their n.l.a. protections. we should not forget the cfpb's routine examination of at least one payday lender already uncovered militarily lending act violation where a payday lender extended loans at rates higher than 36% to more than 300 active duty service members or their depend -- dependents. the requirements of the military lending act are interestingly of 36%. in this environment, 36% is more

than adequate return and the idea that business people will be trying to engage soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen in lending arrangements that went beyond 36% is on its face not only deplorable but flabbergasting. and that's what cfpb was able to prevent. because of their supervisory activities, they were able to discover these violations, alert the appropriate authorities, and stop these individuals from preying on service men and service women. in april 2018d.o.d. letter i received, the department of defense stated, quote, initial indications are the new m.l.a. rules are having their intended outcomes, the use of high cost credit products and associated problems appear to be decreasing. we are making progress under senator nelson's m.l.a. and

under the leadership of the consumer financial protection bureau to protect service men and women. why would we turn our backs and retreat? they wouldn't turn their backs and retreat. why is director mulvaney suggesting we do that? d.o.d. has stated losing a personnel member because of financial stabilities costs taxpayers more than $58,000 for each separated service member. again, recalling my service, dealing with young men in that time, paratroopers were all males in the 82nd, dealing with these young men, their whole lives were ruined. they were reported for being late for formations or missing formations because their car had been repossessed or something or they were so overwhelmed by debts that they didn't realize they were accumulating that they couldn't function. they could lose their security clearance because one factor of

maintaining a security clearance is having no credit problem. they could be dismissed as -- and that costs us $58,000 just to do the separation. in addition to saving the department of defense and taxpayers money, the cfpb's office of service members affairs. again, on a bipartisan basis working with senator scott brown of massachusetts, i cosponsored the legislation created within the cfpb, an organization that is exclusively devoted for protect service members. the first director was holly petraeus. she did a superb job. she was succeeded by colonel cantwell who also did a superb job. this organization, the cfpb with their service members' office, has all the authority it needs and the obligation to protect the men and women who protect us.

so their website says that it has helped return hundreds of millions of dollars in the pockets of service members affected by harmful practice. the cfpb through the office of service member affairs has returned hundreds of millions of dollars to men and women in uniform who were being victimized by unscrupulous operators and we're going to stop that? we're going to walk away from success? we're, as i said before, going to turn our back and retreat on people who don't turn their back and retreat on this nation? that's why it's frustrating. it's inexplicable that the trump administration would tout its dedication to service members in one breath and roll back military consumer protections in the next. to set the record straight, rolling back m.l.a. protections prioritizes the interest of predator lenders over the interest of service members and their families. if you can't make a decent

return with a limit of 36% interest, you shouldn't be in business. you shouldn't be a legitimate business. and this is not what any administration, republican or democrat, should do and certainly not what the cfpb should do. as the ranking member of the senate armed services committee, also the highest privilege of serving this nation in uniform, i stay with any fellow veterans, colleagues and all americans calling on the administration to do the right thing. honor our nation's commitment to provide service members and their families with all the protections they've earned and again, i thank the senator from florida for his efforts because without his efforts, we would not have military lending act. service men and women would be victimized even more grievously. to senator nelson, i salute him, tank him, and urge him to continue his valiant efforts. with that, madam president, i would yield the floor. mr. nelson: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: madam president, you

can't say it any better than the senator from rhode island has said it. he's a west point graduate, was a company commander, was executive officer of a brigade. he just told us the 82 airborne. he's seen what has happened to these young troops, that they get their pay. they go outside the gates. there are the folks that want to get loans for them. and then they run up rates as much as 100% and 150%. and that's why we passed the military lending act back in 2006, to cap those rates at 36%. that's high enough, but it's a lot less than 100% to 150% rates

that these poor troops, unsuspecting, and they're being taken advantage of and the former 82 nt airborne member -- 82nd airborne member, the senator from rhode island has just shared in his personal experience what would happen. troops would not show up for muster because suddenly their car hd been re-- their car had been repossessed or they had people hounding them. well, what has happened over the years since 2006 when we passed the bill is in fact they found ways to get around it. and now commanders are receiving harassment calls. they found a way to get around the 36%.

well, what we want to do is we want to lower it down to 24%. now, if someone cannot do well in business and still get a return of 24% on what they're loaning out, then they shouldn't be in business. and especially they shouldn't be in business to take advantage of our united states military troops. and that's why i have introduced the military lending improvement act of 2018, and that's why it goes into more specifics that not only lower the interest rate but ensure that auto loans are covered by the military lending act. let's remove any ambiguity

there. to prohibit creditors from calling a service member's commanding officer, or improperly threatening action under the uniform code of military justice to collect a debt from a united states military service member. it's common sense. it will show our members of our military that the law will protect them and it will go after these shady lenders. and i urge all of our colleagues to support it. obviously, this doesn't have anything to do with partisan sh. this is supporting the troops. i urge our fellow members of the senate to work with senator reed and me to get the cfpb

leadership off the dime to protect our bravest from the financial scams. and it is just mind boggling that the consumer finance protection bureau that is set up for the purpose of protecting consumers would now turn a blind eye to protecting some of the most vulnerable who almost everybody in america would say we want to protect. and that's because there are the unscrub louse lenders -- unscrupulous lenders. we saw a lot of this, madam president, in the early years of the wars of afghanistan and iraq. when a service member was overseas in operation enduring

freedom and operation iraqi freedom, they were being scammed by the payday, the title loan, and other kinds of lenders. and they were charged those exorbitant rates. it's just morley wrong. and -- morally wrong. and that's what brought the law in 2006. but now we need to update that law. back in 2006, there was a department of defense report that told the story of one young service member who was charged $100 to take out a $500 loan. and now using the cfpb's formula, that equates to an

annual percentage rate of $520%. that service member was forced to take out other loans. he had to do multiple rollovers to pay off the initial $500. it snowballed into a cost of $15,000 when it was all said and done. the service member can't pay that. and so that law was passed in 2006. but now we need to update it. and before we update it in law, we need to get the consumer finance protection bureau to act and to protect the consumer. the law says that creditors, and i quote, may not impose an interest rate higher than 36%,

and it says that specifically on service members. there's no ambiguity there. so the cfpb ought to enforce that law until we update it with this new one. and then when you have to force the member of the military to have to be concerned and harassed and take away from his duties and to file a complaint with the cfpb, it just ignores the law and what is there to protect the very people that we want to protect. madam president, indeed this is a matter of right and wrong. indeed this is a moral reason. let's get the administration to enforce the existing law and

then let's update that existing law with even tighter restrictions on the lenders that are taking advantage of the very people we want to honor and help. the people in uniform that are protecting this country. madam president, i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. heinrich: madam president, i would ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. heinrich: madam president, i rise today to call on each of us to take seriously one of our most important duties as united states senators. our constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on presidential appointments to the supreme court. as we all know, over the last three years, the long-standing

tradition of building bipartisan consensus in the senate around nominees to our highest court was thrown into the ash heap of history. the majority leader and senate republicans completely dismantled the rules that made advice and consent real in the united states senate, all to steal a supreme court nominee from our last president, by making nominations to the highest court, perhaps the most consequential votes we take as senators, subject to only a simple majority vote, republicans rig the system to make it possible for the most extreme nominees to make it all the way to the bench. before they broke the rules requiring 60 votes ensured both parties would have a real seat at the table and that mainstream

nominees would be nominated and confirmed with the advice and consent of the senate. now we have been told that we must accept the resulting new normal of a politicized and completely partisan selection process to fill any new vacancy on the court. well, i for one refuse to legitimize this broken process. under these broken rules, the minority party even in as closely divided a senate as we currently have today has effectively zero ability to say wait, to say hold up, to say there is something about this nominee that is too extreme or too disqualifying for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. that is not democratic. that's not what the founders had in mind when they created the senate as a deliberative body. this body was intended by the founders to be the methodical

answer to the fiery passions of the day, not an amplifier of them. and i fear that this broken system will create potentially disastrous consequences for the health of our democracy as a whole. it has already resulted in a crisis of confidence where the public no longer views our supreme court as independent, and frankly the public is correct. not just because of the precedent it set and hostility that it created, but also because of the nominee before us. because trump knew going in that he would not need a single democratic vote, he went straight to a predetermined list of names given to him by the heritage foundation and the federalist society. that meant that the president only considered nominees that fulfilled all of the ultraconservative special interest litmus tests.

