[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 135 (Wednesday, August 15, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5601-S5611]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 RECESS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
stand in recess until 2:15 p.m.
  There being no objection, the Senate, at 12:36 p.m., recessed until 
2:15 p.m. and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer 
(Mr. Cotton).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                         Endangered Species Act

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would like to spend time this 
afternoon talking about something I continue to hear about in Wyoming. 
I heard about it a lot over the past week. I heard about it last night 
in Sundance, WY. It is the Endangered Species Act.
  The Endangered Species Act became law in 1973. That was 45 years ago. 
It was a bipartisan vote. The law has resulted in a lot of great work 
to save species from extinction. We have seen species such as the bald 
eagle come back from the brink of being almost completely wiped out. 
That is a great example of what this law was intended to do--to 
identify species in danger and to help them recover.
  The problem is that there aren't enough examples like the bald eagle 
to point to because the goal of the law was to help species get to the 
point where they no longer needed the protection of the Endangered 
Species Act. We would put them on the list, they would recover, and 
then they would come off the list. That was the goal of the bipartisan 
legislation. That is how it was supposed to work.
  Let's look at what has actually happened. Since the law was put on 
the books, Washington has put 2,424 different species of plants and 
animals on the list. Only 54 have ever come off the list because they 
actually recovered. That is just 54 species in 45 years. That is less 
than 3 percent. I am a doctor. As a doctor, if I were to admit 100 
patients to the hospital and only 3 out of every 100 I admitted 
recovered enough to be discharged, maybe those patients ought to look 
for a different doctor. We are now in the same situation the Endangered 
Species Act.
  When it comes to the Endangered Species Act, the status quo is not 
good enough. We need to do more than just put species on the list and 
leave them in the intensive care unit without a plan for recovery; we 
need to see them actually recover. That is the whole point.
  The Endangered Species Act has not been substantially amended or 
updated in 30 years. That is a long time for a law to stay on the books 
without actually trying to improve it--and improvement is necessary. 
Americans across the country are telling us it is time. The Endangered 
Species Act needs to be modernized. As a former Governor of Wyoming, 
Dave Freudenthal, who came back to testify in front of the Environment 
and Public Works Committee, said, ``It just has too much sand in the 
gears.''
  Well, maybe the problem with the Endangered Species Act doesn't seem 
so clear to bureaucrats in Washington, DC, but when you go out West to 
places like my home State of Wyoming, the problems are obvious. We see 
how the law is failing to help species. We see it every day in Wyoming, 
and it comes up continually in my discussions with folks at home. We 
see how it is failing the communities--communities that suffer under 
the law's ineffective and burdensome redtape. That is why States in the 
West are tackling this issue when Washington, DC, has done so very 
little over the last decades.
  Three years ago, the Western Governors' Association--a bipartisan 
group--began looking at ways to modernize the law to help the Western 
States. The chairman of the group was Matt Mead, our Governor in 
Wyoming. He set up a special bipartisan initiative that has been 
working on this issue all of that time. They talked with people across 
the political spectrum--liberals, conservatives, Republicans, 
Democrats--people from all different backgrounds, and they came up with 
some practical and sensible policy recommendations.
  Last month, I released a discussion draft of legislation based on the 
principles from the Western Governors' Association and the policies 
that they are promoting and recommending to help all of the States in 
the West. It is an effort to recreate what the Western Governors' 
Association's bipartisan process has done and recreate it right here in 
the Senate. I received a supportive letter from the group that was 
signed by its Republican chairman and its Democratic vice chairman, 
Governor Daugaard of South Dakota and Governor Ige of Hawaii--both 
supporting our initiative. I think it shows we are on the right path.
  We also based this discussion draft on input from two hearings that I 
chaired in the Committee on Environment and Public Works. We heard from 
a diverse and bipartisan group of witnesses. We heard from Dave 
Freudenthal, the Democratic former Governor of Wyoming, and from Fish 
and Wildlife directors from across the country. Most said that the 
principles set forth by the Western Governors' Association were a good 
starting point for modernizing the Endangered Species Act.
  One important step that we take in this draft legislation is to 
elevate the role that States actually play in implementing the law. We 
make them full partners with Washington, DC. It is necessary and the 
time is right because when the law was written, States didn't have the 
conservation capacity they have today. Over the last 45 years, States 
have dramatically expanded their expertise and their ability to manage 
species. They have done a remarkable job over the past 45 years. State 
and local experts are the ones on the ground. They understand the 
situation, and they work with the species on a daily basis. They know 
the needs of these species and the unique challenges they face, the 
habitats, and the threats to the species.
  My draft bill gives States the opportunity to lead wildlife 
conservation efforts because they are the most prepared and the most 
able to do it. States

[[Page S5602]]

need to be playing a significant role in recovering and in managing 
these species.
  There are about 11,000 people working for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service combined--11,000 
individuals. Conservation efforts at the State level have more than 
50,000 people--more than 4 to 1--working on these critical issues. 
There are more than 11,000 wildlife biologists and 10,000 wildlife law 
enforcement officers at the State level. States are now spending close 
to $6 billion a year collectively on conservation efforts. It is clear 
that America's conservation power is in the States, not in Washington, 
DC. That is where the action is, where the money is, where the 
intelligence is, where the training is, and where the knowledge is. 
That is where people want to be working. These State agencies are in 
the field every day working to protect wildlife.
  Another thing this draft legislation does is to establish recovery 
teams for the species that are listed on the endangered species list. 
The goal is to develop and implement specific recovery plans for each 
species. The idea is to make the law more transparent so specific 
recovery goals are clear to everyone. It provides more of the 
regulatory certainty that communities across this country need. We also 
have to make sure that the species that are most in need get the 
resources first.
  Again, this isn't some idea that someone came up with behind closed 
doors in Washington, DC--not at all. This whole effort is based on 
feedback from the 19 States and 3 U.S. territories that are part of the 
Western Governors' Association. Wyoming Governor Matt Mead testified at 
a recent hearing that my bill is in line with what the States are 
looking for. He said that it ``represents a reasonable way'' to start a 
national dialogue on the subject, just like the Western Governors did. 
That is why 130 organizations have already written to express their 
support for this effort.
  There are some groups out there who don't want any change to the law. 
They want to keep adding to the list and letting the list grow. They 
don't seem to care whether the species ever recover enough to come off 
the list, which was the goal of the original legislation. I think that 
approach for all of us is not good enough.
  I want to find a bipartisan path to modernize the Endangered Species 
Act. Let's follow the lead of these western Governors. Let's have that 
same bipartisan discussion in the Senate. The Endangered Species Act is 
an important law. Yes, it can be improved. We need more examples like 
we have with the bald eagle. Recovering these species must be the goal, 
not just putting them on life support and leaving them. Let's work 
together to make the Endangered Species Act work better for species and 
for people.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). The Senator from Florida.


