[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 106 (Monday, June 25, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4353-S4364]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  ENERGY AND WATER, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, AND MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND 
               VETERANS AFFAIRS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 5895, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 5895) making appropriations for energy and 
     water development and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2019, and for other purposes.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.


            Remembering First Lieutenant Garlin Murl Conner

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this week our Nation will honor the 
memory of a brave Kentuckian. President Trump will posthumously award 
1LT Garlin Murl Conner with our Nation's highest military distinction, 
the Medal of Honor.
  In 1941 Garlin left his farm town in Clinton County, KY. This quiet 
21-year-old enlisted in the Army. When he returned, after World War II 
service that spanned eight major campaigns and earned a battlefield 
commission, four Silver Stars, three Purple Hearts, and the 
Distinguished Service Cross, he was a hero.
  Lieutenant Conner wasn't supposed to be in a snow-covered forest that 
January morning in 1945. He was meant to be recovering in a hospital. 
But with his unit in need, he snuck away and returned to the front in 
France. When he rejoined his comrades, they were in urgent danger, 
pinned down by six German tanks. Lieutenant Conner stepped forward. He 
took a telephone, a radio, and a wire reel and ran toward the enemy 
alone--totally alone.
  Past the American line, in a ditch barely large enough to cover him, 
Lieutenant Conner began directing artillery against the approaching 
enemy. He held his ground through wave after wave of German advances. 
When the enemy surged, even coming within feet of him, he called in 
artillery strikes on his own position.
  Amazingly, when the dust settled, Lieutenant Conner was still alive, 
and Allied artillery had destroyed the German tanks and stopped the 
advance. On that frigid morning, in complete disregard for his own 
safety, Lieutenant Conner saved the lives of his comrades.
  This afternoon I will have the privilege to welcome Ms. Pauline 
Conner, Garlin's wife of more than 50 years, and other family members 
to the Capitol. Without Pauline's patience and steadfast resolve, there 
would be no recognition tomorrow.
  After the war, Lieutenant Conner demurred any sort of personal glory. 
With the humility that is typical among the Greatest Generation, he 
returned to his farm and planned to leave the war behind him. Later in 
life, he took it upon himself to meet privately with his fellow 
veterans and their families, offering comfort and advice.
  One day late in Lieutenant Conner's life, a former Army Green Beret 
named Richard Chilton came to their home to ask about his late uncle, 
who had served with him in Europe. He saw all of Garlin's decorations 
and medals and urged Pauline to apply for the Medal of Honor. That was 
the first step. The path wasn't easy--filing paperwork, finding 
eyewitness accounts, gathering support from the Kentucky Department of 
Veterans Affairs, generals, and even Members of Congress. It was my 
privilege to join Pauline's team when they contacted my office over a 
decade ago. There were setbacks, even a Federal court ruling, but 
Pauline and her team pushed forward. Her long journey will finally end 
in victory when the Commander in Chief entrusts her with Garlin's Medal 
of Honor tomorrow. I am grateful to President Trump, Secretary Mattis, 
and Secretary Esper for recognizing this deserving Kentuckian.
  I am proud to congratulate Pauline and her family today, and I would 
like

[[Page S4354]]

to thank her for giving our Nation the opportunity to salute 1LT Garlin 
Murl Conner. He embodied the highest values of our Commonwealth and of 
our Nation, but this humble man never called himself a hero. So it is 
incumbent upon us to do just that.
  Now, Mr. President, on a completely different matter, this afternoon 
our colleagues will vote to pass the first 3 of 12 appropriations bills 
for fiscal year 2019. When they do, the Senate will be putting more 
common sense back into the appropriations process. This hasn't come 
easily. But thanks to the leadership of Chairman Shelby and Ranking 
Member Leahy, the process thus far has been governed by level-headed 
bipartisanship.
  I am optimistic the same will be true for the nine remaining 
appropriations measures. Great progress has already been made at the 
committee level, and I look forward to considering more legislation on 
the floor soon.
  It is particularly fitting that after the passage of the John S. 
McCain National Defense Authorization Act for 2019 and historic 
veterans legislation earlier this year, the first group of 
appropriations bills includes much needed resources for the VA and for 
military construction projects. This minibus also includes funding 
under the Energy and Water title for critical maintenance of America's 
ports and waterways infrastructure, for groundbreaking research on 
energy development and efficiency, and for improvements to the safety, 
security, and readiness of our nuclear arsenal.
  Our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, in particular these 
subcommittee chairmen--Senators Alexander, Boozman, and Daines--have 
earned our support. This is worthy legislation. I look forward to 
passing it today.


                               Farm Bill

  Then, we will turn to another major priority--the farm bill. Under 
Chairman Roberts' leadership, along with Ranking Member Stabenow, the 
Agriculture Committee has continued its tradition of addressing the 
needs of America's farmers and ranchers with the serious bipartisanship 
they deserve.
  Today the needs are great. In the face of declines in farm income, 
growers and producers need certainty and stability, and that is what 
this bill would help to provide. The committee reported the farm bill 
to the full Senate by an overwhelming bipartisan margin. This week we 
will have a chance to pass the bill in the same fashion.
  On behalf of the farmers in my home State of Kentucky and around the 
country, I hope each Senator will take advantage of this opportunity.


                               Tax Reform

  Now, Mr. President, on one final matter, week after week the evidence 
continues to mount that tax reform and the rest of the Republicans' 
pro-growth, pro-family agenda is helping to reinvigorate our economy 
and to set the stage for long-term job and wage growth. Just today, 
CNBC is reporting that the percentage of Americans who say the economy 
is good or excellent is the highest they have ever recorded in the 
survey's 10-year history.
  But amidst all of the headlines of long-term investments, business 
expansions, and this favorable economic climate, it is important to 
remember also all of the immediate ways the tax cuts themselves have 
already meant direct relief for middle-class American families. Our 
historic tax reform, which every single Democratic Senator opposed, 
lowered income tax rates, doubled the standard deduction, and increased 
the child tax credit. It has given employers the flexibility to 
immediately pass savings along to their employees in the form of tax 
reform bonuses, pay raises, and new benefits. It has allowed major 
utility companies to forego planned rate hikes and, in cases, actually 
cut the energy prices customers pay.
  Every one of these provisions equals real money that will remain in 
the hands of middle-class families, instead of being shipped off to the 
IRS. Every one of these and all the other components of tax reform are 
major improvements that every single Democrat in the House and in the 
Senate voted against.
  Now, if Democratic leaders are serious about wanting to repeal tax 
reform, the tax cuts that are making it all possible would be right 
back on the chopping block. Tax cuts used to be a bipartisan affair, 
but not these days. Republicans will continue to stand up for the 
American people and help them keep more of their hard-earned money.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          South Texas Flooding

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on Friday, I traveled to the Rio Grande 
Valley, right along the U.S.-Mexico border, expecting the front-page 
news to be about separation of families when our immigration laws were 
being enforced. Imagine my surprise when the front page of the 
newspapers in the Rio Grande Valley were talking about the flooding in 
South Texas.
  We heard that late last week, more than 200 water rescues were 
performed on the border city of Mission alone, and some areas were 
pounded by more than 15 inches of rain over a 4-day period. Cities in 
South Texas, such as Harlingen, Mercedes, Weslaco, Brownsville, and 
others, were affected. I saw it myself when I was in the Valley last 
week. A feeder road and entire soccer fields were underwater, and 
county officials were out surveying flood damage around the airport. 
This has been especially tough news because some of the coastal areas 
in my State that were impacted by this flood were also hit by Hurricane 
Harvey less than a year ago and are still recovering from that 
catastrophe. Just as life started to get back to normal--whatever 
normal is--the rains came.
  As hurricane season is now underway, we will continue to monitor the 
weather and the conditions there that may arise throughout the 
remainder of the summer months and to work with all of my constituents 
and leaders at the local, State, and Federal level to make sure we are 
as prepared as we can humanly be for the next adverse weather event.