this ensures each of the judges he considered opposed women's health care, environmental protections, and workers' rights. you don't have to take my word for that. president trump was very explicit on the campaign trail in saying that he would only choose from this list of extreme conservatives for the supreme court. and without real advice and consent, there is no counterbalance and no real voice for americans who don't want to see the country unrecognizably changed forever by his ultraconservative court backing. so we have been asked to go through the motions of a broken and partisan confirmation process for a nominee with a troubling and dangerous track record. if confirmed, a justice brett kavanaugh would be a deciding vote on so many important issues that i have no doubt will come before the supreme court.

would a confirmation process in which both parties had a real seat at the table produce a nominee that believes that polluters should be able to poison our air and water unchecked, a nominee who does not believe women have the right to make decisions about their own private health care needs, a nominee who has ruled against well-established rights of privacy. no, and that is precisely the point. judge kavanaugh's hyperpartisan opinions formed over a lifetime as a republican d.c. operative will influence his decisions from the bench. he is out of touch with consensus views held by the american people, and his extreme views could drastically alter our daily lives. judge kavanaugh is exactly the type of ideologue and politically motivated nominee that we can expect to see not just for this seat, but for all

supreme court seats moving forward if we allow the senate rules for providing advice and consent to remain in tatters. but i worry that by rushing this through on a completely party-line vote, we are enabling an even greater threat to our democratic institutions and to our republic itself, and that's become -- because from what we do know about his judicial record, work experience, and writings, judge kavanaugh believes in giving a disturbing amount of deference to the executive branch and to the president of the united states. judge kavanaugh has written and delivered very clear statements saying that he believes a sitting president should not have to face prosecution, criminal investigation, subpoenas, or civil litigation.

to be clear, this judge believes the president is above the law. this is the united states of america. no one -- and i repete -- no one is above the law. it really makes you wonder why president trump would pick him for a potentially deciding vote on the supreme court, doesn't it? do i need to remind you that our president and members of his campaign team remain under federal investigation for coordinating with the russian government's interference in our election? just yesterday, the president's long-time attorney and his campaign chairman were each declared guilty of eight separate federal crimes. in his guilty plea for campaign finance violations, the president's former attorney michael cohen implicated the president himself in coordinating payoffs to women who alleged affairs in an evident to influence the election.

look, combine all of president trump's ongoing legal troubles with his unbalanced and impulsive style of governing. there are many plausible and even likely questions about the scope of the executive branch's authority that could come before the supreme court. especially after yesterday's major developments, this is no longer purely hypothetical. we don't know enough about how judge kavanaugh might rule on these questions, but what we do know is deeply concerning. judge kavanaugh has questioned whether presidents should be forced to answer to civil lawsuits, criminal investigations, or questions from a prosecutor while they are in office. that to me is unbelievable, and another example before he became a judge, kavanaugh said that he thought the supreme court had

made an, quote, erroneous decision, unquote, when it unanimously ruled that president nixon needed to turn over white house tapes that ultimately proved the role that he played in covering up the watergate scandal. kavanaugh has also stated that he opposed the post-watergate special counsel law and implied that nothing limits the president's authority to terminate a special counsel with or without cause. it is easy to see how judge kavanaugh's views on executive power are especially dangerous in the current times. this view of an executive branch untethered from the checks and balances that form the very norms of our political system should terrify senators on both sides of the aisle who believe that the separation of powers is

a cornerstone of our american democracy. on top of this, we need to know more about judge kavanaugh's actions when he was in the executive branch as a high-ranking official in the george w. bush white house. judge kavanaugh served on the legal team and as staff secretary to president bush during controversial abuses of executive power. senate republicans have so far obstructed requests to review all of the records that would show what role kavanaugh played in determining the legality of president bush's policies. what side did he take as the bush administration c.i.a. used illegal torture techniques such as waterboarding? was he aware of the bush administration's warrantless mass surveillance of americans' phone and internet records? these are unanswered questions

until we're able to review relevant presidential records. the same type of reviews that we have been able to do for past nominees when there was real advice and consent. the national archives told senator grassley, the chairman of the judiciary committee, that it cannot physically process all of the relevant records until october, and yet senate republicans have scheduled confirmation hearings and then a likely confirmation vote for judge kavanaugh to begin in early september. we should never proceed on a confirmation vote for a lifetime appointment to the supreme court until we have done our due diligence in reviewing every he will vonetta document on a nominee's record. we should not proceed on judge kavanaugh's nomination until we have clear answers to highly important questions about his

actions in the bush white house. under a functioning confirmation process, the need to review these records would not even be up for debate. it's just plain common sense and part of our constitutional duty to carefully, to methodically review the qualifications of nominees as part of providing advice and consent. but unfortunately, as is obvious to anyone watching this process unfold, the united states is no longer operating under rules that ensure a fair process. instead republicans are rushing to push this nomination through at a breakneck pace so that they can confirm judge kavanaugh before this fall's election. regardless of legitimate questions about his record, regardless of the dangerous consequences of his extreme views on so many issues, and at

a time when our democratic institutions themselves are under attack from undermining the free press to foreign influence in our elections, we should be very careful in weighing who sits on this, the nation's highest court. once again, i would plead with my colleagues. we can do better than this. we must restore advice and consent in the senate before we confirm any nominee that will be tainted by this partisan, broken system. and i call on each of us to work together to create a better system, to restore a bipartisan process that can build consensus and see us through these politically turbulent times. until we restore a fair confirmation process, i will fight alongside the american people who are demanding that we

do our jobs that they elected us to do with the seriousness required to get this right. madam president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call clo quorum call:

mr. leahy: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, i ask consent that the call of the quorum be suspended.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: madam president, there have been a number of headline grabbing days during the first 18 months of the trump administration, but i think yesterday will rank among the most extraordinary, but for this senator from vermont, the most troubling. the president of the united states was effectively identified by his long-time lawyer and confidante and an unindicted coconspirator in committing criminal campaign finance violation. if what they are saying is true and what he is pleaing -- what he is pleading guilty to is confident, president trump -- in violation of federal law in order to keep the affairs hidden for the american people at a most critical time, days before the election. and further, last night the lawyer for mr. cohen claimed

that his client also has information relevant to whether president trump had advance knowledge that even -- and even supported the hacking of democratic electronic files. we know he gave a speech at one time said that they should hack. that crime which you know was committed at the direction of russian president vladimir putin serves as a basis for special down mueller's investigation. yesterday, within minutes of mry plea, a jury found another person guilty of bank charges. paul manafort also faces charges for a pun -- putin-connected oligarch. now there will be another trial.

mr. manafort has been charged with conspiracy to defraud the united states and failing to register as a foreign agent and money laundering, among other things. the cloud of criminal conduct surrounding those close to the president are darkening. directly or indirectly, this campaign manager, personal attorney, and multiple aides have been swept up in the special down -- special counsel. there have been 34 criminal indictments and it is not complete. i've watched both as a senator and as a former prosecutor and it is so troubling. but i know one thing, it's crucial the special down be permitted to complete his investigation and do so without the daily, often hourly, interference from the president.