                 Drilling in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico

  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, there was a new report published in 
POLITICO today that read that oil industry lobbyists have been 
consulting with the Trump administration about drilling off of Florida 
in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf of Mexico, off of Florida, is 
off limits to drilling, pursuant to a law that Senator Mel Martinez and 
I passed in 2006 that prohibits any drilling up until the year 2022.
  The U.S. Department of Defense--specifically, the Air Force, which 
runs the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range--has asked us to extend 
that moratorium on any oil-related activities until at least the year 
2027. The Air Force is requesting this simply because the Eglin Gulf 
Test and Training Range is the largest test and training range in the 
world for the U.S. military.
  When the eastern training for the U.S. Navy was shut down in the 
Atlantic because the training range at the island of Vieques had been 
shut down, most of the Navy training for the Atlantic came to the gulf 
test and training range, not even to speak of the huge U.S. Air Force 
bases--Eglin Air Force Base, where all of our American and foreign 
pilots are trained on the F-35, as well as Tyndall Air Force Base, 
where similar training is done for our American pilots on the F-22.
  In addition, the training range is of such a significant distance and 
square mileage that it allows some of the most sophisticated weapons to 
travel hundreds of miles in the testing of those weapons, most of them 
by air. They can either impact in the sea at a potential target or can 
impact on land, at the giant Eglin Air Force Base. As a result, this is 
an extremely valuable national asset. The training and testing not only 
takes place in the air, over the Gulf of Mexico, but it also takes 
place on the surface and, in some cases, underwater.
  The U.S. military has asked us not to mess with the gulf test and 
training range. Yet, as we speak--and from this report in POLITICO 
today--efforts are being made by the oil industry to get the Trump 
administration to allow up to 75 miles off the coastline of Florida to 
be drilled. I want to show you what that would do to the heart of the 
gulf test and training range.
  All of this area in yellow is off limits until the year 2022 to any 
oil-related activities. You see the State of Florida. You see 
Pensacola, Eglin Air Force Base, here at Fort Walton, and the Tyndall 
Air Force Base, here at Panama City, and the rest of the peninsula of 
Florida. These are the Florida Keys and the Naval Air Station Key West, 
which is where a lot of those Navy squadrons of F/A-18s come down and 
will train for a week or two. When they lift off from the runway on 
Boca Chica, within a couple of minutes, they are over restricted 
airspace. So they don't have to spend a lot of fuel or time in getting 
to their training area.
  You see the enormity of this area that is shaded in yellow. From 
here, this area is 125 miles off the coast, but in a line from Tampa 
Bay, it is 235 miles. From a line off of Naples, it is more like 285 or 
290 miles. It is a huge area that is preserved for national security--
for the training and testing of some of our most sophisticated weapons.
  As has been reported in POLITICO today, if the Trump administration 
were to allow the oil industry to drill up to 75 miles off the coast, 
then you will have a line that will be approximately like that, and you 
will see what you have done. You will have cut the heart out of the 
gulf test and training range for our U.S. military.
  I could tell you that as long as this Senator is here to protect this 
training range, that is not going to occur. Yet we passed this in 2006, 
and there have been attempts, time after time, of trying to invade this 
military space, especially everything east of this longitude line, 
which is considered the military mission line. For the sake of our 
national security, I don't think we want to do this.
  Just to give you an idea of how large and how valuable an asset this 
restricted space is, if you were to take the Nevada test site, which is 
a famous test site, especially with all of its supersecret stuff, and 
were to superimpose it on the gulf test and training range, it would be 
a minor part of the land or surface area of the Earth compared to the 
size of the gulf test and training range.
  Here, again, we have an example where, early in the year, the Trump 
administration comes out and says they are going to drill and offer 
leases off the entire Outer Continental Shelf of the United States. 
Then, in a political stunt, the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Zinke, 
comes to Florida and says: Oh, we are not going to do that off of 
Florida when, in fact, time after time, we have information--including 
this report in POLITICO today--that says they are, and they are up to 
75 miles.
  We are not going to do that to the U.S Military, to the Department of 
Defense. We are not going to take away the heart of their most 
significant test and training range, and if anybody wants to have a 
fight about it, this Senator is ready to fight.
  Instead of proposing this, what we ought to be doing is what the Air 
Force asks, and that is to extend out this moratorium and law on any 
drilling from the year 2022 to at least 2027. That is what this 
Senator--and I think I can speak for the Florida delegation in a 
bipartisan way--wants to accomplish.


                                Tariffs

  Mr. President, today, in Jacksonville, I saw firsthand how the Trump 
administration's tariffs are starting to cut jobs and threaten the very 
manufacturing facilities we are trying to encourage.

[[Page S5603]]

  I had reported to the Senate several months ago that I had also 
visited the Budweiser brewery in Jacksonville, where they produce 3.3 
billion aluminum cans a year, and how a tariff, or tax, of 10 percent 
added to that imported aluminum would pretty soon add up to real money.
  Today I went to a manufacturing plant that had actually brought 
business from China. This is a manufacturing company that puts 
together, manufactures garbage cans, the kinds that have the lids that 
pop up on the top when you step on the foot pedal. They are in various 
sizes. The ones I saw being manufactured today are about that much in 
diameter or a larger size, about that much in diameter.
  This manufacturer, which is the same company that also manufactures 
in China, but it is done with human labor in China, imports the 
preprepared steel, and then, because of American creativity and Yankee 
ingenuity, it acquired robots and created a process where they are 
assisted by humans. In one case, I saw a factory worker who could do 
the very same task faster than the robot can.
  They put together these garbage cans for, lo and behold, Walmart. 
Walmart will not pay any more for the ones manufactured in America than 
the ones manufactured in China. Of course, the ones manufactured in 
China are the ones they are getting because they are cheaper. In large 
part, that is because the cost of labor is cheaper. This company 
created a new manufacturing process where this can be done as cheaply 
as it is done in China and therefore has created 60 jobs, in this 
particular plant I visited today, just since it opened up last year. 
When you add all of the ancillary jobs and the suppliers, you are 
talking about 250 jobs being affected.
  Here is the problem. The problem is the 25-percent tariff on the 
imported steel sheets that come from China. If the manufacturer has to 
add on 25 percent to the cost of his garbage can, obviously, that is 
not going to be competitive, since they are selling that garbage can 
and can still just make it at the same price they import that garbage 
can from China. This is wrong.
  Unless that tariff, that tax, is turned off by President Trump, those 
jobs are going to be lost. That old warehouse facility, which has been 
modernized with all of this state-of-the-art robotic equipment, $15 
million worth of equipment, all of that is going to go away. That is 
not what we want. That is not what is good for America. We want to keep 
the manufacturing jobs here. We want to bring manufacturing jobs here.
  This particular company thinks that since this has been a successful 
financial operation and their big customer is Walmart, they can expand 
into many other products and do the manufacturing in America instead of 
in China--but a 25-percent tariff on imported steel is going to kill 
it. That is why it is important that we try to get President Trump to 
recognize that this is doing harm to America instead of doing good.