             Keep Families Together and Enforce the Law Act

  As I said, Mr. President, I went to the border to talk about 
immigration and family separation policies. I traveled there to tour 
two facilities in Brownsville, along with Senator Cruz, that housed 
young children--some very young and some up to 18, just under 18 years 
of age--who are being sheltered after their parents crossed illegally 
into the United States.
  It is important to note that in so many respects, life is pretty good 
in the Rio Grande Valley. Business is booming. Men and women are 
working hard, going to school, paying their bills, just like the rest 
of us. It is not all the Wild Wild West, as the press sometimes makes 
it out to be.
  When it comes to immigrant shelters, I think it is very important 
that we learn what the facts are rather than continue a narrative that 
has very little basis in fact.
  The truth is, the surge of humanity coming across our southern border 
is nothing new. This year so far--since October 1--there have been 
roughly 32,000 unaccompanied children who have come across the border, 
more than 50,000 families, but all told, the Border Patrol has detained 
roughly 250,000 people coming across our southwestern border.
  I know that here in Washington, you could be forgiven for thinking 
``Well, the border is not a problem. Illegal immigration is not a 
problem,'' but I am here to say it is a problem, and it is a national 
security threat. The humanitarian crisis we have seen at the border 
because countries like those in Central America continue to send their 
young children up across the border into the United States--it creates 
a huge challenge for us, just as it did in 2014 when President Obama 
called it a humanitarian crisis, because, frankly, our communities 
along the border and the Federal Government are not prepared to deal 
with such an influx of humanity, particularly those who need to be 
taken care of in a compassionate and humane way, especially the 
children who come across the border.
  Why are children coming across the border unaccompanied and in some 
instances with family units? Because the

[[Page S4355]]

cartels--the criminal organizations that profit from a business model 
that allows them to exploit vulnerabilities in American law, 
particularly when it comes to border security--are making millions of 
dollars trafficking in humanity. They don't just traffic in illegal 
immigration; they traffic in those who would ply these immigrants for 
sex trafficking, those who would distribute drugs illegally in the 
United States, particularly heroin, an opioid, along with fentanyl, 
coming across the border, perhaps even from China, which is part of the 
opioid crisis in the United States.
  As one gentleman who has a lot of experience in the area phrased it--
he said that when it comes to what the cartels and the criminal 
organizations will transport into the United States, they are commodity 
agnostic. What he meant by that, I gathered, is that what it is all 
about is the money. It is the money these large criminal organizations 
earn trafficking in people, trafficking in drugs, trafficking in 
contraband across our southwestern border that represents such a 
challenge to our government officials at the local level, at the State 
level, and, of course, at the national level.
  I know there has been a lot of misinformation about what happens at 
the border when somebody comes to the border and claims asylum. There 
are accepted procedures and legal standards that should be applied when 
somebody comes from another country and claims a credible fear of 
persecution because of who they are--their race, their religion, and 
the like.
  As Secretary Nielsen, the Secretary of Homeland Security, pointed 
out, it is not a crime to come to a port of entry--that is, one of the 
bridges--and ask for asylum. It is a crime for an adult to try to cross 
the border between those ports of entry into the United States, and 
that is why we end up with this huge challenge of what to do when they 
come across with a minor child with them.
  After touring these facilities in Brownsville and meeting with 
various Federal agency officials, nongovernmental organizations, and 
local elected officials at the Weslaco Border Patrol Station, what we 
learned is that this situation is far more complex than meets the eye 
and that many of the narratives that have been spun about what is 
happening at the border are simply false or may be based in part on 
fact but in part on nonfactual information.
  What we did was we had the Federal officials at the Weslaco Border 
Patrol Station go through the step-by-step process of what happens to 
immigrant families when they are apprehended at the border, what 
happens when they are detained, and what happens when their cases are 
heard in a court. This is very useful information, and I want to 
particularly credit Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol Chief Manny 
Padilla, Custom and Border Patrol's David Higgerson, and all the men 
and women on the frontlines who are doing a great job under very 
difficult circumstances across the border.
  I am glad to know that the processes are changing based on the 
Executive order President Trump issued last week. That order stated 
that immigrant families should be detained together when appropriate 
and consistent with law and available resources. The problem is that I 
am not sure anybody could be prepared for this influx of humanity 
coming across the border, but they are doing the very best they can.
  We know that Executive orders are always subject to legal challenges. 
We in Congress have introduced legislation to make sure that if, in 
fact, the President's Executive order ordering families to be kept 
together is somehow challenged or found deficient in court, that we 
have legislation to back it up. It is important that we in Congress 
make clear in statute that the status quo along the border cannot 
continue.
  That status quo has resulted in family members being separated from 
one another--in some cases, young children from their parents, which is 
something I know we all want to avoid. We know that in many cases, 
these children have remained in close touch with their parents 
throughout the course of their detention. But we still need to make 
sure these families are kept together where possible.
  I, along with a number of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, 
led by the junior Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Tillis, introduced a 
piece of legislation last week to address this situation. It is called 
the Keep Families Together and Enforce the Law Act. As the title of the 
bill suggests, there are two parts.
  Treating families with compassion by allowing them to remain together 
and enforcing our immigration laws don't have to be mutually exclusive, 
and our bill will ensure that they aren't. It will allow children to 
stay with their parents in a safe facility while they await their court 
proceedings to see if they perhaps are eligible for some sort of 
immigration benefit, like asylum. Our bill will also set mandatory 
standards for care in family residential centers where immigrant 
families are placed and keep children safe by requiring they be removed 
from the care of any individual who presents a danger to them.
  Just as importantly, it provides additional resources. It will 
require more than 200 new immigration judges and require the Department 
of Homeland Security to expedite the court proceedings of families and 
children. We don't want those family units to remain in detention any 
longer than necessary to present their case to an immigration judge.
  Some have rightfully asked questions about the families who have 
already been separated. What happens now that the kids have been placed 
apart from their parents? Our bill requires the administration to take 
steps to reunify as many families as possible who remain in ICE's, 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or HHS's, Health and Human 
Services, custody.

  Believe it or not, as part of this disinformation or misinformation 
that seems to pervade this topic, some have falsely claimed that our 
bill promotes the indefinite detention of families, but that is 
certainly not the intention. Our bill does not mandate the Department 
of Homeland Security detain parents and their kids together 
indefinitely. It, simply, removes an arbitrary, court-imposed rule that 
says families can be held together for no more than 20 days. This is 
from the so-called Flores case.
  In many instances, allowing families to remain together in custody 
for more than 20 days will allow immigration courts to process their 
claims faster so that they will literally have better access to 
justice. Generally, immigrants are detained only until their 
proceedings in front of immigration judges are completed. So those who 
claim that the bill would somehow promote the indefinite detention of 
these families, simply, aren't telling you the truth. These families 
will remain in residential shelters only until their court proceedings 
are completed, but we need to prioritize these cases, in particular--to 
move them to the head of the line--so that these families will not have 
to wait any longer than necessary.
  Other proposals have been put forward in addition to the Tillis 
proposal. One of the most prominent is the one being offered by our 
friend, the senior Senator from California. I have worked together on 
many issues with Senator Feinstein, but on this issue, I think her bill 
has a number of problems. In fact, there is a huge question of what 
sort of enforcement, if any, would be permitted under her bill. In 
effect, this bill would make it impossible to criminally prosecute 
parents for crossing the border illegally unless their children were 
able to go into Department of Justice's custody with the parents. This 
bill doesn't even specify where the families should be held. That is a 
big problem because children shouldn't go to jails and prisons, run by 
the Department of Justice, that have hardened, potentially violent 
criminals.
  I don't know anybody who thinks that that is a good idea. That is 
why, essentially, the bill advocates for catch and release. Nowhere 
does the bill say where these families should be held since they can't 
go into the Department of Justice's facilities. Basically, the only 
alternative left up to immigration enforcement officials is to let them 
go and issue them notices to appear at future court dates. The bill 
specifically forces the Department of Homeland Security to release 
family units without exception, which prevents potential criminals from 
being prosecuted. Again, it is the adults we are talking about, not the 
children.

[[Page S4356]]