during my four decades in the senate, i've never before seen an investigation led by career eight political law enforcement officials so personally and publicly maligned by a politician, let alone by the president of the united states. no american is above the law, and the president should stop acting as though he is. i would also urge the majority leader to immediately bring the bipartisan legislation to protect the special counsel, bring it to the floor. we passed this legislation out of the senate judiciary committee with a bipartisan vote. anyone who says the president can be trusted to not undermine the special counsel has clearly

not been paying attention. the manafort trial was going on. think of all the tweets. do you think those weren't seen directly or indirectly by those involved in the trial? and we know that the judge made clear his opposition to the prosecution, and the jury also had to listen to the president's tweets. just think, just think of what that does. it's equally critical that the senate reassert its oversight responsibility over the executive branch, something that we have abrogateed. if these were normal times, the senate judiciary committee would immediately pursue an investigation. indeed, the judiciary committee is uniquely situated to

investigate the allegation raised by mr. cohen. the committee has jurisdiction over our criminal laws, including our campaign finance laws. mr. cohen's lawyer has indicated that he is willing to testify before congress without being granted immunity. pretty extraordinary. it's difficult to reconcile the judiciary committee's inaction here in one of the most critical constitutional crises we have seen, certainly since i have been in the senate and i have been here 44 years, it's difficult to reconcile the judiciary committee's inaction with its race to confirm president trump's nominee to the supreme court. in fact, the timeline the republicans are pursuing to consider judge kavanaugh is so aggressive that it will sideline

the nonpartisan review of the nominee's record performed by the national archives. that's occurred for every supreme court nominee since watergate, whether republican or democrat. i mentioned earlier today when i was chairman, justice kagan was nominated, the republicans asked for the record. we got 99% of them. i went to the archives. i joined with the senior republican, jeff sessions, on the committee, to request them. we got 99% of those records before the hearing. we have 3% or 4% of judge kavanaugh's records. that's basically all we're going to see. those were handpicked by a lawyer who, among other of his clients steve bannon and other very partisan clients. now the russia investigation is the most pressing national security investigation of our

time. here we have a powerful country, russia, that is working against us. we just pick up the paper without going into any of the classified hearings that most of us have been to. read what's in the paper about the hacking russia has done, the billions of dollars it's cost people, the hacking that continues this moment against the united states. this is the russia that the president publicly called upon during a campaign rally to hack his opponents -- his opponent's computers. now, we know from the -- what we have seen, what our intelligence committee has shown us, that they did try to influence the last election, and we do know that they intend to try to

influence the election this year, not only in our country but in another country. this is a major, major problem, and it's being ignored. so i think history is going to judge all of us in the united states senate very harshly if we collectively shrug our shoulders, disregard our constitutional responsibility to oversee the executive branch in this moment. we represent a co-equal branch of government. it's time we ought to act like it. mr. president, i was about to suggest the absence of a quorum, but i see one of my distinguished colleagues on the floor, so i will simply yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from montana.

mr. daines: i rise in support of the defense appropriations bill being considered by the senate. with this important measure, we are greatly enhancing our national defense by providing the actual funds our war fighters need to maintain a decisive advantage over our adversaries. as home to one-third of our strategic ground-based nuclear arsenal, montana plays a critical role in deterring aggression, enabling diplomacy, and maintaining a posture of peace through strength. while serving the u.s. senate, i visited maelstrom air force base in great falls, montana, several times. i have toured the missile fields and the silos. i have had the honor of sitting down and speaking with the men and women who maintain this important nuclear deterrence. their hard work and their professionalism is unmatched. we owe it to them to support their work and give them the

tools they need to be successful. it is so important that we advance the deployment and the development of the next ground-based strategic deterrent. this bill achieves that goal by replacing montana's current minuteman missile as well as the uh-1-n replacement helicopter that services our missile fields. it also recognizes the important work montana researchers and small businesses do in support of our nation's military readiness. montanans are quite proud of the critical role that our state plays in defending this great nation. this bill strengthens and enhances that role. as a member of the defense appropriations subcommittee, i am pleased to note that it makes substantial investments in emerging technologies, such as hypersonics, directed energy, artificial intelligence, and

cybersecurity. in particular, we are providing additional funding for new cyber units within the national guard that will be available to the states under title 32 authority. i worked with my colleagues here in the senate to secure these additional funds because i believe the national guard will play an increasingly important role in defending our nation against government-backed cyberattacks from nations like china, russia, north korea, and iran. these nations target critical civilian networks like schools, hospitals, private businesses where the military's authority is limited. only the national guard has the unique ability to provide assistance on request by a state's governor. these new units will fill a critical need and increase the effectiveness of our military's existing cyberdefense forces. it will also bring in new skill sets and new perspectives from

citizen soldiers who work in cyber-related professions. so, mr. president, in closing, i want to urge my colleagues to support the measure before us today to empower our servicemen, our servicewomen, and ensure that our nation's military capabilities are unmatched by our adversaries. and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. mr. alexander: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, boy scouts shouldn't get a merit badge for telling the truth, and united states senators shouldn't get an award for passing appropriations bills. that's what we're expected to do. that's what we're here for. that's our most basic responsibility. but i think it is worth noticing, especially since the distinguished vice chairman of the appropriations committee is still on the floor, that this is the largest number of appropriations bills passed

before august since the year 2000. we have already done that, the seven bills. and if we're successful this week, as i expect we will be, in passing the third package of appropriations bills, we will have passed in the senate annual appropriations bills that account for nearly 90% of the discretionary federal government spending. that's the part of the government spending that is not automatic. we call that the mandatory spending. it's the part of the government spending that's under control. for the last ten years, this basically 30% of the federal budget that we call discretionary spending that we appropriate every year, that's been going up at about the rate of inflation. over the next ten years, according to the congressional budget office, it will go up at just a little more than the rate of inflation. so this money that we're spending on behalf of our

taxpayers we're spending in a budgeted, responsible way, and we're spending it on time. if we continue the progress we are making, which makes it easier for our military, our national laboratories, our agencies to plan, spend moneywiser, more wisely. nothing is more wasteful, almost nothing is more wasteful than the failure of the united states congress to appropriate or decide the amount of money that is to be spent every year before the year begins. tobacco often over the last several years, it's been the middle of the year before agency managers knew what they could spend that year, and that's a wasteful practice. and in a military sense, our leaders in the department of defense tell us it's a dangerous practice in terms of what we can count on for our national security. so i'd like to pause just for a

moment and reflect on what the appropriations committee is doing, what the united states senate is doing and doing properly, not because we deserve an award or a merit badge for doing our most basic responsibility, but because it's worth noting when we do it because it hasn't been done for so long. the seven appropriations bills that have already passed the senate are the following -- the energy and water development legislation. i'm chairman of that committee and of the conference that's working on that. i'm working with chairman mike simpson in the house, senator feinstein and representative kaptur. we are working together. we hope to have that bill which has already passed the senate, already passed the house. we hope to come together and have a conference immediately after labor day so we can complete the bill and send it to the president for his signature. that's one of the appropriations bills. the others are military

construction, veterans' affairs and related agencies, we passed that one. the legislative branch, we passed that. agriculture, rural development, food and drug administration, related agencies, that's passed. interior, environment, and related agencies. if past years, that's been very difficult to pass. there are some controversial issues there. but senator shelby and senator leahy have led us, along with senator schumer and senator mcconnell, to say we're not going to try to solve every controversial issue that we can think of on the appropriations bills because we have learned in the past that that will sink them. so we have tabled a few bills, a few amendments that have come before us because they would have kept the appropriations bill from proceeding. we can deal with those more controversial ideas and amendments at another time. transportation, housing, and urban development and related agencies, that's been passed. financial services and general

government, that also. so seven. that's the largest number of appropriations bills the senate has passed before august since the year 2000, 18 years ago. and this week, mr. president, we're debating the third package of appropriations bills which includes labor, health, and human services, education, and related agencies, and the defense appropriations bill. that means if we're successful in completing our work this week on those two, we will have considered all nine of those appropriations bills under what we call in the senate the regular order, which means we have an opportunity to offer other amendments when they come to the floor, we debate them, we vote on those amendments, we pass the bills, and then we go to conference with the house. in other words, not just the 29 or 30 members of the appropriations committee get to work on this. all members of the senate get to have their say. this week, we have already voted on some amendments.