  I saw that directly and very vividly. I saw employees who were hard 
at work. I saw a rundown area that has suddenly sprung back to life. I 
saw an old, dilapidated, abandoned warehouse that had suddenly become a 
new, modernized, high-tech facility. I don't want that to go away. I 
want that and all of the businesses that are getting so hurt all over 
America and especially in my State of Florida--what about the boat 
manufacturers?
  We have a big boatbuilding industry. The boat manufacturers import a 
lot of aluminum. Now there is a 10-percent tax on them. That is the 
tariff, but because of President Trump imposing that tariff, now there 
is a retaliatory tariff put on by the European Union, Canada, and 
Mexico for those products--in this case, boats. The company is Correct 
Craft. They are the ones that build the very nice ski boats under the 
label ``Nautique.'' Canada responded with a 10-percent retaliatory 
tariff. The European Union responded with a 25-percent retaliatory 
tariff on boats exported from the United States to those countries as 
well as Mexico.
  They can't be competitive if they are selling boats in the European 
Union, and there is a 25-percent hike in the price. That is not going 
to be competitive with the other boat manufacturers in other parts of 
the world.
  My visit today in Jacksonville to the company that makes these 
garbage cans for Walmart is another reminder of just how bad these 
tariffs are that the President has imposed and how counterproductive it 
is to the creation of American jobs.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                            Opioid Epidemic

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I want to talk today about the opioid 
epidemic that has gripped my State of Ohio and so many other States 
represented by Members of the Chamber. This is now the No. 1 killer in 
Ohio. It has surpassed car accidents. It is the No. 1 cause of death 
for Americans under the age of 50. Unfortunately, although some are 
saying we have turned the corner, we haven't turned the corner in a lot 
of parts of my State. In fact, there are areas of my State where there 
have been more overdose deaths this year than there were last year. As 
tragic as last year was--and there was a big increase from the year 
before--I do believe that in this Chamber, we have made progress in 
passing legislation, which is beginning to make a difference. I will 
talk a little bit about that today. I also believe we have much more to 
do.
  In the last couple of years, Congress has gotten busy on this issue. 
In 2016, we passed legislation called the Comprehensive Addiction and 
Recovery Act. It was the culmination of 4 years' worth of work--
conferences here in Washington; bringing together some of the best 
minds from around the country; looking at some of the best practices to 
say ``How do you actually focus on this issue of the opioid epidemic in 
a comprehensive way?'' because we know that is what has to be done. It 
was about evidence-based prevention, strategies, evidence-based 
treatment, and longer term recovery. It was actually the first time 
Congress had ever passed legislation dealing with longer term recovery, 
and that is because we heard so much testimony--I, back home in Ohio, 
and Members from around the country but also here in Washington--from 
experts about the fact that when you go into treatment, particularly 
for this opioid epidemic, the chances of success are increased 
dramatically if you have longer term recovery. Think of sober housing 
opportunities, for instance, after somebody comes out of treatment, to 
help get them on the right track.
  That bipartisan legislation I introduced with Senator Sheldon 
Whitehouse is now working back home. It is now going out to programs 
that are evidence-based, proven programs, to try to give them a little 
boost, working with local government, State government, nonprofits, and 
others, leveraging some of the Federal money so that it ends up making 
a bigger difference in trying to turn the tide on this epidemic.
  Maybe most important, this legislation, which is called the 
Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, CARA--maybe the most 
important thing about CARA is that it recognizes addiction as a 
disease. In some respect, it was the first time we had done that as a 
Congress as well. Recognizing it as a disease changes the way you view 
treatment because it is something that is not a moral failing. In fact, 
it is often caused by an accident or an injury--somebody getting a 
prescription pill that changes something in their brain, and they 
become addicted.
  The point is, in order to solve it, in order to address it, treatment 
is the avenue that is going to be more successful. I think treating it 
like a disease is one of the essential aspects of it. Also, pulling 
away the stigma, getting some of the stigma out of the way, enables 
more people to come forward to get treatment for their family members, 
to seek treatment for a loved one, and enables doctors and others in 
the medical profession to treat people in a way that helps get them on 
the right path to recovery.
  That legislation passed. In fact, earlier this year, in the 
bipartisan budget agreement, there was additional funding put aside for 
CARA and for other opioid programs, including one I will talk about in 
second, and that was very important. That 2-year funding bill provided 
$6 billion over 2 years. That is unprecedented. We have never done 
anything like that around here.
  Are we making progress? Yes. Are we there yet? No. In my view, the 
CARA

[[Page S5604]]