  Chief Padilla, the Chief of the Rio Grande Valley sector of the 
Border Patrol, which is the most active part of the southwestern 
border, said: If you look at the surges in illegal immigration over 
recent history, the highest surges in illegal immigration are when the 
U.S. Government has had a policy of catching and then releasing people 
who have violated the immigration laws and has ordered them to appear 
in the future. Of course, most of the people don't show up in the 
future. They know they will rarely be followed up on and rarely be 
caught unless, of course, they commit some other crime or offense and 
are picked up by local police, at which time U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement's and local law enforcement's records are matched 
in order to identify those people.
  To suggest that we should not enforce our immigration laws or to 
suggest that we should catch people who violate those laws and release 
them and have them appear on future dates, which is far from certain, 
is itself a huge encouragement and inducement to surges in illegal 
immigration. One of the main reasons is that the cartels--again, the 
criminal organizations that control much of the human trafficking, the 
illegal drug trafficking, and the movement of immigrants across the 
border--are very smart, and they know when there are gaps in the U.S. 
Government's policy that can be exploited, like catch and release.
  I am not sure everyone who supports the bill that Senator Feinstein 
has proposed understands what the consequences are of the legislation. 
Where are the provisions that allow us to enforce our immigration laws? 
Both of our bills allow for families to be kept together while they are 
waiting for court proceedings, but only one of them, the Tillis bill, 
also permits the enforcement of our laws. That seems to be the choice 
that our Democratic colleagues have made.
  With all due respect to our Democratic colleagues, their legislation, 
simply, doesn't cut it. I don't think the American people will tolerate 
a situation in which our borders remain open, essentially, to the 
poison shipped over here from the drug traffickers, to the human 
trafficking by which people are, simply, sold into modern-day slavery, 
or whether open borders is used as a way to transport people illegally 
from one country to another.
  We want to make it clear that families should be kept together but, 
also, that we will enforce the law even when that requires families be 
held in government custody for a short period of time pending their 
court hearings. We also want to be clear that where they should be held 
is in safe residential family housing and away from hardened, 
potentially violent criminals.
  Again, the legislation, which has been proffered by our friend from 
California, doesn't mandate that. Basically, it just prevents us from 
enforcing our laws. It promotes catch and release, and it doesn't 
specify where families should be held together, which could jeopardize 
the safety of these children.
  With these and other shortcomings, I think the much better option is 
the bill that our Republican colleagues and I, along with Senator 
Tillis, have introduced. I hope the discussions which, I know, have 
been planned between Senator Durbin, Senator Feinstein, Senator Tillis, 
and Senator Cruz--perhaps as early as today--are very productive. It 
would be important to achieve both important goals at once--the 
continued enforcement of our immigration laws and the unification of 
families.
  I have become disturbed by what I have seen on social media. There is 
a hashtag in social media called ``abolish ICE,'' abolish the U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement. I have read where one Democratic 
House Member has actually introduced legislation that would abolish our 
immigration enforcement agency, the U.S. Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement. Basically, what that would do is to create an open 
invitation to the criminal organizations that facilitate illegal 
immigration, drugs, and other contraband. There will be no limit to the 
number of people who will be able to enter the country illegally. We 
will just wave them on through.
  In addition to the open borders, which is no solution, there are 
colleagues who are advocating this sort of notion, who have no plan of 
how to deal with the influx of humanity, whether it is from a health 
and safety or a safe and secure facilities perspective. I think it is a 
half-baked idea and one we should reject.
  I urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to continue talking 
and to support the legislation that Senator Tillis and I and others 
have introduced.
  I would like to see the Senate take swift action. I wish we could 
have done it last week because we all agree that families should be 
kept together, and we all agree that this is an emergency situation. We 
must act quickly. If we come together, we can resolve this situation 
swiftly and ensure these children will be kept with their families, 
which is our No. 1 priority.
  It is also a priority of all of us to enforce the laws that are on 
the books and not to, basically, benefit the business model of the drug 
cartels in the process and see them continue to prey on young, 
susceptible, vulnerable people who are willing to risk it all just to 
make their way to the United States, to our borders.
  I yield the floor.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                           Family Separation

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, as we are all aware, the Trump 
administration's border policy has resulted in thousands of families 
having been separated at the border over the past few months. Despite 
the administration's recent executive order, thousands of young 
children remain separated from their parents in cities across the 
country, across America. According to the New York Times, right now, 
there are 2,053 children who are stuck in limbo, waiting for various 
Federal agencies to reunite them with their families.
  Some of the most basic questions about their whereabouts and the 
whereabouts of their families are unknown to Federal officials. Of the 
thousands of children having been taken away from their parents since 
the President's family separation policy went into effect, only about 
500 children in CBP's custody have been reunited with their families. 
That is not good enough. Who will be held accountable if these children 
are not returned to their parents? Some of these children are even too 
young to know their names.
  This unprecedented situation demands a Federal point person to manage 
the family reunification process and ensure it is resolved as quickly 
and transparently as possible. Multiple agencies have jurisdiction, 
including the Department of Homeland Security, Health and Human 
Services, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Justice. We 
need someone in power to work across Federal agencies, cut through the 
bureaucracy, and lead the accurate, humane, and timely reunification of 
every child who has been separated by President Trump's policies.
  I urge President Trump to appoint a family reunification czar to 
manage this process.
  The administration needs to bring in an experienced and competent 
person to impose order on the chaos that the President's decision has 
caused--someone to be accountable so that this doesn't go on for months 
or longer with different agencies pointing fingers at each other while 
children languish alone in detention. When multiple Federal agencies 
are involved in responding to a crisis, the response is often 
cumbersome and slow. Each agency has its different track, its different 
goals, its different paths. Without someone in the White House to bring 
order and have them work in sync, all too often, nothing happens.
  A czar--this is a good czar, not a bad czar--would help to avoid the 
situation whereby the agencies would be at cross purposes and paralysis 
and inaction would result. We did this when Ebola occurred. There were 
many agencies involved when we were worried about the national threat 
of Ebola. President Obama wisely appointed a czar--I believe it was Ron 
Klain. It worked, and the Ebola fear that we all had--thank God--didn't 
materialize. The same can happen here in the sense that a czar could 
help solve the problem.
  It is agonizing--so agonizing--to see young children, with anguished 
looks on their faces, being separated from

[[Page S4357]]

their parents. This crisis demands a timely and efficient response. A 
family reunification czar would help get the job done. It is not a 
political situation whereby it is ideological. It is, simply, getting 
the bureaucracies to work.


                                 China

  Mr. President, on China, this morning, the New York Times reported 
that in several industrial cities in China's interior, Chinese 
manufacturers have been using incredibly dangerous chemicals known as 
CFCs, which destroy the planet's ozone layer and are explicitly banned 
by an international agreement from the 1980s. The CFCs are more 
dangerous to our atmosphere even than CO2, even than 
methane. That is why the world came together in a rare moment and 
successfully, for a long time, banned these CFCs.
  Now it seems that this is not occurring in China, and it comes as no 
surprise. China cracks down so effectively on free speech, so one 
wonders why the state is unable to crack down on the use of 
environmentally toxic chemicals that have been banned for over 30 
years. It took China's Government a matter of days to block online 
access to HBO after John Oliver poked fun at President Xi on the 
network. Yet, when it comes to the use of toxic chemicals that are 
banned by international agreements, China's government can't get its 
act together? Please. It is a metaphor. What is happening with CFCs is 
a metaphor for so many of China's policies, most especially for its 
trade policy.
  Many question if China will ever moderate its self-interested, 
mercantilist behavior and join the community of nations in fair trade 
by lowering trade barriers, by abiding by international trade rules, 
and by ending its practice of intellectual property theft. Well, this 
news shows that when push comes to shove, China always does what is 
best for China--short-term profit for China--without regard to the 
well-being of its neighbors or the strictures of international 
agreements. Whether it is lead in our children's toys, cadmium in 
exported fish, or CFCs in the atmosphere, time and again, China flouts 
and skirts international laws, agreements, and vital environmental 
standards in ferocious pursuit of its economic interests.

  We should not be accommodating when it comes to trade with China. We 
cannot appeal to its better angels and hope for the best--at least with 
President Xi in charge. We must recognize that China's government will 
not retreat from its fundamentally self-interested posture until and 
unless we force it to, through tough penalties for misbehavior and 
strong incentives to abide by free-market principles.
  (Mrs. Ernst assumed the Chair.)


                               Healthcare

  Madam President, on healthcare, last week insurers in Indiana and in 
the Presiding Officer's State of Iowa requested an increase in 2019 
rates. The addition of Indiana and Iowa asking for increasing rates 
adds to the growing list of States--including Virginia, Maryland, New 
York, and Oregon--that have raised rates as a result of Republican 
healthcare policies.
  The CEO of one of the largest insurers in Indiana, Celtic, said 
insurers could have potentially lowered rates in 2019 if the Trump 
administration had not attempted to sow mass uncertainty and undermine 
the market.
  Let me repeat that. The CEO of one of the largest insurers in Indiana 
said that health insurance costs could have gone down if not for 
President Trump and Congressional Republicans. He went on to say that 
the rate increases were also a result of the uncertainty caused by the 
Republicans' repeal of the coverage requirement and the Trump 
administration's expansion of short-term junk insurance plans.
  Think about it for a moment. Middle-class families in Indiana could 
have saved on their healthcare next year if President Trump, aided and 
abetted by Republicans here in the Senate, hadn't sabotaged the system. 
If the Republicans and President Trump would have simply left our 
healthcare system alone, things would have been so much better. So many 
people in so many of our States will pay far more in premium increases 
than they will get benefits from a tax cut--particularly if you are 
middle-class and not rich. Is that right? Does that put more money in 
people's pockets? No. Does that get the economy going? Absolutely not.
  Sadly, because of a political vendetta against the Affordable Care 
Act, Republicans have undermined our healthcare system at every turn. 
They don't have an answer as to what to do. They don't have a new 
system to put in place. They have tried that for a year and a half, and 
they haven't gotten anywhere. They just want to sabotage the existing 
law and make it worse for average Americans because they are so fixated 
on killing the ACA bill, even though they have nothing to put in its 
place, and American families are paying the price in the form of higher 
premiums, higher out-of-pocket costs, and more expensive prescription 
drugs.