we may get to consider more. after we finish these two bills, as i said earlier, hopefully tomorrow, the senate will have passed the annual appropriations bills that account for nearly 90% of the discretionary federal government spending. senator shelby, the vice chairman senator leahy, majority leader senator mcconnell and senator schumer all deserve credit and our thanks for creating the environment which makes this possible. i appreciate their commitment and i want to commend senator blunt, senator murray, senator shelby, senator durbin for their work on the bills that are before us this week. mr. president, a few weeks ago, one of my friends in nashville came up to me and said -- this friend is one of the major contributors to vanderbilt medical center. he says it's a real shame you guys in congress aren't funding biomedical research. so i said to my friend, well, let me -- let me tell you what's happened the last three or four

years and see if you still believe that. the united states senate is on track for the fourth straight year, this year, to provide record funding for biomedical research at the national institutes of health in a regular appropriations bill. this year the bill includes $39.1 billion for the national institutes of health, $a 2 billion increase over the last year. over the last three years, congress has increased n.i.h. funding by about $7 billion. first, congress increased national institutes of health funding by $2 billion in 2015. then in 2016, we increased it another $2 billion. then in 2017, congress increased funding at the n.i.h. by $3 billion including $500 million to work on a nonaddictive painkiller which in my view is the holy grail of the fight against the opioid crisis.

finding some form of painkiller for the hundred million americans who hurt, for those who have chronic pain, that's not addictive. this increase for biomedical research will mean more medical miracles, in you treatments and cures. the reason congress has given this such a priority was very well described by dr. francis collins, the head of the national institutes of health. he calls it the national institutes of hope, when he testified before our appropriations committee, he talked about what we might expect during the next ten years, what we might expect to see. if we properly fund the national institutes of health. some of those predictions by dr. collins were being able to identify alzheimer's disease before symptoms appear. the possibility that we could rebuild a patient's heart with the patient's own cells. in other words, put the transplant surgeons out of

business. with the creation of a safe and effective artificial pan korea yas making life -- pancreas making life easier for americans with diabetes. the development of new vaccines, dr. collins said, and for hiv-aids and for the universal flu. development of the new nonaddictive painkiller which i mentioned, significant progress on precision medicine initiative which president obama championed, which aims to map the genomes of one million volunteers so we can better tailor treatments to patients. and new treatment for cancer patients. those are just some of the new treatments and cures and miracles that we might expect, dr. collins said in ten years. the bill also provides this bill we're talking about, $3.7 billion to help those on the front lines of the opioid crisis and help bring an end to opioid abuse. senator murray and i as well as

about 60 members of this body have put together a comprehensive opioids authorization bill which we hope to be able to present to the full senate at the end of next week or shortly after labor day that can be put together with the house to address this crisis but this is the money for the opioids initiative. it's in this bill. $1.5 billion for state opioid response grants, state grants originally authorized by 21st century cures act. $500 million to develop nonaddictive painkillers, more funding for more substance abuse and mental health treatment services and community health centers. the other funding bill included in this minibus appropriations bill is the defense appropriations bill. the senator from illinois is on the floor. he's the ranking democrat on that committee. he's also been one of the foremost leaders of the effort to increase the biomedical research that i just mentioned.

chairman shelby and senator durbin worked together to produce a bill that provides a total of $675 billion to make sure our troops have the resources they need and maintain our national defense. the funding included in this bill will provide the largest pay increase since 2010 for the men and women serving in the military, including those who serve at fort campbell in tennessee and kentucky. $2.8 billion is provided for basic research at the department of defense. this is the largest defense department research and development budget in history. it's hard to think of a major technological development since world war ii in this country that wasn't supported in some way by federally sponsored research. funding basic research at the defense department will give the united states an advantage over our adversaries and allow us to maintain the strongest military in the world.

i've suggested to president trump that he make science and research a part of his america first agenda. we need to do that. since 2007, over the last ten years, china has increased its spending on basic science by a factor of four and may surpass the united states in total spending on research and development this year, according to norm augustine who during the george w. bush administration chaired the bipartisan committee rising above the gathering storm that made recommendations to the congress on how to retain america's competitive advantage. our country needs to continue to be first in the world in basic research. the president's already signed into law two consecutive appropriations bills that provide record funding for science, technology, energy, and biomedical research, and the two appropriations bills we're debating this week will provide

even more funding for basic research. i urge my colleagues to support these bills because passing these bills means more biomedical research at national institutes of health for treatments and cures, more federal help for states and communities struggling to combat the opioid crisis, the largest department of defense research budget in history and pay raises for men and women who serve in our military. let me say again what i said a little earlier. this funding that we're talking about, this record funding for science, technology, basic research, supercomputing in another bill, needs for our national defense, all of this is within the part of the federal budget that's under control. over the last ten years this discretionary part of the budget, roughly a third or a little less than a third of the budget, has grown at about the rate of inflation. and over the next ten years according to the congressional

budget office is expected to grow at just a little more than the rate of inflation, so this is not the federal spending that's causing the big federal deficit. this is spending for national defense, national parks, national institutes of health, and national laboratories. this is the core of what we need to do in the united states of america. we need to resolve our courage on a bipartisan way and the president needs to join us and deal with the part of the budget that's running up a big deficit. that's medicare, medicaid, social security and other entitlements. nobody wants to touch it. that's a separate question, but it's important for people to know that there's no need to beat your chest and pat yourself on the back when you cut funding for the military, when you cut funding for the national institutes of health, when you make our national laboratories worth less or when the national parks can't maintain themselves. we go the opposite direction here. record funding for national parks. record funding for national

laboratories. we're considering more maintenance for national parks. record funding for supercomputing. record funding for biomedical research, all within the budget limits, all within our priorities. that's what we need to do. so i think, as i said when i started, senators don't deserve a merit badge for passing appropriation bills any more than boy scouts deserve a merit badge for telling the truth. that's what we're supposed to do. but when we do it and do it properly as we're doing this year, it deserves to be noticed. and i congratulate senator durbin and senator leahy and senator mcconnell and senator shelby for their role and their leadership in this. i thank the president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: mr. president, i want to thank my colleague from tennessee for the kind words and thank him for his leadership on so many issues. he's chairman of the health and education authorizing committee

and we also served together on an appropriations committee. it has been a real pleasure to work with him over the years. so many issues but particularly on the issue of medical research. it would surprise a lot of people, may even disappoint them to know how bipartisan we are when it comes to this issue. and i can say on behalf of senator murray on our side of the aisle and senator blunt on your side of the aisle that you and i have created a little team, a little cabal that watches the authorization of appropriation bills. this will be the fourth consecutive year that we've had 5% real growth at the national institutes of health. as dr. collins, one of great living americans has told us this is going to reap dividends that you described earlier in your speech in terms of breakthroughs when it comes to dealing with suffering and disease and early death that we can do something about in our lifetimes. i don't quarrel with your conclusion in your speech that we're talking about the direct appropriation bills here, the

direct spending of the government, and we are keeping that at a slow increase -- rate of increase. i say on a mandatory side of the programs where we see dramatic increase, part of it has to do with the cost of health care in america. that cost continues to go up. and one of the drivers of the cost of health care, according to insurance companies and others, would be the cost of prescription drugs. they're just going up dramatically. we had a hearing yesterday and a young mother came to tell us a story of losing her son who i think was about 23 years of age. i know exactly. i remember now. he's 26 years of age. he no longer qualified to be on the family health insurance. he's diabetic and he went to buy his insulin at the drugstore and was told it would cost him $1,300. he wasn't going to get paid for four days so he put it off and during that period of time he died from the complications of diabetes. the cost of insulin at $1,300 is

incredible to me. this is a drug that has been available for decades and that would go up in costs so dramatically, he would be unable to afford it and lose his life is scandalous in this country. and i know that you since this -- sense this as well and believe as i do we want pharmaceutical companies to be profitable. we want them to do research. we want them to invest in new drugs. but we cannot step back and ignore when their pricing is out of control. and in many instances that's the case. i said before on the floor, if i asked the people who gather here to follow our speeches how many of you have ever seen an ad on television for a drug? if you held up your hand, i know one thing for sure, you don't own a television because the average american sees nine drug ads a day, a day. why do the pharmaceutical companies buy nine drug ads a day for every american to consume, $6 billion worth a

year. so that eventually we will become so familiar with the names of their drugs that we'll ask our doctors to prescribe them. and doctors do prescribe them when the patients ask. sometimes the patient may not need that drug. the patient may be able to deal with a generic drug that's much cheaper. but the pharmaceutical companies want us to reach the point where we know these drugs by name and ask for them and the doctors prescribe them. the most heavily bribed drug -- prescribed drug in america today, here's a name you're familiar with. humira. of course you turn on the television and you see humira which was originally designed to deal with rheumatoid arthritis is now being advertised as a cure for psoriasis. what they don't tell you is the information we put at the bottom of this display. humira costs $5,500 a month. did you know that? you'd never know it listening to their ads because they don't disclose it. i have an amendment here, an amendment which is bipartisan.