legislation was the right first step, but there is a second step now 
that is needed, which is called CARA 2.0, the Comprehensive Addiction 
Recovery Act 2.0. It learns from some of the things that we have found 
in the field as CARA has been implemented. It picks up some additional 
provisions. For instance, it talks about the need to deal even more 
substantially with overprescribing because most people who die in your 
State or mine from an opioid overdose started with prescription drugs. 
That was their first opioid.
  Earlier, I mentioned that people who might have had an accident or 
injury are given opioids. We need to stop that overprescribing in order 
to get at the core of so much of this problem. Probably 8 out of 10 
people in Ohio who overdose on heroin or fentanyl started on 
prescription drugs--sometimes obtained legally and sometimes not.
  It breaks my heart to have a young person come to my office and say 
``I had my wisdom tooth taken out''--this has happened to me fairly 
frequently because people know I am focused on this issue--``and this 
doctor gave me opioids, pills, for a wisdom tooth removal.'' In the 
cases recently in my office, it has been a young person saying ``I was 
too smart to take them.'' Thank goodness. Be careful. To the parents 
out there and the kids who are listening, be careful.
  Our CARA 2.0 legislation includes, by the way, a 3-day limit on 
prescription drugs for acute pain. Acute pain would be after a 
procedure like that, as an example. The dentists I know--including the 
new head of the American Dental Association, who has a passion for this 
issue because he is from Cincinnati, my hometown--understand the impact 
of this. A lot of people I talk to say you should not be using opioids 
at all in that case. When I had my wisdom teeth taken out, I wasn't 
given opioids, nor were many in my generation. Yet that seems to be 
normal today. This is an example in CARA 2.0 of going even further, but 
in the meantime, we have the CARA legislation out there. It is being 
funded. That is a good thing.
  The other legislation is called the Cures legislation. That funding 
goes directly to the State and then is delivered to various groups 
around the State, usually through the Alcohol, Drug Addiction, and 
Mental Health Boards, the ADAMHS Boards. Some of you know about those 
and probably have been involved in those. That was passed at the end of 
2016. It was passed as part of the 21st Century Cures legislation, 
which was broader legislation, but we made sure that opioids were 
included there.
  I thank my colleagues for working with me on that. There were so 
many, but Lamar Alexander, the Senator from Tennessee, stands out as an 
appropriator and authorizer who knew we needed to get some more funding 
out to these States, particularly States like mine and his that are so 
hard hit. I thank Shelly Moore Capito from West Virginia, a State that 
probably is, unfortunately, No. 1 now in terms of overdose deaths. Ohio 
is right behind it. West Virginia is another State that has been hit 
hard. So many colleagues of mine fought to ensure that there was 
funding in that legislation. It is making a difference as well.
  Last year, my home State of Ohio received $26 million, for instance, 
in Cures funding and just recently, another $26 million, which is being 
distributed now. These two laws, CARA and Cures, are helping and 
encouraging innovative programs across Ohio. I have had an opportunity 
to visit a lot of these programs around the State. I have been to 
dozens of treatment centers and to roundtable discussions and 
communities to talk about how this funding can be used most 
effectively. Let me give a couple of examples.
  The week before last, I was in the Columbus area, in a town called 
Whitehall. I went to the fire station to have a roundtable discussion 
about this with community leaders and to see how their program, which 
is called SAFE, is working. It is called the SAFE Station Program, and 
it was made possible with a $400,000 grant through the CARA 
legislation. This funding has been used to train our firefighters, EMS 
personnel, so they understand how to deal with the opioid issues so 
that when there is an overdose, they can help somebody go into 
treatment.
  This is important for a couple of reasons. This seems very simple. 
Unfortunately, there is a big gap right now in most of our communities. 
I encourage you to plug in to your own community to find out whether it 
is happening in yours because it probably is; that is, someone who 
overdoses is now typically saved by this miracle drug called Narcan. 
Our legislation, CARA, provides more funding for Narcan. We need this. 
It is necessary, but it is not sufficient. So many people who overdose 
are saved by this miracle drug that reverses the effect of the 
overdose, but then what happens? In the vast majority of cases, these 
people go right back to the old environment--maybe to a dysfunctional 
family, maybe to a gang, maybe to the old neighborhood.
  If you talk to EMS personnel, firefighters, and police officers, who 
are the ones responsible for finding these people and treating them, 
they will tell you that they are not happy about giving someone Narcan 
again and again. They want to see that person get into treatment. It 
makes no sense for any of us and certainly not for the taxpayer. It 
also makes no sense for that addict and that addict's family and 
friends and employer, if there is one, because that person is not 
getting the help he or she needs.
  How do you close that gap? They are doing it at this firehouse in 
Whitehall, OH. They are doing it in two ways--one, opening up the doors 
to the firehouse and saying: Come on in.
  When I was there, just by chance, a young man, who described himself 
to me as a heroin addict--and he had heroin on his person--had arrived 
just before me at this firehouse. Just by chance, he had come in off 
the streets because he felt it was a safe place. He wasn't going to get 
arrested. No one was to going to ask him a lot of questions. But they 
were going to get him into treatment. He said he was ready.
  Of course I asked him, as I often do with addicts and recovering 
addicts, how many times he had been through treatment and what worked 
or didn't work. He had been through it three times already, and it 
hadn't worked. He said that the difference now is that he believes he 
is ready. You have to believe him. You have to get someone in treatment 
when they are ready. That is why having the doors open at the firehouse 
is very important. He was nervous, but he was transported right after I 
had a chance to visit with him. I got to see how these EMS personnel 
compassionately and professionally dealt with him as he was getting 
ready to be transported to what is called the Addiction Stabilization 
Center in downtown Columbus, run by Maryhaven.
  Interestingly, CARA funded the fire station and their program. Cures 
is what made possible the Addiction Stabilization Center--$1.2 million 
in Cures funding--in downtown Columbus, which is taking people from all 
over Franklin County and the Columbus area and making a tremendous 
difference in getting people not just through the Narcan and saving 
their lives but getting them into treatment and recovery. That is the 
key, closing that gap. It is tragic to me that the gap is so prevalent 
and is causing such a problem around our State and our country.
  The other thing they do, of course, at this fire station is that when 
they have someone who has overdosed and has been given Narcan, they 
bring them through this system and take them to the Maryhaven 
stabilization center and get them the help they need. It has worked 
remarkably well. Not everybody agrees to go, but the vast majority do. 
That is a huge difference from what normally happens in our country. It 
is an example of the kind of comprehensive program that is going to 
help close the gaps and catch those who are falling between the cracks.
  It is no surprise that the Surgeon General of the United States, Dr. 
Jerome Adams, said recently, when he visited this program in Columbus, 
that this is ``one of the best programs in the country for lowering 
stigma and enabling recovery.'' I appreciate the Surgeon General's 
involvement and his willingness to come to Ohio to help us and see how 
these programs we have passed in the Congress are working.
  I have seen similar successes made possible through Cures funding and 
CARA funding around the State. Recently, I was in Summit County, which 
is in Northeast Ohio--going from Columbus, Central Ohio, to Northeast 
Ohio--at Summa Barberton Hospital.

[[Page S5605]]