                            Civil Discourse

  Finally, Madam President, a word on a different subject. Here in the 
Senate we disagree with one another frequently and often fervently. I 
certainly do. Many of us disagree with the policies of the current 
administration. In a country as large and diverse as ours, politics has 
always been a noisy, raucous affair--probably even more so today. That 
is OK, but we all have to remember to treat our fellow Americans--all 
of our fellow Americans--with the kind of civility and respect that we 
expect will be afforded to us.
  I strongly disagree with those who advocate harassing folks if they 
don't agree with you. If you disagree with something or someone, stand 
up and make your voice heard. Explain why you think they are wrong and 
why you are right. Make the argument. Protest peacefully. If you 
disagree with a politician, organize your fellow citizens to action and 
vote them out of office, but no one should call for the harassment of 
political opponents. That is not right. That is not American.
  Now, I understand those who look at the conduct of this President--a 
man who habitually engages in bullying, name-calling, slander, and pure 
nastiness for its own sake--and think: We have to fight fire with fire. 
I know I felt those emotions myself. I think we all do. I understand 
those who are outraged at the hypocrisy of this President when he 
complains about bullying, harassment, or nastiness when it is used 
against him or his allies, and he uses it as a regular tool almost 
every day. I am outraged by the double standard that we seem to let 
this President get away with. But the President's tactics and behavior 
should never be emulated. They should be repudiated by organized, well-
informed, and passionate advocacy. As Michelle Obama, a person who 
represents the same kind of fineness that we have always had in 
America, in complete contrast to the coarseness of this President, 
said: ``When they go low, we go high.'' That is a contrast of civility, 
honor, and decency to President Trump's coarseness and meanness. It is 
a contrast that will serve those of us who oppose what the President 
does so well.
  To opponents of the President's policies, the best way to limit what 
he can do, to show that America is not as coarse, as mean, as 
hypocritical as his behavior suggests, the best solution is to win 
elections. That is a far more productive way to channel the legitimate 
frustrations with this President's policies than harassing members of 
his administration.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                           Family Separation

  Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I want to report to the Senate on 
attending the detention center in my home State of Florida. I stood on 
the floor last week and reported that a lot had changed. I just 
returned again from South Florida, where I was finally allowed to go 
through the detention facility in Homestead where the number has been 
corrected from what we were told originally. We were told that of the 
1,300 children who were there, 94 of them had been separated from their 
parents. The number I was given on Saturday is that 70 children there 
have been separated from their families.
  This is the same facility that I had visited last Tuesday and where I 
was denied entry. Despite being the Senator from Florida and despite 
having oversight responsibility of the Department of HHS, which runs 
this detention facility, I was not allowed inside on Tuesday to check 
on the 94 kids being held there.
  So I returned on Saturday, and while I was allowed to enter and go 
through

[[Page S4358]]

the facility and talk to the employees, I was still not allowed to see 
the 70 children separated from their parents or to speak with the one 
person who has the responsibility and who is in charge of reuniting 
these children with their parents.
  I was told that this individual, and she was named, was not there on 
Saturday, as she works Monday through Friday. When I was given the name 
of this individual, I said: Well, I will be calling her on Monday. I 
must state that we have called and emailed several times and have not 
been provided the opportunity to speak to this one individual, 
identified as the person who tries to reunite the kids with their 
parents there in the Homestead facility.
  Since I was given the name Barbara Flotus, why in the world would HHS 
not allow me to speak to her when she is back at the facility today? It 
is certainly in the interest of the American people to know that the 
children are being reunited. If this is the person that is put in 
charge at that center, then, why wouldn't they let this Senator from 
Florida speak to her?
  Well, other than that, the main takeaway from that trip was that the 
Executive order that the President signed last week is a sham. It does 
nothing to reunite the children with their parents.
  We have been told that there are over 2,300 children around the 
country that have been separated from their parents. We have also been 
told that there are attempts being made to reunite them. Then, why in 
the world would the Trump administration not want us to be able to tell 
a good news story?
  Based on what I was told by officials at the facility I visited on 
Saturday, there is no plan in place to reunify these families. Is that 
the reason they are prohibiting me from speaking to Barbara Flotus 
today, because there still is no plan? All of this is unacceptable. The 
American people deserve answers to these questions.
  Well, tomorrow this Senator plans to get some of those answers 
because Secretary Azar of HHS is coming in front of the Senate Finance 
Committee. Before he testifies, I want to give him a heads-up on the 
questions I am going to ask--and I expect some answers.
  The questions are in regard to the separated children and the 
reunification with their parents. I want Secretary Azar to know that I 
would like for him to explain, while he is in front of the Senate 
Finance Committee under oath, where these children are right now who 
are all over the country. When are they going to be reunited with their 
families? Why is the HHS Department denying Members of Congress access 
to the facilities?
  Why is it that when we are given entrance into the facilities, as I 
was on Saturday, they are not allowing us to speak with the children 
who have been separated from their parents? Why is HHS refusing to 
provide us with information about these children, including what is 
being done right now to reunite them with their families?
  I thought I was going to have a good-news story to report to the 
Senate today, after talking to Barbara Flotus, whose name I was given, 
but I have been denied the opportunity to speak with her.
  The Secretary should have plenty of time between now and his 
testimony tomorrow before the Finance Committee to find the information 
he needs to fully answer these questions.
  I want to be very clear about tomorrow's hearing because this Senator 
will expect full answers to each of the questions--no backtrack, no 
getting off on a different subject. The American people want to know 
about these children and when are they going to be reunited, and that 
was not covered in the President's Executive order. There is no reason 
why this administration should be putting up barriers and preventing 
Members of Congress from doing their jobs and checking on the welfare 
of these children.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I come here to raise an issue, not 
with the actual bill we will be voting on today but with language 
included in a committee report accompanying the bill.
  The Environmental Protection Agency has reportedly given out 
unprecedented numbers of so-called small refinery hardship waivers to 
the renewable fuel standard. These are given, in some cases, to huge 
multibillion-dollar companies that probably would not be entitled to 
what is really a hardship.
  The EPA has yet to disclose what waivers it has granted and the 
rationale, but based on what has been reported, its actions seem pretty 
darn fishy, from my point of view. Refiners speaking with the press 
have noted:

       Anyone with a brain submitted an application. The EPA was 
     handing out those exemptions like trick or treat candy.

  The EPA is hiding behind a very narrow court case for specific 
refineries, as well as report language accompanying last year's Energy 
and Water appropriations bill. Neither I nor any other Senator voted 
for this report language. Report language accompanying bills are not 
actually law so they are not legally binding.
  Still, I wrote to the subcommittee that it should not include 
language purporting to tell the EPA to do anything other than follow 
the law. The law mandates blending 15 billion gallons of renewable 
fuels into our fuel supply. Estimates are that these retroactive 
waivers have reduced that by as much as 1.63 billion gallons. Every 
billion gallons lost equates to a loss of more than 2 million acres of 
harvested corn and an increase in emissions.
  My constituents are outraged at this activity by the EPA. Agriculture 
Secretary Perdue has called these waivers, in his words, ``demand 
destruction'' for biofuels.
  I wrote to the Energy and Water Subcommittee that it should urge the 
EPA to disclose the waivers it gives and the rationale for any of these 
grants and that any waivers should not result in a lowering of the 15 
billion gallon renewable volume obligation in the law.
  I am disappointed that the appropriators didn't include my 
commonsense language about transparency, but I am very upset that it 
renewed the previous language purporting to direct EPA how to consider 
small refinery waivers. The Appropriations Committee should drop the 
controversial report language and EPA should simply follow the law.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. DAINES. Madam President, I would like to thank my colleagues for 
their work on the Legislative Branch portion of the appropriations 
package because, for the first time in nearly a decade--a decade--the 
Legislative Branch bill received floor consideration outside of the 
year-end omnibus.
  Because it is our job to ensure the timely funding of our government, 
returning to regular order on the Legislative Branch bill and all our 
other appropriations bills is a much needed change.
  The Legislative Branch appropriations bill is good news for 
transparency, for accountability, for taxpayers, and for security of 
the Capitol.
  This bill will increase public access to campaign filings. It will 
strengthen accountability in how government property is used. It will 
also make investments that will help meet security needs on the Capitol 
campus.
  I thank Senator Murphy, my ranking member, for working with me, in a 
bipartisan manner, on amendments to the Legislative Branch division. 
The resulting bill makes sound investments in numerous priorities and 
will help ensure the operations of the legislative process.
  I also very much appreciate the leadership and efforts of Chairman 
Shelby and Vice Chairman Leahy on returning to regular order. I thank 
Senators Alexander, Feinstein, Boozman, and Schatz for their work on 
the other two bills in this package.
  I urge my colleagues to support the adoption of this package of 
appropriations bills.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam President, for the first time in a long time, we 
are bringing appropriations bill to the floor, debating amendments, and 
voting on legislation.
  Shortly, the Senate will be voting on the first fiscal year 2019 
spending bills. I am pleased the Military Construction and Veterans 
Affairs and related agencies appropriations bills are part of this 
package.
  This is a bipartisan bill that funds the critical infrastructure for 
our Nation's servicemembers, their families,