senator chuck grassley and i have offered -- to say that on all the drug ads they have to put the price of the drug. pretty simple, right? if you knew humira costs $5,500 a month, you might not even consider it for that little red patch of psoriasis on your elbow. if you knew that some of these drugs that they're talking about, like xarelto, it took about ten times to figure out how to pronounce it and spell if but they keep coming at you. it's a blood thinner and it costs $500, $600 a month. so all of these things, disclosures made to consumers give them more information to make a decision and to perhaps think twice before they ask for a very expensive prescription drug. so i have this bipartisan amendment pending on this bill which would say to the trump administration, department of health and human services, develop the rules for putting the prices of these drugs on the ads. the trump administration supports it. how about that?

republican senator grassley, democratic senator durbin, trump administration supports it. sounds like a pretty good deal, doesn't it sounds like -- doesn't it? sounds like the kind of thing that would pass in the ordinary course of business in the senate. but unfortunately it ran into a problem. the problem? pharma -- the pharmaceutical companies don't want to tell us how much these drugs cost. they have one senator that's created many, many obstacles for me to bring this to the floor. we've had everybody on earth calling and we're not getting anywhere. it seems that phrma is just not ready for putting the cost of the drug on their ad. it means that about it comes down to it, not only will the american medical association, which supports our amendment, and the american association of retired people, who support our amendment, and he 76% of americans, despite all this support, we're going to have a tough time passing it. phrma is hard to beat.

phrma is hard to beat. and when we talk about the increasing cost of medicare and the cost of health care across america, blue cross blue shield tells me it is the driver that's the increase in health care costs. blue cross blue shield in illinois told me that they spend more money on prescription drugs each year than they spend on inpatient hospital care. think about that. more money than inpatient hospital care. and so if we're going to do something about it we ought to do the basics. and the basics would be disclosing to the american people how much these drugs cost. well, you haven't heard the last of me when it comes to this amendment. if phrma is successful in stopping us from offering this amendment and even getting a vote on it i'm going to be back. i'll continue to return because i think it is important that consumers across america get full disclosure of information on these drug ads. incidentally, you know how many countries in the world advertise drugs like the united states? only one other country -- new

deland. new zealand and the united states are the only two. phrma spends $6 billion a year. when this comes to dealing the increasing cost of medicare, this is one of the things we can do. we also ought to say that medicare can bargain just as the veterans administration does to get a good deal on drug pricing. right now they can't. but if they could, and bring down the cost of drugs under medicare it would help us maintain the solvency of that critically important, lifesaving program. i see the senator from tennessee is on his feet. mr. alexander: well, mr. president, if i may, i thank the senator for his remarks and his leadership hon this amendment. i think it is important to be clear on this. of course the senator has the right to object to an amendment, i suppose, but sooner or later this amendment or something like it is going to become law. i support the amendment. president trump supports the amendment. senator durbin has worked with republicans and democrats over

the last three or four weeks to think of different, appropriate ways to require television advertising to state what the price of a drug is. and there would be different ways to do it. i asked him to take a few weeks to help us talk that out. he did that. i think he's come up to a conclusion that deserves support. i support the bill. i'm change of the authorizing committee, the health committee in the senate. so this is going to happen one way or the other, senator durbin. and so i would suggest we try to find a way to go ahead and do it now. because if the president supports it and you have bipartisan support in the health committee and bipartisan support in the labor and health appropriations committee, it's going to become law. it makes good sense. the cost of health care is a major issue that we need to address, and we can't do it all

at once. prescription drugs are a part of it. prescription drugs are 10% of the cost of health care. there's 17% -- we've had testimony in our committee -- if you include the drugs that are administered in hospitals. but there are other factors as well. complex city a big factor -- complexity is a big factor. administrative burden is a big factor. electronic health care records and their inadequate operation and lack of interoperability is a big factor. overutilization is a big factor. we've had excellent witnesses, i would say to the senator from illinois through the chair -- we've had excellent witnesses through our committee from the institute of medicine, some of the most distinguished witnesses we could have in the country, who tell us that as much as 30% to 50% of all that the united states spends on health care is unnecessary. wasted.

now, we spend 17% or 18% of our entire gross domestic product on health care. we're the richest country in the world. we produce about 24% of all the money in the world, and we spend 18% of that on health care, much more than similar countries do, and our own experts tell us that much of it is unnecessary. well, we can't deal with it all at once, but one way to deal with it is competition and transparency and letting patients know the cost of what they are -- of what they are buying. whether it's a doctor's services or it's a prescription drug. and i believe that senator durbin and senator grassley are correct. the president believes they are correct. the secretary of health and human services supports their bill, and we should pass it.

consumers should know when they see a television ad about a prescription drug what the cost of that drug is. so my hope to the senator from illinois is that he is ultimately successful with his proposal. and if a he is not, i hope he counts me as an ally in an effort to continue to see that it gets done. mr. durbin: mr. president, let me thank my colleague from tennessee. and i do count him as an ally and i value his friendship and professional support on this idea. this is basic. should americans know what the cost of these prescription drugs will be? you know when you discover it? when you go to the cash register. that's when you discover it. shouldn't you know in advance? and shouldn't you know so that if humira, which is now at $5,500 per month, goes up to $6,000 -- and i understand it just did -- that we're aware of that fact? if we can't use transparency and competition, what are our alternatives? government mandate? there are alternatives to that which i think we've come up

with. let's let the american consumer know what they're facing when it comes this these drugs and let's use this congress as we're elected to use it to reflect the will of the people who are fed up with the spiraling cost of prescription drugs. i thank the senator from tennessee for joining me on the floor, and i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. tillis: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor, as i have -- the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call. mr. tillis: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tillis: thank you. i thank you again, mr. president. i've come to the floor again as i have in the past few months to talk about a matter that should be toern -- that should be important to anybody who travels overseas. i'm talking about a presbyterian

minister from north carolina who has been in turkey for the better part of two years -- he's been in turkey for the better part of 20 years, and he was a missionary that entire time. he created a church in ishmir and has lived there peacefully and lawfully for two decades. in october of 2016, after the coup attempt, an illegal coup attempt and the people responsible for it should actually have to answer to the turkish justice system, swept pastor brunson and thousands of other people into the turkish justice system and he's been in prison since 2016. he was in prison for nearly 19 months before he was ever charged with anything, and in fact he lost 50 pounds over the course of about a year. he was in a cell that was designed for eight people that had 21 people in it. i don't believe any of the others even spoke english.