They just received a grant from Cures. They are using that for a pilot 
program to employ a full-time addiction care coordinator during the 
overnight hours and to ensure that there is medication-assisted 
treatment available at the emergency room itself. It had not been 
available previously. What they are finding is that somebody comes into 
the emergency room, and typically that person walks right back out the 
door after being saved by this miracle drug, Narcan--also known as 
naloxone--never to be heard from again until there is another overdose. 
Sometimes, by the way, according to the nurses, that overdose might 
happen as soon as the next several hours in the parking lot at the 
hospital.
  That is no solution. So what they are doing instead is bringing 
people in, sending them to a counselor, and I got to meet the three 
women who are counselors there, incredibly empathetic women who are 
taking these people in, saying: No stigma here. No questions asked. How 
can we help you? Wouldn't you like to be back with your kids or back in 
a job or back in a place where you can respect yourself?
  They have had remarkable success by saying: We can provide you, right 
now, right here--in their case--Suboxone, which is a medication-
assisted treatment program where you wean somebody off a drug like 
Suboxone in order for them to get off their addiction and not go 
through the horrible pain of withdrawal, at least not as difficult a 
withdrawal.
  So they have had great success with that program as well--again, 
closing that gap.
  I encourage you to look in your community for these kinds of programs 
and support them.
  They are also collaborating with United Way of Summit County and 
engaging the business community to help with this issue. That makes me 
really happy. Every time I meet with business groups now, I try to 
raise this issue. So we talked about the importance of tax reform and 
tax cuts and regulatory relief, and all of that is great. Our economy 
is picking up, but do you know what? It is incredible. The No. 1 
problem we have in our economy right now is what? Lack of workers. 
Every employer--small, large, medium size--is telling me: We need 
workers. There is a skills gap, of course, and there are other issues, 
but I think the single biggest issue is this opioid epidemic. That is 
based on a couple of studies--one is from the Department of Labor, one 
from the Brookings Institution--which show that those who are out of 
work altogether, who aren't even applying for jobs--and, by the way, 
among men, that may be at historic levels. About 8\1/2\ million men are 
literally not trying to get a job--8\1/2\ million men between 25 and 
55, prime working years, and you know what half of them say, 46 
percent, based on one survey, 44 percent another survey--and that is 
not overreported. In my view, that has to be underreported because 
there is a stigma, there is a legal issue connected, but about half of 
them say they are taking pain medication on a daily basis. Two-thirds 
acknowledge it is prescription pain medication in one study.
  So this is a huge issue in the business community. It should be. If 
you want to have more workers out there who are ready to go to work, 
able to go to work, help on this addiction issue.
  Yes, provide funding for some of these programs that work but also 
dig into it in your community. Find out what is working, what is not 
working. If you have this gap--which I guarantee you do--between those 
who are overdosing, getting the Narcan, and those getting into 
treatment, address that. Find innovative ways to do it. If you are 
finding there is another gap between shorter term treatment, say, 6, 7, 
8, 10 weeks and the longer term recovery, help address that. Encourage 
longer term recovery programs. It can be outpatient programs. It might 
be residential programs, but we know that works to really get people 
back on track.
  Find out what is going on in your local community in terms of 
prevention. Is anybody going to the middle schools and talking about 
what a ruinous mistake this can be for your life to go down this path 
and to be careful about prescription drugs?
  If we don't all get involved--and we all have a reason to get 
involved, every single one of us--to ensure that people can live out 
their God-given potential in life, then we will not have done 
everything we can to try to reverse this trend.
  Again, what I am seeing back home is that what we have done here so 
far is starting to work. I have to tell you, I believe we would already 
be seeing a reversal and seeing fewer overdoses across the board if not 
for one thing; that is, the influx, in the last few years particularly, 
of this new drug. It is a synthetic form of opioids. It is not heroin. 
It is not prescription drugs. It is usually called fentanyl, sometimes 
carfentanil, but what it is, is something a person made.
  Here is the shocking news. Fentanyl is 50 times more powerful than 
heroin--sometimes worse. It is very inexpensive. It is readily 
accessible. It is coming not across the Mexican border, and not, as far 
as we know, being made in this country. It is coming from overseas, 
mostly from China, and it is coming through our U.S. mail system.
  Now, let's be clear. This is the new crisis. Probably two-thirds of 
the deaths in my home State of Ohio from overdoses are now linked to 
fentanyl.
  We had a tele-townhall meeting earlier this month. The questions came 
in. People were making statements and so on. One guy called, and he 
wanted to talk about the drug issue. He was very professional and very 
specific about what he wanted to talk about. Then, toward the end of 
his comments and questions, I could hear his voice crack, and I just 
knew something was up.
  Sure enough, he said: By the way, my son died of a fentanyl overdose 
just a couple of weeks ago. He talked about how his son thought he was 
just taking heroin--not that heroin isn't incredibly dangerous in and 
of itself--but the tragic story that Sam, from Shelby County, OH, told 
me was that his son died of an overdose of fentanyl.
  Now his father was on the call trying to figure out how to get at 
this. He wanted to talk about the STOP Act, which is legislation we 
have introduced in this Chamber to try to at least stop some of the 
flow of this deadly poison into our community. Again, we know where it 
is being made, we know where it is coming from. Law enforcement is 
desperate for some better tools to be able to stop some of this poison 
from coming in.
  We spent about a year in the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations 
studying this issue. It is a subcommittee I chair. We got some 
undercover folks involved with us to help us from the Department of 
Homeland Security. We were able to go online and find out how this 
tragic criminal network works, and we were able to access a couple 
hundred websites online that were happy to sell fentanyl freely online.
  By the way, we were able to trace the payment systems for people who 
had bought from these particular websites and, therefore, were able to 
track who was actually receiving these shipments. We were able to find 
six different instances where somebody had actually gotten fentanyl 
from one of these sites, and then, by looking at the local news, 
determined that person died of an overdose within a few days or a few 
weeks of receiving that shipment.
  We were able to do this just by going online and finding out these 
people who had bought these drugs from these people, that they 
themselves had died of overdoses of fentanyl.
  Think of all the thousands of others who have died who have received 
drugs through some of these criminal networks. Frankly, what we found 
as we looked into this deeper and deeper was exactly what you would 
expect, which is these traffickers are smart. There is a lot of money 
in this. They know how to send these drugs into our neighborhoods, and 
they want to do it through the U.S. Postal Service. Why? Because the 
other carriers--think FedEx or DHL or UPS and private carriers--are 
required by law, passed in the U.S. Congress, to tell law enforcement 
what packages are coming in, from where they are coming, what is in it, 
where it is going through advanced electronic data before the package 
comes to this country. We required that after 9/11--frankly, not 
because of fentanyl but because of the concern about people having 
other contraband, including explosives in packages--all the private 
carriers say to law enforcement: Here is

[[Page S5606]]

what is coming in. Here is where it is from. Here is what is in it. 
Here is where it is going.

  With that information, law enforcement can then find suspicious 
packages, and I have seen them do it. I have gone to distribution 
centers in my State and have been able to see some of these brave 
personnel from Customs and Border Protection. They are brave because 
some of this stuff is really dangerous.
  By the way, when they take a package in to inspect it, they have to 
put on a protective suit. They have to be in a room that is well 
ventilated so they don't overdose and die from some of this fentanyl 
that is coming in.
  By knowing where it is from, where it is going, what is in it, and by 
having access to Big Data all around the world--not just the country 
but the world--to know where the hot spots are, where maybe some 
Chinese company that has some evil chemists who are engaged in this, 
maybe they are shipping it through another country, they find that out, 
if they see it coming from another country, they can find those 
packages as well. They are remarkably successful at finding some of 
this stuff and getting it offline rather than having it go into our 
community, but the Postal Service was not required to do this after 9/
11. Instead, the Postal Service was told: You ought to study the issue 
because it is important and get back to us. We are still waiting for 
that study. That was over 15 years ago.
  So when you go online, what we found out is, these websites are happy 
to send it to you through the Postal Service. In fact, they virtually 
guarantee delivery if you use the Postal Service. If you use one of 
these other carriers, they don't. That is sad. A U.S. Government agency 
is being used as a conduit to ship poison into our communities. It is 
the No. 1 killer in my home State.
  So our legislation is very simple. It simply requires the Postal 
Service to provide 100 percent advanced electronic data to our law 
enforcement so they can do the job they want to do. Law enforcement is 
desperate for these tools. You can imagine. They want to stop this 
poison.
  By the way, the letter carriers I know--you ask your letter carrier--
they don't want to carry this stuff, and they certainly don't want to 
have this poison going into the communities they serve.
  We have about one-third of the U.S. Senate now as cosponsors of this 
legislation. Will it solve the entire problem? No. We talked earlier 
about the need for more prevention, education, treatment, the longer 
term recovery, but at least--at least--let's keep some of this poison 
from coming in. At a minimum, it is going to raise the price, which is 
one of our huge problems with fentanyl today. It is not only 50 times 
more powerful than heroin and people chase that high, but it is very 
inexpensive relative to other forms of opioids.
  So my hope is, we will have this legislation on the floor in the next 
few weeks; that we will, in a bipartisan way, deal with this issue and 
tell someone like Sam from Shelby County, whom I talked about earlier 
who called into the tele-townhall that we are doing something, so the 
next dad is not going to have this kind of tragedy befall his son.
  By the way, 2 weeks earlier, at another tele-townhall meeting, a 
woman called in--same thing. At the end of it, she talked about her 
brother who had died of an overdose of fentanyl that had been put in 
another drug. So it is being spread in not just heroin, not just 
cocaine, not just crystal meth but other drugs as well, and that is one 
of the great challenges law enforcement has today.
  I appreciate the opportunity to talk about some of the positive 
things this Congress has done, the CURES Act, the CARA Act, how I have 
seen it back home making a difference in the lives of the people I 
represent, but also there is a need for us to do more. Certainly fund 
those programs, continue to provide the funding at these historic 
levels because it is necessary, because the epidemic absolutely 
deserves that kind of attention, and it is necessary.
  Second, let's take these other steps. Let's stop this 
overprescribing. Let's pass the STOP Act to ensure that we can deal 
with this fentanyl crisis. Let's ensure that we can turn the corner, 
turn the tide, begin to save lives. I think we can if we continue to 
make progress and continue to focus on these issues that make such a 
difference to our constituents.
  I yield back.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.