[[Page S4359]]

and takes care of America's 20 million veterans. This is a good step in 
returning to regular order, with the Senate considering appropriations 
legislation in a timely fashion.
  We owe thanks to Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Leahy for 
providing leadership for the transparent, bipartisan process.
  This bill was crafted in a truly open and collegial way. The 
subcommittee made thoughtful decisions about how to provide maximum 
readiness for the warfighter and prioritize investments to the VA so 
they can take care of our veterans.
  We took into account the request and preferences of all Members on 
both sides of the aisle and balanced it with the administration's 
budget submission. Within this framework, we have created a thoughtful 
and responsible path forward for both Departments and our related 
agencies.
  The bill provides $97.1 billion in discretionary spending, which is 
$5.1 billion over last year's level. Within that, the Department of 
Veterans Affairs has provided a new record level of resources of $86.4 
billion in discretionary funding, which is $5 billion over last year's 
level and $1.1 billion over the President's request. These resources 
will provide healthcare and other important benefits earned by U.S. 
servicemembers.
  The bill also provides $10.3 billion to support military construction 
and family housing needs, a $228 million increase over last year's 
level. This will fund a total of 169 military construction projects 
that restore warfighter readiness and increase the lethality of our 
installations.
  A lot of time and energy has gone into putting this legislation 
together. I thank my staff, Patrick Magnuson, Jennifer Bastin, Joanne 
Hoff, and Carlos Elias, and, of course, Senator Schatz and his staff--
again, both groups working together in a very bipartisan manner, 
working hard to address the needs of our servicemembers and our 
veterans.
  This is a good bill. It was reported out of committee without a 
single dissenting vote, and I hope we will have unanimous support when 
we vote on final passage. I ask my colleagues to support this bill.
  Thank you.
  With that, I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, U.S. Senators shouldn't get an award 
for restoring the appropriations process any more than Boy Scouts and 
Girl Scouts should get a merit badge for telling the truth because that 
is what we are supposed to do, but the fact is, last week and tonight 
we have taken an appropriations process, which has been incomplete and 
broken for the last several years, and we have done what we are 
supposed to do.
  Sometimes the U.S. Senate has been like joining the Grand Ole Opry 
and not being allowed to sing.
  Senator McConnell said before he became majority leader in 2015 that 
his goal was to follow the example of the Senate majority leader, Mike 
Mansfield, who was the leader when Mitch McConnell was a young 
legislative intern. Mitch McConnell said he wanted to open up the 
Senate, and for quite a while, that turned out to be the case.
  As Senator McConnell has said: In the last year of the Democratic 
majority in 2014, there were only 15 rollcall votes on amendments the 
entire year. In the first year of the Republican majority--that is 
2015--there were over 200.
  One example from the committee of which I chair--the Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee--was the bill fixing No Child 
Left Behind. Working with Senator Murray, on the floor we considered 81 
amendments. We had rollcall votes on 24, and we adopted 11. We had 
voice votes to accept 28, and we agreed to 27 amendments by unanimous 
consent. That was the bill to fix No Child Left Behind.
  Another example is the Energy and Water appropriations bill we 
considered 2 years ago. Working with Senator Feinstein of California, 
the Senate voted on 21 amendments and adopted 14.
  This year, we have fallen back into our bad habits with few amendment 
votes, but over this past week, we took an important step toward 
restoring the practice of considering appropriations bills under 
regular order.
  Just on the Energy and Water appropriations bill--one of the three we 
will be voting on tonight--we have worked together in a fair and 
bipartisan manner to get a result. We held three hearings, a 
subcommittee markup, a full committee markup. Eighty-three Senators 
made suggestions during the committee process--almost all of which we 
tried to accommodate in one way or another. Then, in committee, seven 
amendments were included in the managers' package, plus we had two 
rollcall votes and adopted one amendment.
  Then, on the floor, the Energy and Water appropriations bill has been 
considered with Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related 
Agencies appropriations bill and the Legislative Branch appropriations 
bill. For this package of bills, we adopted 7 amendments by rollcall 
and another 34 by unanimous consent. That adds up to what one might 
call restoring the practice of regular order for appropriations from 
start to finish.
  The committee process has almost always been done. The part that has 
often been missing was the last part, the floor consideration. That is 
what is different about this year.
  I thank Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer--the two leaders--
working with Senator Shelby and Senator Leahy--the chairman and ranking 
member--for creating an environment in which we can get this done. It 
wouldn't have happened if they had not done that.
  I also thank Senator Boozman, Senator Daines, Senator Feinstein, 
Senator Murphy, as well as Senator Schatz. We all worked together last 
week and got a result.
  As I said at the beginning, Senators shouldn't get a pat on the back 
for doing what we are supposed to do any more than Boy Scouts should 
get a merit badge for telling the truth, but we have done what we are 
supposed to do. It is an encouraging sign, and I hope it sets a 
precedent.
  For several years now, bipartisan majorities in Congress have 
appropriated record levels of taxpayer dollars for government-sponsored 
research, science, and technology. This hasn't always been noticed. 
President Trump has signed two of these appropriation bills, and I want 
to suggest that the President include government-sponsored research, 
science, and technology as part of his ``America First'' agenda.
  A principal reason the United States produces 24 percent of all the 
money in the world for just 5 percent of the people is the 
extraordinary concentration of brain power in the United States, 
supported by Federal dollars through our National Institutes of Health, 
our National Laboratories, the National Science Foundation, and other 
agencies.
  Senator Gardner of Colorado dropped by my office the other day, and 
he said this: I was flying over the Middle East, and I looked down, and 
there were cars everywhere. I thought, well, Henry Ford invented the 
assembly line. Then it got to be dark, and there were lights 
everywhere, and I thought, well, Thomas Edison invented the light bulb. 
We were flying at 30,000 feet, and I thought, well, the Wright brothers 
invented the airplane. They are all Americans. I got to thinking, of 
course, that is not all. We have invented the internet, polio vaccine, 
the personal computer, nuclear power.
  You could make a long list. It is hard to think of any major 
technological invention since World War II that didn't have some 
support from government-sponsored research.
  So I would like to tell President Trump and the Office of Management 
and Budget that science, research, innovation, and technology is what 
helped to make America first and that he include that in his America 
First agenda.
  The funding in this bill is a good first step toward doing that. It 
prioritizes Federal spending to keep America first in energy research, 
and it increases funding to build the fastest supercomputers in the 
world, and develop the next generation of supercomputers.
  Two weeks ago, Energy Secretary Rick Perry traveled to Oak Ridge, 
where he announced that the United States will regain the No. 1 
position in supercomputing in the world. We compete for that every year 
with China and Japan. To stay ahead of China and Japan and other 
countries--those in

[[Page S4360]]