he was then transferred to another prison where he was kept in a cell with one other person, given virtually no access to the outside world. he's experienced medical challenges, as anyone would expect when you're in prison without charges and the chance that we found out were bogus, that would weigh on you mentally. we started working to try to first let pastor brunson know that we knew about him and that i cared about him. i cared enough to go to turkey to visit him in prison several months ago. and i told him i wanted to face-to-face assure him that as long as he's in prison, i will be working for his release. as a matter of fact, we have more than 70 senators who have signed onto a letter who share my concern that he's illegally imprisoned. so now what have we done? we've actually put a provision in the national authorization act that holds turkey

accountable. they are a partner in he will having the joint strike fighter. it is a capability that i sincerely hope someday that turkey may have. but there's no way on earth that we should transfer that technology to turkey as long as they're illegally imprisoning pastor brunson and others that i'll talk about shortly. we did make some positive progress a few weeks ago, after he'd been in prison for nearly 20 months, a little over, he was released on house a, so at least -- -- house arrest, so at least he is now near his apartment in ishmir. he has an ankle bracelet on and is not allowed to get out of his house. he's had several hearings. i attended one. i was in that courtroom for almost 12 hours. i heard some of the most absurd claims you could ever allege as a basis for keeping somebody? prison overnight let alone two years in october. so we're working with the administration, and i want to

give the president a lot of credit for making this a priority. if you've read the newspapers recently, it would be hard for you not to hear about the presbyterian minister pastor brunson and the difference of opinion between turkey and the yours and what should be done. when i talk to a lot of the turkish officials, they say, you've got to respect our justice system. this just has to play out, no matter how absurd the claims may be -- that's my words, not theirs. and i really wonder if they're sincere. here's why. several months ago president erdogan, the president of turkey, made a public statement saying, how about this -- we'll give you your pastor if you give us our pastor. there's a person living here in the united states named gulan, who they believe may have had something to do with the coup. what we said is, honor -- we've and extradition treaty with turkey.

we said, honor the provisions of the extradition treaty, present evidence that he is guilty of having conspired in the illegal coup and then we'll let the process take its course. let me tell you what's interesting about making that offer in the context of the other elected officials, including erdogan, saying we just have to let our legal process play out. how can you say your hands are tied but on the other hand make a hostage swap request or what they would request to be a hostage swap request? okay, so maybe you just misspoke. presidents do that from time to time. but now let's take a look at what we're dealing with now. a week ago instead of offering pastor brunson for mr. gulan, now there is a new exchange on the table. if we drop a case against the turkish bank, which has risen to our level of jurisprudence, the allegations against them say they're going to have to go through the legal process,

apparently their judicial system does allow you to say, well, if you drop that case in the gold standard for judicial systems -- that's the u.s. judicial system -- then we'll release pastor brunson. clearly, turkey has the authority to release pastor brunson. turkey has the authority to release a nasa scientist who happened to be visiting his family who's been in prison for almost three years now and has a seven-year sentence or another four and a half years ahead of him. they have the authority to release them him. the only thing he seems to be guilty of is being in turkeyist having relatives from the coup occurred. they have the authority to release a d.e.a. agent that they said was involved no the coup attempt. they have the authority to release a number of turkish nationals that have worked with our embassy for years. all they were doing is their jocks. they got swept up, as thousands more have. so, mr. president, thank you again for the opportunity for me to come to the floor and make sure that the american people

understand what's at stake. turkey is a nato ally. no nato ally in the history of the alliance has ever illegally detained a citizen from one of their partner countries. but that's exactly what's happened here since october of 2016. so i hope that this is the last time that i have to come to this floor to talk about releasing pastor brunson. i hope next week i'm coming to the floor thanking the turkish leadership for doing the right thing, thanking them for letting pastor brunson and his wife noreen to come back to the united states and advocating with turkey as an ally partner that's very important, but none of that can happen as long as pastor brunson and the others i've mentioned are illegally in prison. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor, and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i ask unanimous consent, mr. president, to vacate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president, what the trump administration is doing to sabotage health care in our country is a monumental scandal in slow motion. what the president promised was better care for all americans at lower cost. what he and his officials have delivered is special deals for special interests and rewards

for rip-offs. they literally -- it's almost as if you took the clock above the chamber and turned it back. what americans want -- and i heard it at town hall meetings last weekend at home in oregon -- americans want to move forward on health care. they want, for example, to have strong measures, not empty rhetoric, to hold down the cost of their medicine. lifting the restrictions so that medicare can bargain to hold down the cost of medicine and using the smart principles of negotiating power that the private sector uses all the time. they want to move forward on health care, not backward. and there is no clearer example of the administration trying to take the country back on health

care than its efforts to give a green light to junk health insurance. junk health insurance represents all of the unsavory insurance industry tricks and abuses that the affordable care act sought to eliminate. junk plans exist literally and figure -- figureatively so companies can prey on people, so if you have diabetes and prey on the less fortunate. they certainly don't exist to cover the health care that americans actually need because that's where they always fall short. mr. president, the centerpiece of the affordable care act was

an ironclad loophole-free guarantee that no american would ever face discrimination over a preexisting condition. and i note my friend, the president of the senate, has joined the chamber. he knows this pretty well because he worked with me on our bipartisan effort to ensure that there would be loophole-free, air-tight protection for americans from discrimination against those with a preexisting condition. and for all practical purposes, we got what we worked on in a bipartisan way where we had eight democrats and eight republicans, we got that into the affordable care act. and essentially now what the

trump administration seeks to do is undo that guarantee of airtight, loop-hole free protection for people who have these preexisting conditions, and i'm just going to read a question that appears on an application for one of these plans that is being marketed now. under a bold headline that says important, this junk insurance plans says you must answer the questions -- answer the questions blow as they apply to you and all other family members applying for coverage. that's a verbatim quote. the question reads, and i quote, within the past five years, have you or any other person to be insured been aware of, diagnosed, treated by a member of the medical profession or

taken medication for cancer or a tumor, stroke, heart disorder, heart attack, coronary by pass or stint, vascular disease, artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, kidney disorder or disease other than kidney stones, neurological disorder, degenerative disk disease or hernation or bulge, rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, crohn's disease, bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, any eating disorder or alcohol abuse or chemical dependency or does anyone listed on the application currently weigh over 250 pounds if they are a woman or over

300 pounds if they are a man? another question on the same application asks, have you or any other person to be insured been hospitalized for a mental health condition in the past five years or treated by a member of the medical profession for a medical condition in the past 12 months? finally, another question asks, have you or any other person to be insured ever been diagnosed or treated for acquired immunity system disorder such as h.i.v.? i'd also note that this part of the application considered -- contained a number of typos, a mislabeled number, a mislabeled word. apparently the scam artists are as bad at editing their documents as they are in covering the health care that

peep actually -- people actually need. but setting aside the bad grammar, the questions collectively tick through all of those questions that i just went through. they collectively kicked -- ticked through dozens of health categories that included hundreds of various conditions and illnesses. so you're talking about well more than 100 million americans who would answer yes to at least one of them. americans need to know, they ought to know, the only reason junk insurance companies ask these questions about your health background is to use the information against you and keeping you from getting meaningful coverage. that forms the basis of the trump-era discrimination against

those with a preexisting condition. mr. president, a lot of people have preexisting conditions. what's that? everybody knows that folks in tennessee or oregon who have asthma or diabetes, we're talking about millions and millions of americans and i thought when my colleague from tennessee and i were working together, eight dems, eight republicans, i said, you know, this is really going to be monumental if we get air-tight loophole-free protections for those with preexisting conditions. the reason i said that when i was director of the senior citizen at home, the gray panthers, it was clear to me that as long as our country allowed discrimination against those with preexisting conditions, health care in america would basically be for the healthy and the wealthy. if you're healthy, no sweat, no

preexisting conditions, if you're wealthy, also no real problems because you just write out the checks to pay for your conditions. but now we're talking about going back to those days, not the days when the senator from tennessee and i and other democrats and republicans got together, did something that really was a monumental step forward, protecting millions of people with preexisting conditions, but now we're going back backward -- we're going backward, and what are those americans going to hear in their time of need when their cancer comes back or when they face another bout of medical illness? what they are going to hear with policies like the one i just read from is the fraudsters who con them into a big the junk insurance are basically going to say you're on your own and those

americans are going to be buried, buried under mountains of medical debt. and, by the way, when we're talking about medical debt, i think my friend from tennessee and i talked about this over the years, health care is the great equalizer. we had, for example, a discussion democrats ran yesterday on health care. we had a gentleman who did everything right. he worked hard, he was professional, constantly trying to better himself and contribute, not just supporting his family and community, then he got parkinson's and all of a sudden he wasn't able to pay his bills so health care is the great equalizer in america. and when i read about the junk plans, i've got to tell you, it takes me back to the old days when these scam artists preyed on the seniors who needed

insurance coverage above and beyond what they got from traditional medicare. mr. president, and colleague, this is something that is very personal to me because i was a young man, i was codirector of the oregon gray panthers, i would go and visit a senior in their home, and very often they would have a small apartment or something, they would go in the back and they would pull out a shoe box fill of m edigap policies. this were policies that insurance salesmen sold them that the salesmen said would fill in the gap in medicare. and frequently a senior would spend thousands of dollars -- this was a number of years ago -- on these policies that were worth little more than the paper they were written on and often contained, and we saw this at our legal aid program for

seniors, they often contained what are called sub ra gaition clauses. if you had another policy that covered it, the first one didn't have to cover it. the two of them covered each other out. vulnerable seniors with serious medical conditions get conned into buying these plans that were essentially worthless. and after years of effort, we began in oregon, the state insurance commission office, i had the honor of getting elected to represent oregon in the united states house of representatives. we began there, we continued it in the senate. we acted in a bipartisan fashion to eliminate the junk plans and we did that literally decades ago. we drained the swamp, to use the lingo of today, we really drained the swamp as related to these ripoff medigap policies.