                     Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, as the Senate reconvenes to cross more 
items off our to-do list, we should take pride in all we have already 
accomplished this summer.
  This month alone, we have already advanced the Senate's farm bill to 
conference and named conferees to finalize this important legislation. 
We have also passed another set of appropriations measures. The Senate 
has now approved 7 of the 12 measures for next year, and we finalized 
the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2019, which President Trump signed into law on Monday of this week.
  The reason we are convening today is that important work remains for 
the weeks ahead. That includes more progress on appropriations, and it 
includes confirming more of the President's nominees.
  Last week, Chairman Grassley announced that Judiciary Committee 
hearings for Judge Brett Kavanaugh, whom the President has nominated to 
serve on the Supreme Court, will begin September 4.
  Judge Kavanaugh's testimony will only add to the enormous wealth of 
information about his legal qualifications, his professional 
reputation, and his jurisprudence that is already available. Already 
the committee has received nearly 200,000 pages of material that relate 
to this nomination. By all accounts, this is already the most material 
ever submitted for any Supreme Court nomination--the most material 
ever.
  Of course, the best indicator of how Judge Kavanaugh will approach 
the role of a Federal judge is the way he has discharged his duties as 
a Federal judge in the 12-plus years he served on the DC Circuit 
Court--12-plus years, more than 300 opinions.
  I can hardly articulate this point better than my friend the senior 
Senator from Vermont. Back when the Senate was evaluating the 
nomination of then-Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, Senator 
Leahy said: We do not have to imagine what kind of a judge she will be 
because we see the kind of judge she has been.
  A number of other prominent Democrats echoed that sentiment, 
including my friend the Democratic leader. He called Republican 
requests for additional documents related to the Sotomayor nomination a 
``fishing expedition'' and said Republicans were ``grasping at 
straws.'' My friend from New York said ``everybody knows'' that then-
Judge Sotomayor's ``record on the bench'' was ``the best way to 
evaluate'' her nomination.
  So I hope that our Democratic colleagues who are demanding even more 
documents have taken the time to read the 12 years of opinions from 
Judge Kavanaugh that they already have. That, of course, will 
underscore exemplary service on the second highest court in the Nation.
  When it was the Supreme Court nominee of a Democratic President, they 
themselves insisted that judicial opinions were more important than any 
other papers for evaluating a Supreme Court nominee. Well, well, we 
have Judge Kavanaugh's opinions, and we have this record-breaking pile 
of additional materials--far more materials than were produced for the 
Sotomayor nomination, by the way--12 years of opinions and the most 
material in history. Every Senator who is actually willing to give this 
nominee fair consideration will be more than fully equipped to do just 
that.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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 (Mr. Gardner). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last week I announced that the Senate 
Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination 
for the Supreme Court starting on September 4. The hearing will begin 
57

[[Page S5607]]

days after the President announced Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, more 
than a week longer than the period between the announcements and 
hearings for the last three Justices--Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch.
  The Senate has already received more documents from Judge Kavanaugh's 
time in the executive branch than we did for any previous Supreme Court 
nominee. We have so far received more than 184,000 pages of documents, 
of which more than 124,000 are currently publicly available to anybody 
in this country going to judiciary.senate.gov.
  The team of lawyers who work for the majority have already reviewed 
more than 10,000 pages of the 307 judicial opinions that Judge 
Kavanaugh wrote, along with hundreds more opinions that he joined, in 
his 12 years of service on the DC Circuit. The team of lawyers who 
worked for the majority have reviewed 110 pages of written answers and 
over 17,000 pages of materials Judge Kavanaugh submitted to the 
committee in response to its bipartisan questionnaire--the most robust 
questionnaire ever submitted to a Supreme Court nominee.
  The team of lawyers who work for the majority has already reviewed 
every page of the more than 184,000 pages of emails and other records 
that the committee has received so far from Judge Kavanaugh's time as a 
government lawyer in the White House and also serving with Judge Starr 
when Starr was independent counsel.
  I expect that we will receive even more documents this very night or, 
at the latest, tomorrow and that all remaining documents responsive to 
our request will be produced next week. We will work to make every 
unrestricted record publicly available as quickly as possible.
  As I predicted, this confirmation process is the most transparent 
ever, particularly as it relates to the number of documents that we are 
receiving. We have already received more documents from Judge 
Kavanaugh's executive branch service than any nominee in history, with 
many more to come.
  Senators have more time to review Judge Kavanaugh's record than they 
did for at least three Supreme Court nominees. So I am very confident 
that the committee and the Senate will have ample information and time 
to carry out our responsibilities under our Constitution to advise and 
consent.
  But some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
attempting to manipulate the American people. I just described to you 
the largest document production in the history of a Supreme Court 
nomination. But guess what. The minority leader describes it as 
``unprecedented secrecy.'' This argument is very ridiculous on its 
face, and the American people aren't buying it.
  I got a lot of questions at my town meetings across Iowa over the 
last week. In 20 different counties in Iowa, this issue about the 
Supreme Court always came up--that shouldn't surprise anybody--but 
there was hardly any mention of this document issue, which was cooked 
up by the Washington insiders.
  Let's not forget how this document issue started. First, liberal dark 
money groups and their Senate allies announced immediate opposition to 
Judge Kavanaugh. Some of them even announced it before the name 
Kavanaugh was announced by the President. The minority leader said that 
he would oppose Judge Kavanaugh with everything he has.
  So their first tactic was to argue that the Senate shouldn't confirm 
anyone during a midterm election year. They attempted to invoke the 
Biden rule, which bars confirmation of Supreme Court Justices during a 
Presidential election year, to make this argument. Of course, this was 
a ludicrous position, unsupported by precedent and widely rejected by 
objective observers and even fact checkers.
  The minority leader and his allies abandoned that argument, but they 
didn't abandon their goal, which is to stall Judge Kavanaugh's 
confirmation until after the midterm elections and hope that the other 
party will take control of the Senate. That is why the minority leader 
refocused his tactics and manufactured a very phony controversy 
regarding Judge Kavanaugh's White House documents.
  How do we know it is phony? On the one hand, the minority leader has 
publicly stated that he would oppose Judge Kavanaugh's nomination with 
everything he has. On the other hand, he is insisting that the Senate 
needs millions more pages of documents on top of what we already have 
in order to make an informed decision.
  Indeed, the Senate Democrats demanded the search of every page of 
every email and every other record from every one of the hundreds of 
White House staffers who came and went during every one of the 8 years 
of the Bush administration just because the name ``Kavanaugh'' could 
have been in those emails. In other words, the Senate Democrats 
demanded the search of every scrap of White House paper for the entire 
Bush Presidency.
  As I stated repeatedly, I am not going to put the American taxpayers 
on the hook for the Senate Democrats' fishing expedition. How much more 
information do the minority leader and his outside dark money allies 
need if they have already made up their decision to vote no on Judge 
Kavanaugh?
  When they are in that position, they don't care about Judge 
Kavanaugh's record because they know what their vote is going to be. 
How much more do they need to know to vote no?
  They simply want to bury us in a mountain of paper so there is no 
chance that we can hold a confirmation vote on Judge Kavanaugh's 
nomination any time this year. There is already a mountain of paper for 
our committee members to go through and their staffs. The Democrats 
want to make it be Mount Everest.
  Let's not forget that Judge Kavanaugh has a 12-year judicial track 
record from his time on the DC Circuit. During that time, he authored 
more than 300 opinions and joined in hundreds more. These opinions 
provide the most relevant information for assessing Judge Kavanaugh's 
legal thinking and whether or not he ought to be approved to be on the 
Supreme Court.
  I go back to something my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
said back in 2009. My Democratic colleagues were making this very same 
argument with respect to Justice Sotomayor. Of course, they are flip-
flopping now. The current minority leader said in 2009 that ``everybody 
knows'' a judge's record on the bench ``is the best way to evaluate a 
nominee.'' He said to Justice Sotomayor: ``I want to turn to your 
record on the bench, which I believe is the very best way to get a 
sense of what your record will be on the bench in the future.'' Then 
Chairman Leahy said:

       We have Judge Sotomayor's record from the Federal bench. 
     That is a public record that we had even before she was 
     designated by the President. Judge Sotomayor's mainstream 
     record of judicial restraint and modesty is the best 
     indication of her judicial philosophy. We do not have to 
     imagine what kind of a judge she will be because we see what 
     kind of a judge she has been.

  Well, Senator Schumer, the same logic applies to Judge Kavanaugh's 
long judicial track record of 12 years. Despite this record being more 
than sufficient to assess how Judge Kavanaugh approaches legal issues, 
I requested hundreds of thousands of additional pages from his time as 
a government lawyer, in the interest of full transparency.
  But even the most transparent confirmation process in history is not 
enough for those who decided to oppose Judge Kavanaugh before they even 
saw his record.
  The document requests for Justice Kagan's confirmation provide strong 
support for how the Judiciary Committee is proceeding now. Then, the 
Senate requested Justice Kagan's White House records, but not internal 
documents from the Solicitor General's Office. We refrained out of 
respect for the sensitivity of internal deliberations in the Solicitor 
General's Office. We did so even though these documents would have been 
extremely helpful to our assessment of Justice Kagan's views on the law 
given that she lacked any judicial experience or record. Justice Kagan 
herself testified that Senators should look at her time as Solicitor 
General in order to evaluate her, but we didn't ask for those records. 
This precedent supports my decision not to ask for documents from Judge 
Kavanaugh's time as White House Staff Secretary. If internal Solicitor 
General documents were too sensitive to produce, then, of course, 
documents from Judge Kavanaugh's time as Staff Secretary at the White 
House are as sensitive as well.

[[Page S5608]]

  The Staff Secretary serves as the in-box and out-box for the 
President of the United States. These documents include some of the 
most sensitive documents in all of our government, implicating our 
national security and the President's other core duties. These 
documents are at the heart of what the Constitution recognizes as 
executive privilege. In addition to being the most sensitive documents, 
they are the least probative of Judge Kavanaugh's legal thinking. The 
Staff Secretary's primary role is to make sure that the President sees 
advice from a range of policy advisers across the entire executive 
branch and that he not provide his own policy or legal advice as Staff 
Secretary.
  To recap, Judge Kavanaugh wrote more than 300 judicial opinions and 
joined in hundreds more in his 12 years on the bench. Justice Kagan, by 
contrast, had written or had joined zero judicial opinions before her 
nomination. Despite having less of a need for Judge Kavanaugh's 
executive branch records--in light of his substantial judicial record--
the Senate has already received more such documents than it had for 
Justice Kagan or for any other nominee, and we will still receive many 
more. In fact, for Judge Kavanaugh, we could receive up to 1 million 
pages, which is more than for the five prior Supreme Court nominees 
combined.
  Democratic leaders have also tried to argue that Judge Kavanaugh's 
White House records are being cherry-picked by a lawyer by the name of 
Bill Burck, whom they label as a partisan lawyer. I guess they have 
forgotten how the Senate received documents for the last three Supreme 
Court nominees. Otherwise, they wouldn't have made this silly argument. 
The Senate received documents for Justice Sotomayor's confirmation 
after they were reviewed by Leslie Kiernan. She represented Obama 
campaign manager David Plouffe and former Representative Charlie 
Rangel, and she eventually became Deputy White House Counsel in the 
Obama administration.
  As the Wall Street Journal pointed out in an editorial yesterday, the 
Senate received documents for Justice Kagan after they were reviewed by 
Bruce Lindsey. Mr. Lindsey overlapped with Justice Kagan in the White 
House, which was a Democratic White House. He also served as President 
Clinton's national campaign director in 1992, as President Clinton's 
hyperpartisan senior lawyer and a really big fixer in the White House, 
and as the CEO of the Clinton Foundation for 10 years, including when 
Justice Kagan was nominated.
  Now, I would think anybody who raises questions about a lawyer by the 
name of Burck ought to be really embarrassed by bringing up that issue 
when you look at how it was handled with previous nominees to the 
Supreme Court by people who were partisan. How much more partisan can 
you get than the people I just mentioned who handled issues of 
Presidential privilege for Democratic nominees Sotomayor and Kagan?
  It happens that Bill Burck is President Bush's Presidential Records 
Act representative, as Mr. Lindsey was for President Clinton. Mr. Burck 
has held this position not just recently because of this nomination--
no--but since the year 2009. He is a partner, it happens, at one of the 
most liberal law firms in America. Mr. Burck also served as President 
Bush's Presidential Records Act representative during the Gorsuch 
nomination, but I didn't hear any Democrat objecting to Mr. Burck's 
involvement in that nomination. They also didn't object to Ms. 
Kiernan's or Mr. Lindsey's involvement during the Sotomayor and Kagan 
nominations. Their objection to Mr. Burck's role now is another 
opportunistic attempt to discredit the process and to avoid talking 
about Judge Kavanaugh's qualifications.
  I would like to correct one additional misconception before I yield 
the floor.
  As has been claimed by some people, the National Archives is not 
being cut out of this process. Under the Presidential Records Act, 
President Bush has the right to request his own administration's 
documents. He can choose to make a document public or claim that it is 
protected under executive privilege. This is precisely what he is doing 
now. President Bush is providing a very valuable public service to the 
American people at what is a very considerable cost but happens to be a 
nonpublic expense. He is expediting the review process and making sure 
that the Senate has all of the documents it needs to conduct a timely 
and efficient confirmation process. President Bush and his legal team 
should be thanked, not scorned, for providing this tremendous service 
to the American people.