Europe, for example--that are emphasizing science and technology and 
research costs money, but it is important to note that we have been 
able to do that with bipartisan majorities over the last several 
years--not by overspending. We did it by setting priorities.
  The record funding that is part of this bipartisan budget agreement 
is a part of the 30 percent of the spending in the Federal budget that 
has been going up at about the rate of inflation for the last 10 years, 
and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, it will go up a 
little bit more than the rate of inflation for the next 10 years.
  So our record funding is achieved by setting priorities within budget 
limits. It is not the part of the Federal budget that is breaking the 
bank. That is the entitlement part, not the National Laboratories, not 
the national defense, not the National Institutes of Health, and not 
the national parks. They are within the part of the budget that is 
under control.
  Funding in this bill supports several important agencies, including 
the U.S. Department of Energy, the Corps of Engineers, the National 
Nuclear Security Administration, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the 
Bureau of Reclamation, the Regional Commissions, including the 
Appalachian Regional Commission and the Delta Regional Authority.
  For the fourth consecutive year, as I was saying, we have included 
record funding levels in regular appropriations bills for the following 
activities: The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science. This is 
the outfit that funds our 17 National Laboratories--our secret weapon. 
No other country in the world has National Laboratories like we do. The 
Office of Science is the Nation's largest supporter of research in the 
physical sciences. It is funded at $6.65 billion, a new record level of 
funding.
  The Office of Science provides funding for the laboratories, 
including the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Funding for the Office of 
Science would increase by 6 percent next year if this legislation 
becomes law.
  Or let's take supercomputing. I mentioned that Secretary Perry went 
to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory last week. This bill provides a 
total of $1.68 billion for high-performance computing, including $980 
million within the Office of Science and $703 million within the 
National Nuclear Security Administration. This amount includes $677 
million to deliver at least one exascale machine in 2021 to reassert 
U.S. leadership in this critical area.
  This funding has been provided, on a bipartisan basis, for 10 years. 
I remember Senator Bingaman of New Mexico encouraging me to go to Japan 
to see their supercomputer when Japan was No. 1 in the world. Because 
of that after 10 years of effort and support from Presidents Bush, 
Obama, and Trump, when they signed the bill, America is now No. 1 in 
supercomputing.
  Or take an agency we call ARPA-E. It is funded at $375 million, 
record funding for a regular appropriations bill. ARPA-E, which is sort 
of a funny name, has a cousin with a funny name that is a little better 
known, named DARPA. DARPA is in the Department of Defense. Out of it 
has come wondrous new technologies from stealth to the internet, for 
example.
  So, 10 years ago, Congress decided to make an energy equivalent of 
DARPA, and we fund it every year to invest in high-impact energy 
technologies and quickly get these technologies out into the private 
sector.
  Another important part of this bill is the focus on efforts to clean 
up hazardous materials on Cold War-era sites. It provides $7.2 billion 
to support environmental cleanup, which is $581 million above the 
President's budget request.
  Still another important part of this bill is the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, which touches the lives of almost all Americans. Based upon 
the number of appropriations requests we get each year, the Corps of 
Engineers is the Federal Government's most popular agency.
  The Corps maintains our inland waterways. It deepens and keeps our 
ports open. It looks after many of our recreational waters and lands. 
It manages the river levels to prevent flooding. And its dams provide 
emission-free, renewable hydroelectric energy.
  I can recall when I was a member of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, after the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers flooded, a whole 
room full of Senators showed up to ask for more money for their States 
to deal with what was wrong and to make things right. There is a real 
interest in what the Corps does.
  The bill restores $2.142 billion that was cut by the President's 
budget request, bringing the Corps' budget up to $6.9 billion--a new 
record level of funding in a regular appropriations bill.
  For the fifth consecutive year, the bill makes full use of the Inland 
Waterways Trust Fund revenues for water infrastructure projects. What 
that means is we take the tax money we collect from people who use the 
locks, and we spend it all on what we are supposed to spend it for, 
which is making the locks better.
  The bill also provides funding that exceeds the Harbor Maintenance 
Trust Fund spending targets established by the Water Resources 
Development Act in 2014.
  This is the fifth consecutive year that the bill has met or exceeded 
that target, which is necessary to adequately fund our Nation's 
harbors, including the ones in Mobile, in Savannah, in Long Beach, and 
many others across the country.

  There is $14.8 billion for the National Nuclear Security 
Administration, including $1.9 billion for six life extension programs, 
which fix or replace components of weapons systems to make sure they 
are safe and reliable.
  We fund the Nuclear Regulatory Commission which oversees our 99 
nuclear reactors. Nuclear power provides 20 percent of our electricity 
and more than half of our carbon-free electricity.
  We include funding to ensure that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
is prepared to review applications for new reactors, particularly small 
reactors, advanced reactors, and to extend the licenses of our existing 
reactors when it is safe to do so.
  The bill also provides $47 million for research and development for 
the Department of Energy to support existing reactors, $30 million for 
the Center for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors, and $30 
million for the transformational challenge reactor.
  The legislation also includes a pilot program that Senator Feinstein 
especially has pushed, and I have joined her, to consolidate nuclear 
waste and move it away from the sites where they now are. Funding is 
also there to take the first steps toward being able to store nuclear 
waste in private facilities.
  In conclusion, it is important that the American people know that the 
Republican majority in Congress has worked with Democrats to provide 
record levels of funding for science, research, and technology. We want 
to keep America first on both sides of the aisle, and this bipartisan 
support is not limited to the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Subcommittee. It is true in our other subcommittees as 
well.
  The National Science Foundation has increased by $200 million this 
year and another $300 million for next year. It gives 11,000 grants to 
universities and institutions around the country. And, perhaps most 
important, in fiscal year 2018, for the third straight year, the 
subcommittee chaired by Senator Blunt and Senator Murray provided 
increased funding for the National Institutes of Health and biomedical 
research--$2 billion additional dollars in the first year, $2 billion 
the second year, and $2 billion the third year, which is in addition to 
the money--nearly $5 billion--in the 21st Century Cures Act that 
focuses on the Precision Medicine Initiative and the Cancer Moonshot, 
among other things.
  Senator Blunt says that over 3 years, that is a 23-percent increase.
  So I would say two things to those who haven't noticed this quiet 
development. No. 1: Congress is doing what it is supposed to do. We are 
not asking for an award any more than the Boy Scouts get a merit badge 
for telling the truth, but we are doing what we are supposed to do on 
appropriations from start to finish on these three bills.
  No. 2: We are funding science and research and technology at record 
levels--record levels. It is important to keep America competitive in 
the world.

[[Page S4361]]