we got them down to a handful, i would bet that the senator from tennessee and ohio and other folks on the floor, they don't have folks coming up to them any longer and telling them that they have ripoff medigap coverage. haven't had that for years and years many but now the trump administration is trying to bring back junk insurance for an even larger portion of the american people. more people than just the seniors. and the bad news with these junk policies doesn't begin and end with description and debt. the trump administration is letting the junk insurance company share the money paid in premium expenses. according to one study, half of each premium dollars, sometimes as much as two-thirds gets wasted on overhead,

administrative costs and profit. again, the affordable care act had a rule that banned that kind of waste. the trump administration threw it out so that the ripoff artists can once again pocket unsuspecting americans' premium dollars. and what the trump administration is doing to undermine health care is not only planned out in what is called the individual insurance market. the harmful threat is a threat to the 167 million americans who get their insurance through their jobs as well. worse, health care costs at a higher cost -- health care at a higher cost, a far cry from those people were promised a few years ago is clearly a growing problem, worse health care, higher costs. it goes back to the days when health care in america, as i said, it's really been my reference point, as much as

anything, i've said let's not turn back the clock to the days when health care was for the healthy and wealthy. and this junk insurance is unquestionably the kickoff of this administration's formal effort to do just that. there was an effort in the affordable care act to build a functional market that didn't trample all over typical americans and their families. the president and his allies in congress have done everything they can, starting with an executive order on day one, to empower the scam artists and for our -- powerful companies to have the ability to make health care worse and rip our people off. that's been the story from day one of this administration. it is, as i said a few minutes ago, mr. president, a monumental

scandal in slow motion. and on behalf of those americans that are hurting, that are being taken care of, many of us are going to do everything we can to make sure for those who are getting hurt, who can't afford these kind of practices, we are going to keep this front and center of the american people until we end this consumer scourge. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. ohio. mr. portman: we have the request for eight committees to meet. they have the approval of the

majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. portman: mr. president, today i want to talk about a huge responsibility we have here in the senate and a great opportunity that lies before us. you know, the senate is asked to confirm nominees, both for executive branch appointments and for judicial branch appointments. and we've heard a lot of great debate here on the senate floor over the past year and a half over some of these nominees. we've been able to confirm justice neil gorsuch to the supreme court, who i believe is doing a superb job. that was quite a debate here. in the meantime we have been able to confirm some district court judges, executive branch appointmentings, and those -- appointments, and those are all important, but now we are to do something, which is perhaps our most important task, is to fill another opening on the united

states supreme court. this is a lifetime appointment and what the district and circuit courts does is come up to this court. our founders created this court to have a place where people could have a fair hearing and a dispassionate look at whether what we pass here fits in the constitution. these are hard and tough issues. you want the right people there to do it. and, once again, because of an opening that's occurred on the supreme court, we have responsibility and duty do do that as a body. in this case we're asked to fill the seat of justice kennedy who is viewed by many as being an important player in the court because he was often the swing vote. he's a thoughtful guy, and i think we're very fortunate in that one of his law clerks, one of justice kennedy's law clerks, has been nominated by the president, has agreed to step

forward for this confirmation process to be an associate justice of the supreme court. to still that -- to fill that ninth spot. my hope is that this can be done in a way where we have an honest and spirited but fact-driven debate here on the floor of the united states senate. i've just got to tell you i'm probably a little bias in this case because i know this nominee personally, and i think a lot of him, not just as a judge where he's got an amazing record on the second-highest court in the land, but also as a person. this is the third time i have come to the senate floor to talk about him. because i feel so strongly and i want to be sure that he gets a fair shake. i think as the amern people get to know him better, he will see a lot of support around the country for his confirmation because people see he's the kind of person they would want to have representing them and their family, their

children, on the supreme court. i worked with him in the george w. bush white house. he had a job there we'll talk about in a second called staff secretary which is a job where you are responsible for being the traffic cop, basically, for the oval office. so documents that go into the office and come out off the oval office go through that office. it's not a substantive job in that sense, but it is an important job to a president to have somebody who he trusts to be able to decide what he looks at, what he doesn't look at, and how his material is then distributed out. he's someone who became close to president george w. bush. george w. bush as he has said many times publicly and to me and others privately thinks the world of him. got to know him very well. so i know brett kavanaugh more as a person, as a friend, as a father, as a husband, but his

legal background is incredibly impressive. and i don't think anybody is better qualified to serve on the supreme court based on his legal background and his judicial philosophy. i know some of my colleagues have now met with him as well. i'm told that as of yesterday, 49 of the 51 republicans who were here in the senate have now met with judge kavanaugh. i'm glad to hear that. and by the way, the reactions have been very positive. i've talked to most of my colleagues about their meetings with him and a number of them have gone out of their way to speak publicly about how impressed they were with him and his demeanor and his background and his character. i'm also pleased to hear that several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have now met with judge kavanaugh as well. i think that's really important. i know that this is a partisan town these days and it's tough to get things done, but in this case, i would hope that more of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree to sit down with him and talk to him.

i think he needs to have the ability to talk one on one to some people who perhaps don't know him well based on some of the comments that i've seen about him, and i think he could put some of their concerns to rest. for some that may not be possible. maybe they have philosophical differences with his approach to law. i get that. but i hope they will take the opportunity to sit down with him and talk to him. the supreme court is going to be faced with a lot of tough issue, and this needs to be a serious consideration. i'm pleased that we are taking it seriously. and some have said boy, this is going too fast. i will just tell you the amount of time between when he was nominated and when his hearing will be which i think is scheduled now for the week of september 4, that is more time than elapsed during the previous few supreme court nominations. so justice kagan, justice. mr. cotton, justice -- justice sotomayor, justice neil gorsuch

i talked a moment ago, so there has been adequate time relative to other confirmations. second, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying they want more documents to review his nomination. mr. portman: now, i would make this point. more documents have been produced with regard to judge kavanaugh than any other supreme court nomination in history. that's what i'm told by the judiciary committee. some democrats have suggested they need to review the literally millions of documents that passed through his office and passed through his desk when he held this job we talked about as staff secretary for president george w. bush. again, this is a job that's sort of like the traffic cop, not to be substantively giving the president the document from an agency or department or another white house policy office but rather to provide that document to the president in a timely way to be sure the president is seeing the right documents, be sure there's coordination.