  I thank our staffs who have worked together on this bill. On my staff 
are Tyler Owens, Adam DeMella, Meyer Seligman, Jen Armstrong, Molly 
Marsh, and Rachel Littleton.
  On Senator Feinstein's staff are Doug Clapp, Chris Hanson, and 
Samantha Nelson.
  I look forward to continuing with the regular order and going to 
conference with the House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues to 
vote in support of this legislation.
  I thank Senator Leahy and Senator Schatz, who are both on the floor, 
as well as Senator Schumer, Senator McConnell, and the other Senators 
who have spoken today for creating an environment that allows us to 
succeed.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I want to thank Chairman Alexander as 
well as Vice Chair Leahy, Chairman Shelby, Chairman Boozman, and many 
other people who have made this minibus work. We are going to adopt it 
tonight. I hope that our work over the last week has set the tone for 
the Senate's consideration of the remaining appropriations bills.
  We have opened debate and considered a number of amendments, and we 
have avoided controversial issues that have too often torpedoed our 
work in prior years. Between rollcall votes and the managers' package, 
we have adopted 40 amendments, including 14 to the MILCON-VA 
appropriations bill. This speaks volumes to the bipartisan cooperation 
that I expect will continue as we try to get back to some semblance of 
the regular order as it relates to the appropriations process.
  I especially want to thank my colleague from Arkansas, Chairman 
Boozman, for managing a fair amendment process and for working to keep 
the bill bipartisan. I want to thank subcommittee staff Patrick 
Magnuson, Jennifer Bastin, and Joanne Hoff. And from my subcommittee 
staff, I thank Chad Schulken and Jason McMahon. They worked late nights 
reviewing hundreds of amendments.
  I also want to thank our counterparts on the Energy and Water and 
Legislative Branch Subcommittees, and their staffs, for their great 
work over the past few months to put together bills that I believe will 
pass overwhelmingly today.
  Lastly, it is important to thank Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman 
Leahy for getting us to this point. By the end of the week, we will 
have reported out of the full committees all 12 government funding 
bills with 3 having passed the floor, and all before July 4. That is 
what is possible when there is a commitment to making this place work.
  I will just call out one particular moment that actually impressed 
me. Things got a little wobbly when the rescissions package, which was 
a privileged matter, hit the floor. We had a couple of tough 
conversations, but we navigated our way through that. Then there was an 
amendment offered that was in order, but it was about waters of the 
United States. Without getting into great detail about this, there is 
probably nothing that causes people to go put on their partisan jerseys 
more than WOTUS--waters of the United States. Chairman Shelby and many 
Republicans, including Leader McConnell, said, essentially: Listen, I 
am with you, Senator Lee, in principle, but this is not the bill on 
which to do this. That is the kind of discipline that is going to be 
required of both parties if we are going to keep the appropriations 
process on track and allow it to be held harmless from some of our more 
partisan disputes.
  Their strong leadership and that of their staffs--Shannon Hines, 
Jonathan Graffeo, and David Adkins from the majority and, of course, 
Chuck Kieffer, Chanda Betourney, and Jessica Berry from the minority--
have gotten us where we are today. I urge all of my colleagues to 
support the minibus package.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator 
from Tennessee and the Senator from Hawaii. I have enjoyed working with 
both of them because look where we are. This is somewhere we have not 
been for a number of years. It is where we used to be--certainly for 
the first few decades I was here. It is where we were when Senator 
Alexander or my hero, Senator Baker, were here.
  What we are doing is voting on final passage of the first package of 
Senate appropriations bills for fiscal year 2019. The minibus before us 
contains a string of appropriations bills: the Energy and Water 
appropriations bill, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs 
appropriations bill, and the Legislative Branch appropriations bill. We 
will have these votes in a matter of half an hour, and they will only 
take a few minutes, but there are hours and hours and days and weeks 
that went into this by both Republicans and Democrats.
  Chairman Shelby and I worked very closely with Senator McConnell and 
Senator Schumer. Both Senator Shelby as chairman and I as vice chairman 
committed to getting the appropriations process back on track. We both 
have been here when the Senate has been in a better place because the 
appropriations process worked. Our strategy has been to advance 
appropriations bills that have bipartisan support, comply with the 
budget deal and are free of poison pill riders or controversial 
authorizing legislation. What we have before us is the first test of 
that strategy. I think both Republicans and Democrats should be pretty 
pleased with the result.
  We had a good debate on this package of bills, including the last 
eight rollcall votes. We adopted a managers' package that contained 32 
amendments on which we have reached agreement. This minibus is the 
result of hard work and compromise on the part of the chair and ranking 
member of each subcommittee, and I urge Senators to vote aye on final 
passage.
  Importantly, during the debate on this package of bills, as just 
mentioned, the Senate voted to table a controversial amendment offered 
by Senator Lee to overturn the 2015 clean water rule related to waters 
of the United States. This rule was designed to prevent pollutants from 
spreading through tributaries into our Nation's drinking water supply. 
I felt that the amendment not only would have driven a stake through 
the heart of the clean water rule, it would have done so without having 
to abide by the Administrative Procedure Act, it would have effectively 
eliminated the American public from any participation in the process, 
and it would have sidestepped and allowed arbitrary and capricious 
standards, which we cannot have, if we had repealed the rule.
  I opposed this amendment not only because I believe that repealing 
the clean water rule would be shortsighted, and that doing it in this 
manner would set a terrible precedent for the next bedrock 
environmental regulation, but also because this is precisely the type 
of poison pill policy rider both Republicans and Democrats have worked 
so hard to avoid.
  The adoption of the Lee amendment would have endangered our ability 
to complete our work on the minibus. We tabled the amendment, and we 
had votes from both sides of the aisle, including from Senators who 
agreed with the substance of the Lee amendment, but they recognized 
this reality as well--that adopting it would stop the whole bill. That 
is how the process should work. By focusing on funding matters, by 
avoiding controversial policy riders, we have ended the Senate debate 
with a bipartisan product that both Democrats and Republicans can 
support.
  I went on at some length on this because I am concerned that the 
House is pursuing a different path. They are taking up partisan bills 
and filling them with poison pill riders that cannot and will not pass 
the U.S. Senate, and they know that, including a rider similar to the 
defeated Lee amendment. Democrats proceeded to this package of bills in 
good faith, and we will go into conference negotiations with that same 
approach, but if our progress is to continue, we cannot sign conference 
reports on bills that can't pass the Senate. They must be bills that 
can pass the Senate, bills that both Republicans and Democrats can vote 
for, and that means they have to be free of poison pills from the right 
or the left.
  This minibus provides significant resources for the support and care 
of our Nation's veterans and their family

[[Page S4362]]

members, and it makes critical investments in our country's water 
infrastructure and energy programs. It should not be used as a vehicle 
to advance a partisan political agenda.
  Before concluding my remarks, there is one issue we were not able to 
address in the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill that 
must be addressed in conference. The bill still does not provide enough 
money to cover the costs associated with the VA Choice Program, which 
was transferred to the discretionary side of the budget under the 
MISSION Act. The MISSION Act only provided funding for this program 
through May of 2019, leaving the balance unaddressed. To cover the 
shortfall, we are going to need an estimated $1.6 billion more in 
fiscal year 2019 and an additional $8.6 billion in fiscal year 2020 and 
$9.5 billion in fiscal year 2021 to cover the Veterans Affairs Choice 
Program. These costs were not accounted for when we negotiated the 
budget caps in the bipartisan budget deal, so the chairman and the 
ranking member of the subcommittee were unable to address the shortfall 
within their allocation without cutting funding for other important 
programs.

  Senator Shelby and I filed an amendment--the Complete the MISSION 
amendment--which would have provided the flexibility needed to make 
sure we fulfill this commitment to our veterans without triggering 
sequestration or without having to cut other valuable veterans 
programs.
  I would note that on June 19, we received a letter from 33 veterans 
service organizations representing millions of veterans, 
servicemembers, and their families in support of the amendment Chairman 
Shelby and I filed. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed 
in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  Unfortunately, we were not able to reach agreement to get a vote on 
our amendment or have it included in the managers' package, but 
Chairman Shelby and I remain committed to solving this problem in 
conference. If we don't do so, we will jeopardize the healthcare and 
well-being of the men and women who have faithfully served our country, 
who relied on the promises made by our country when they served our 
country, and I am not willing to accept going back on our country's 
promise.
  I thank Chairman Shelby, and I thank the Republican chairs and the 
Democratic ranking members of each subcommittee for their hard work. As 
the longest serving Member of this body, I think we provided a roadmap 
to consider the rest of the appropriations bills, going back to doing 
it the way we have done it under both Republican and Democratic 
leadership and where the country is better off.
  I also want to thank Shannon H. Hines, Jonathan Graffeo, David 
Adkins, Tyler Owens, Jen Armstrong, Adam DeMella, Meyer Seligman, 
Rachel Littleton, Molly Marsh, Sarah Boliek, Lucas Agnew, Patrick 
Magnuson, Jennifer Bastin, Joanne Hoff, and Carlos Elias of the 
majority staff and Charles Kieffer, Chanda Betourney, Doug Clapp, Chris 
Hanson, Samantha Nelson, Melissa Zimmerman, Jean Kwon, Chad Schulken, 
Jason McMahon, Jessica Berry, and Jordan Stone on the minority staff 
for their work on these bills.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    June 19, 2018.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Majority Leader,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Johnny Isakson,
     Chairman, Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Chuck Schumer,
     Minority Leader,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jon Tester,
     Ranking Member, Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Leader McConnell, Leader Schumer, Chairman Isakson and 
     Ranking Member Tester: On behalf of the millions of veterans, 
     service members and family members we represent and advocate 
     for, we want to first thank you for passage of the VA MISSION 
     Act (P.L. 115-182), historic legislation that will 
     consolidate and reform VA's community care programs; 
     strengthen VA's ability to recruit, hire and retain medical 
     personnel; review, realign and modernize VA's health care 
     infrastructure; and extend eligibility to VA's comprehensive 
     caregiver assistance program to veterans severely injured 
     before September 11, 2001. With the law set to begin taking 
     effect next year, it is imperative that Congress now ensure 
     that VA has the resources necessary to fully and faithfully 
     implement the many critical provisions of this legislation.
       For that reason, we urge you and all Senators to support 
     and vote for Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman Leahy's new 
     ``Complete the Mission'' amendment, which would allow 
     Congress to provide VA with sufficient resources required to 
     implement the provisions of the VA MISSION Act, without 
     triggering sequestration or requiring cuts to other VA 
     programs.
       As you know, the VA MISSION Act would effectively move 
     funding responsibility for care currently provided through 
     the Veterans Choice Program from mandatory appropriations to 
     a new discretionary program that must fit within overall 
     domestic discretionary caps. However, the current domestic 
     discretionary budget cap for FY 2019, and the anticipated 
     caps for FY 2020 and FY 2021, did not contemplate the new and 
     increased costs associated with the VA MISSION Act. As such, 
     Congress may not have the ability to fully fund all of the 
     programs, benefits and services that our veterans, their 
     families and survivors have earned.
       It is imperative that VA not be forced to choose between 
     fully funding its hospitals and clinics for veterans seeking 
     care inside the VA health care system, or fully funding 
     community care for veterans who would otherwise be forced to 
     wait too long or travel too far to access VA care. We do not 
     want to return to a time when veterans were forced onto 
     waiting lists to get the care they have earned through their 
     service and sacrifice.
       The new Shelby-Leahy ``Complete the Mission'' amendment 
     would allow Congress to appropriate additional discretionary 
     funding to meet the new requirements of the VA MISSION Act 
     without triggering sequestration. However, unlike a prior 
     amendment that had been discussed, this amendment would limit 
     the amount of such funding to just $1.6 billion for FY 2018, 
     $8.67 billion for FY 2019 and $9.5 billion for FY 2020.
       We are very concerned that without assurance of sufficient 
     funding, reform and modernization of the VA health care 
     system--which millions of ill and injured veterans rely on--
     could be delayed or endangered. Further, tens of thousands of 
     caregivers for severely injured veterans might have to 
     continue waiting before they can receive the benefits they 
     deserve. For these reasons, it is absolutely critical that 
     the Shelby-Leahy ``Complete the Mission'' amendment to the 
     MilCon-VA Appropriations bill be adopted by the Senate, 
     approved by the House, and enacted into law.
       As leaders of the nation's veterans and military service 
     organizations, we again want to thank you for approving the 
     VA MISSION Act in order to fulfill the promises our nation 
     owes to the men and women who served. We now call on you to 
     ensure that VA has sufficient funding to implement this 
     legislation by supporting and voting for the Shelby-Leahy 
     ``Complete the Mission'' amendment to the MilCon-VA 
     Appropriations bill. Millions of injured and ill veterans and 
     their family caregivers are counting on your support.
           Respectfully,
       Garry J. Augustine, Washington Executive Director, DAV 
     (Disabled American Veterans); Louis Celli, Jr., Executive 
     Director, Government & Veterans Affairs, The American Legion; 
     Joseph R. Chenelly, Executive Director, AMVETS; Dana T. 
     Atkins, Lieutenant General, U.S. Air Force (Ret.), President, 
     Military Officers Association of America; Robert E. Wallace, 
     Executive Director, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United 
     States; Carl Blake, Executive Director, Paralyzed Veterans of 
     America; Rick Weidman, Executive Director for Policy, Vietnam 
     Veterans of America; Rene Bardof, Senior Vice President, 
     Government & Community Relations, Wounded Warrior 
     Project; Paul Rieckhoff, Founder and CEO, Iraq and 
     Afghanistan Veterans of America; Steve Schwab, Executive 
     Director, Elizabeth Dole Foundation; Norman Rosenshein, 
     Chairman, Jewish War Veterans of the USA; Jon Ostrowski, 
     Senior Chief, USCGR, Retired, Director, Government 
     Affairs, Non Commissioned Officers Association; RADM 
     Christopher Cole, USN (Ret.), National Executive Director, 
     Association of the United States Navy; Michael Cowan MD, 
     VADM USN (Ret), Executive Director, AMSUS; Neil Van Ess, 
     National Commander, Military Order of the Purple Heart.
       Deirdre Park Holleman, Esq, Washington Executive Director, 
     The Retired Enlisted Association; Bonnie Carroll, President 
     and Founder, Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors; Randy 
     Reid, Executive Director, U.S. Coast Guard Chief Petty 
     Officers Association; Paul K. Hopper, Colonel, USMC (Ret.), 
     National President, Marine Corps Reserve Association; 
     Kristina Kaufman, Executive Director, Code of Support 
     Foundation.
       Joseph C. Bogart MA, Executive Director, Blinded Veteran's 
     Association; John H. Madigan, Jr., Vice President and Chief 
     Public Policy Officer, American Foundation for Suicide 
     Prevention; James T. (Jim) Currie, Ph.D., Colonel, USA 
     (Ret.), Executive Director, Commissioned Officers 
     Association, of the U.S. Public Health Service; CW4 (Ret.) 
     Jack Du Teil, Executive Director, United States Army Warrant 
     Officers Association; E.J. Sinclair, Army Aviation 
     Association of America; Harriet Boyden, Gold Star Wives of 
     America; James R. Sweeney, Reserve Officers Association; 
     Thomas J. Snee, National