it's the flow of the documents. so i think seeing all those documents are not relevant, frankly, to the confirmation process because they don't relate to him. what they do relate to, obviously, are a lot of things that have to do with president george w. bush including, i'm sure, some very personal documents where the president would write in the margins and so on. i'm sure that would be interesting for people to look at. probably somebody could write a book about those things but that's not purmt here and that's -- purpose here and that's why i think it's a fishing expedition to see these millions of documents that passed through this man's desk, particularly in the context of a confirmation where more documents are being provided than any previous confirmation. i was told by the judiciary committee this morning that 430,000 pages of documents are being produced. 430,000 pages of documents. i don't know how many of my colleagues are going to read through 430,000 pages of

documents but they're free to do so. by the way, this compares to 170,000 pages of documents that were produced with regard to justice -- now justice, then former solicitor general elena kagan's confirmation. think about that. 430,000 versus 170,000. elena kagan also served as a senior aide in a white house. she worked for president clinton. had a senior position there. a substantive position, actually in domestic policy. she also of course was the solicitor general of the united states and yet, 430,000 versus 170,000. so i just hope people keep that in mind when they hear about the documents. what is really relevant to me would be what he's done as a job. he has spent 12 years on the d.c. circuit court which is viewed by most as being the second highest court in the land. and he's got a lot of documents

that are related to that. he has authored more than 300 published opinions. clearly these opinions are relevant. by the way, more than a dozen of his opinions on the circuit court have been endorsed by the supreme court which is an unusually high number and i think it's a testament to his outstanding judicial record. in addition to the more than 10,000 pains of published -- pages of published opinions he authored or joined out of the 430,000 pains i mentioned, the judiciary committee tells me they released more than 176,000 pages of appropriate documents from judge kavanaugh's time in the executive branch. so there is plenty of documents to look at. and i encourage my colleagues to do so. but i think this has been, as i said earlier, based on the traditions we have here, the amount of time spent between nomination and confirmation, based on the number of documents that have been produced, i think it's been an appropriate and

transparent process. and i'm glad that chairman grassley has made it so. and my hope is that both from his time on the bench and his time in the executive branch that these documents will be reviewed, the appropriate ones. brett kavanaugh is very well respected as a judge. and he's a thought leader among his peers. i'm sure you've heard a lot about that. there have been op-eds written about him from democrats and republicans alike saying i know him, worked with the guy, clerked for the guy, i was one of his students. he's smart, he's thoughtful. he has said very clearly he's going to be guided by the constitution and the rule of law. he understands the proper role of the court is not to legislate from the bemple. he has respect -- bench. he has respect for precedent. he actually wrote the book meaning he's one of the cow editors on this -- co-editors on this book looking at legal decisions, stare dee -- stare

decisus. his former colleagues, former student, legal experts on both sides of the aisle have come out to say this about him. i think he's got exactly the right qualifications, extensive experience and a judicial philosophy that i think most americans would agree with and would want in a june. but again, as important -- in a judge. but again, as important as that is to me, he's also a good person. he's compassionate. he's humble. he's someone who has a big heart and maybe most importantly, he has the humility to be able to listen, to hear people out. as we said earlier, no more important quality in a supreme court justice given incredibly important issues that they have before them. so as his confirmation process continues, i hope my colleagues and the american people will get to know the brett kavanaugh that i know, and i hope that he is soon able to continue his lifetime of distinguished service as a member of the highest court in the land.

i'm proud to strongly support his nomination for this important position. i yield back my time. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i know there's been discussion a lot about the judicial nominee and we have the material need. we do not have the material we need. when justice kagan was up for nomination, the republicans asked for all the archives. i joined them in that. i was chairman. i along with jeff sessions who was ranking member sent a letter saying that we needed all her white house records. we got 99% of them. now we're told after carefully selected by steve bannon's attorney that we can have 3% of

hers. it's an interesting standard. republicans want all of it when it was a democratic president for a woman who was nominated. now the -- republicans, they nominate this man, we'll give you 3%. it's an interesting double standard. it makes me wonder what is there to hide there. why not take the time to see it all? if i'm going to vote on a lifetime appointment -- i voted for a lot of republican nominees in the supreme court and other courts but i want to see the whole record. i don't want to have a month after i voted more come out in the record. whoops, who knew about that? we had this from one judge

already after they were confirmed to a lifetime appointment. the final records come out and we find out what they did on issues of torture and others. it was bad. mr. president, i have an amendment at the desk, and i ask it be considered. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from vermont, mr. leahy, proposes amendment numbered 3993 to amendment numbered 3699 in lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the following. 8,053,001. mr. leahy: i thank the -- i

thank you for that and i would suggest the -- mr. president, the -- earlier i talked about what has happened on the manafort and cohen matters yesterday. i understand the great amount of constern nation there -- consternation there is at the other end of pennsylvania avenue. having been a prosecutor, i can understand why the consternation. i would note for my colleagues that we passed in the senate

judiciary committee a bipartisan -- republicans and democrats -- a bill to protect the special prosecutor. some of us are old enough to remember when richard nixon fired the special prosecutor in the watergate matter and the great constitutional problems that caused and the -- something the country suffered over for years. we want to make sure that we don't have another as we in the watergate. so we wrote this bill, again republicans and democrats voted for it. it could be brought up any time by the leadership if they wished.

i am hoping that it will be brought up. i'm hoping that we can bring it up and vote. i know we had a good debate, again republicans and democrats in the judiciary committee. and i would -- i would like to see a vote on it to keep from having another watergate. i know we're at the hour of 3:30, mr. president. i know the presiding officer has a ruling to make. so i will with hold. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 4:30 p.m. >> the u.s. senate now going into recess for about an hour for an all members briefing on election security. with national intelligence director dan coats, homeland security secretary nielsen and fbi director christopher wray.

later today, senate lawmakers will continue their work on amendments to the 857 billion dollars federal spending package, containing the two largest appropriations bills for 2019. debate and possible votes on amendments today and tomorrow. the final passage vote expected by the end of the week. more live senate coverage when lawmakers return here on c-span 2. tonight book tv is in prime-time with a look at recent books on healthcare and medicine. medical and scientific uses and effects of psychedelic drugs on the book how to change your mind. the book, exposing the risk of america's dependence on china for medicine. the risks of getting medical advice from anyone other than a doctor, in the book bad advice. why celebrities, politicians and activists aren't your best source of health information. book tv, all this week in

prime-time on c-span 2. sunday night on after words, an economist discusses her book edge of chaos, why democracy is failing to deliver economic growth and how to fix it. she's interviewed by former chairman of the council of economic advisors during the obama administration. >> you wrote a book which is quite a lot about politics and draws a lot on political science. why did you do that? >> the most important thing i think in terms of motivation for writing the book is it is born out of frustration. take about this in the book. my interests and my academic background are in economics, but if you think about the global economy today, there are a whole host of very deeply structural long-term problems that the global economy has to contend with, and i imagine we'll get to them in a moment. but things like demographic shifts, what the impact of technology will be for the jobless underclass, concerns around productivity and debt. you know, debt overhang and

income inequality. something that when i was doing my phd was never discussed and now it is the top three big issues on the policy agenda. all long-term structural problems, and yet the people who are charged with overseeing the regulatory and the policy environment, essentially politicians, are very short-term, in their frame. >> watch after words sunday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span 2's book tv. >> the c-span bus is traveling across the country on our 50 capitals tour. the bus is on its 39th stop in honolulu, asking folks, what's the most important issue in hawaii? >> [inaudible]. one of the big issues is will they have a place to live? will they be able to afford to stay in the home of their birth?

we have a huge homeless situation that's going on right now. we're looking for ways to take them off of the street, but i think the problem is just going to get worse if we don't take care of it now. >> i'm liz. i'm from honolulu, hawaii, born and raised here, and one of the important issues that i feel we are facing here in hawaii is trying to manage work life balance. so i work full time. my husband works full time, plus part time jobs, and we have three young children and are trying to take care of everyone. >> i think right now more than ever for hawaii we need to continue to -- [inaudible] -- aloha means kindness, unity, agreeableness, humility and patient. and if we can all promote and

live within this spirit, we could all be in a better place here, not only in the city and county of honolulu or the state of hawaii, but across the nation. >> be sure to join us october 6th and 7th when we'll feature our visit to hawaii. watch hawaii weekend on c-span, c-span.org, or listen on the c-span radio app. >> good, yeah, that's good. >> thank you for having me. i appreciate it very much. thank you. i'm glad i could do my part. if there is anything else i can do for you, let me know. thanks for having me. beautiful.