[[Page S4363]]

     Executive Director, Fleet Reserve Association; Jim Lorraine, 
     President/CEO, America's Warrior Partnership; Keith Reed, 
     Executive Director, Air Force Sergeants Association; 
     Representative of the Enlisted Association of the National 
     Guard of the US; Michael P. Hughes, Naval Enlisted Reserve 
     Assn.; Lydia Watts, Service Women's Action Network.

                  Alphabetical List of Letter Signers

       1. Air Force Sergeants Association (AFSA)
       2. American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP)
       3. America's Warrior Partnership
       4. The American Legion
       5. AMSUS, The Society of Federal Health Professionals
       6. AMVETS (American Veterans)
       7. Army Aviation Association of America (AAAA)
       8. Association of the US Navy (AUSN)
       9. Blinded Veterans Association (BVA)
       10. Code of Support Foundation (COSF)
       11. Commissioned Officers Association of the US Public 
     Health Services Inc (COA)
       12. DAV (Disabled American Veterans)
       13. Elizabeth Dole Foundation (EDF)
       14. Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the US 
     (EANGUS)
       15. Fleet Reserve Association (FRA)
       16. Gold Star Wives of America (GSW)
       17. Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA)
       18. Jewish War Veterans (JWV)
       19. Marine Corps Reserve Association (MCRA)
       20. Military Officers Association of America (MOAA)
       21. Military Order of the Purple Heart (MOPH)
       22. Naval Enlisted Reserve Association (NERA)
       23. Non Commissioned Officers Association of the USA (NCOA)
       24. Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA)
       25. Reserve Officers Association (ROA)
       26. Service Women's Action Network (SWAN)
       27. The Retired Enlisted Association (TREA)
       28. Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS)
       29. US Army Warrant Officers Association (USAWOA)
       30. USCG Chief Petty Officers Association (CPOA)
       31. Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW)
       32. Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA)
       33. Wounded Warrior Project (WWP)

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I do not see anybody seeking recognition.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moran). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, before we vote this afternoon, I want to 
thank my colleagues in the Senate, provide a status update on the 
appropriations processes before us, and urge the Senate to stay the 
course.
  First, I thank Leaders McConnell and Schumer for bringing this 
package to the floor and facilitating an open amendment process.
  I also thank the bill managers--particularly Senator Alexander--for 
their work in crafting strong bipartisan bills and keeping the process 
on track.
  In addition, I express my appreciation to Senator Leahy, the vice 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Vice Chairman Leahy is a man 
of his word, and that has been essential to the committee's ability to 
move bills.
  Finally, I thank all of my colleagues for their cooperation and their 
input during floor consideration of this package.
  At the outset of this debate, I challenged all Senators to follow 
through on their calls for a return to regular order. To that end, 
several amendments received up-or-down votes on the floor, and dozens 
more from both sides were included in the managers' package. We also 
rejected controversial authorizing provisions for the good of the 
process.
  As we are getting ready to vote on final passage, I hope my 
colleagues agree that we are headed in the right direction. I recognize 
that this package must still be reconciled with the House version 
before we can get it to the President's desk, but I am optimistic that 
we can do that in short order.
  We also cannot forget that nine other appropriations bills remain. 
The Appropriations Committee has already reported seven of these 
remaining bills to the full Senate, all with strong bipartisan margins.
  This week, the committee will mark up the final two appropriations 
bills--Defense and Labor-HHS--and I am hoping for a similar result.
  While we are about a quarter of a way through the 2019 appropriations 
process, we still have a long way to go, but we do have a framework for 
success--no poison pill riders, no new authorizations of law, no 
nongermane provisions. I have said it many times before, and I will 
keep saying it: This is the basis of the agreement I have with Vice 
Chairman Leahy. This is the approach our subcommittee chairmen and 
ranking members have adopted in producing strong and balanced bills. 
This is the way to avoid the catch-all spending measures and shutdowns 
we all detest. This is how the appropriations process is supposed to 
work. This is simply what the American people expect both parties to 
do.
  Looking ahead, I don't think any of us are naive about the potential 
for partisan politics to snake its way back into the appropriations 
process. Tomorrow is a different day, as we know, after all. But we all 
have a constitutional responsibility to allocate taxpayer money in a 
deliberate manner, and we have a viable path forward. So it is my hope 
that today marks a new day for the appropriations process in the U.S. 
Senate.
  To all of my colleagues, I want to thank you for your cooperation. I 
ask that you continue to work with us in the weeks ahead so that we can 
successfully pass all 12 appropriations bills on the Senate floor.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to support the bill that will come 
before the Senate in a few minutes.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the 
bill pass?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
Graham), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from 
Arizona (Mr. McCain, and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Georgia (Mr. 
Isakson) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), 
the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Cortez Masto), the Senator from Illinois 
(Ms. Duckworth), and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 86, nays 5, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 139 Leg.]

                                YEAS--86

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Grassley
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall

[[Page S4364]]


     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--5

     Gillibrand
     Lee
     Markey
     Paul
     Warren

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Booker
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Flake
     Graham
     Isakson
     Klobuchar
     McCain
     Sullivan
  The bill (H.R. 5895), as amended, was passed.

                          ____________________