  I want to tell you how much on top of this former President Bush was. 
On the day after Kavanaugh's nomination, he called me and said: I want 
to do everything I can to cooperate so you get all of the records you 
need to make sure that you give a fair and thorough hearing to 
Kavanaugh.
  Thanks to these people, we have Judge Kavanaugh's papers in time to 
hold a confirmation hearing and to vote this very year just as the 
American people expect us to do.
  Democratic leaders have played up this phony document controversy to 
deflect attention from Judge Kavanaugh's extraordinary qualifications 
and sterling reputation as a judge of 12 years on the second most 
important court in this land. In his 12 years on the bench, the Supreme 
Court has on 13 occasions adopted legal opinions from Judge Kavanaugh's 
opinions. This is an exemplary track record in the Supreme Court--to 
have one's opinions backed up by the Supreme Court not once but 13 
times.
  Judge Kavanaugh is dedicated to judicial independence. He is not 
afraid to tell another branch of government when that branch has 
exceeded its lawful authority. At the same time, he has great respect 
for the separation of powers, and he will interpret the law as it is 
written by the people's representatives in Congress, instead of trying 
to be a superlegislator. As I am, I hope all of my colleagues are 
looking forward to hearing from Judge Kavanaugh when he will appear 
before the Judiciary Committee on September 4.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 
disposition of the Richardson nomination, the Senate proceed to 
legislative session and the consideration of H.R. 6157; further, that 
for the purpose of rule XVI, in relation to substitute amendment No. 
3695, the text of H.R. 6157 serve as the basis for defense of 
germaneness for division A of the amendment and the text of H.R. 6470, 
as reported by the House Appropriations Committee, serve as the basis 
for defense of germaneness for division B of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Defense Appropriations

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I wish to talk for a few minutes about the 
principal work that we will be starting this week and, I would hope, be 
completing next week--certainly completing before we move on to other 
work. I want to highlight the critical work of the National Defense 
Appropriations Act and the decision just made by the body that will 
allow us to go to that bill and to the Labor, Health and Human Services 
bill this week.
  On Monday, the President signed the authorizing bill for fiscal year 
2019, the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act. This bill 
provides important authorizations for a number of programs. By the way, 
in its title, it also recognizes the extraordinary courage and service 
of our friend and colleague John McCain. On more than one occasion, I 
know Senator McCain has said that chairing that committee has been the 
most important public service he has ever been allowed to do. So to 
have this bill named for him is something that I appreciate and that I 
know the Presiding Officer does too.
  I commend my colleagues for the work they have done and for 
completing that work, the defense authorization bill, in the fastest 
time in 20 years. This bill has been signed into law by the President. 
Now we get to take a step further and do the second thing that Congress 
is responsible for, not just for authorizing and setting out a 
blueprint for how we defend the country but for providing the funding 
with which to do that.
  Over the years, I have seen that many of our colleagues have forever 
been prepared to debate with regard to how we need to spend more money 
on

[[Page S5609]]

defense until it comes time to vote on a bill that includes more money 
for defense. This bill does that. Frankly, I think it is the most 
important of our responsibilities--the defense of the country. The 
Federal Government's principal role is only ensured when we provide the 
money to do that. We need to be sure that we provide for those who 
serve in uniform--those who serve us--and for what they need to carry 
out their missions. I believe the bill we will debate in the later part 
of this week and all of next week--and as long as it takes to get it 
done--does that. As a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Defense, I was pleased to vote for this bill. I was pleased to vote for 
it as a member of the full Appropriations Committee, and I look forward 
to voting for it as the debate ends. I also look forward to the full 
debate.
  One of the things we have done this year that has not been done in 
recent years is to bring these appropriations bills to the floor in a 
way that not just the two dozen or so Senators who serve on 
Appropriations get to amend and debate and argue in public about what 
should be in the bill but to do this in a way that every Senator can 
come to the floor and offer an amendment and that every Senator can 
debate that amendment if it is germane to the bill and if it meets the 
standards of the bill. Everybody who is willing to find the money 
somewhere in that bill to pay for what one would rather do rather than 
what the bill does gets a chance to do that, and that is a good 
process.
  This defense funding bill provides a $20 billion increase for 
defense, and it supports the largest pay increase in over a decade for 
those who serve and defend us. This bill prioritizes resources for 
equipment and training to ensure that our troops have every possible 
advantage on the battlefield.
  I have said before on this floor and at this podium that we never 
want our troops to be involved in a fair fight. We want them to be 
involved in a fight where they have every possible advantage over their 
adversary, and this bill takes steps to do that.
  Missouri has a number of military installations. Those installations 
and people who work at those installations, civilian and military, 
really provide a great part of our Nation's defense--Whiteman Air Force 
Base, Rosecrans Air National Guard facility, Fort Leonard Wood, 
Missouri National Guard units, the AVCRAD--the repair center in 
Springfield, MO, my hometown. People who work there have a big stake in 
our country, and we have a big stake in them, as we do in bases all 
over the United States.
  The chairman, Senator Shelby, and Senator Durbin, the ranking member 
of the Defense Subcommittee, have crafted a bill that really makes 
crucial investments across the board, from Army end-strength increases 
to important investments in the B-2, the A-10, the B-21, the C-130 
programs, and others that are essential to the infrastructure of the 
military and the very infrastructure itself. The defense facilities and 
the Army ammunition plants that haven't been changed very much since 
World War II have some update potential in this bill.
  This bill is good news for those who serve at Missouri military 
bases. It is good news for those who work as civilians at those bases. 
It is also good news for the many Missourians who are part of the 
defense industry. We have people who work at businesses, large and 
small, who are contractors and subcontractors to those contractors, 
facilities I have visited in our State where the initial facility was a 
converted dairy barn but then added on as they got better and better 
and got more subcontracts. Those people are all part of this system.
  This bill includes multiyear procurement authority for the F/A-18 
Super Hornets. These are manufactured in St. Louis. Year after year, 
the Navy has had the Super Hornets included at the top of the unfunded 
requirement list, I assume hoping that we in Congress would first look 
at that list once we decide what else we could do. On the committee, 
this is something that Senator Durbin from Illinois, who is right 
across the river from the Boeing facility, and I have worked on to 
ensure that this unfunded request was usually met. Because the Navy has 
asked for it as part of their long-term structure, what this bill does, 
for the first time in some time, is make multiyear commitments to this 
plane, which is an important part of many flying packages that we have.
  Additionally, the bill provides research funding that is badly needed 
to counter threats from China and Russia--huge investments on their 
part, using at least some of the things they have taken from us. They 
have taken intellectual property we have designed in our aircraft and 
other things, and then they have taken their money to see how far they 
can get ahead of us, using our technology, in some cases, as the 
foundation for what they are trying to do and making major efforts to 
try to get ahead of us in things like hypersonics, directed energy, 
artificial intelligence, and cyber infiltration, and cyber warfare. 
This bill looks at all of those and says that we are not going to let 
other countries that are adversaries of ours in the fight for freedom 
around the world have the advantage. We are going to continue to do 
everything we can to maintain the advantage.
  We have to have technological superiority. It has been one of the 
great things we have been able to do for those willing to serve, but we 
have to be sure that our servicemembers have the training, the 
equipment, and the support they need to carry out their mission. That 
is my top priority. I think it is the top priority of the Federal 
Government.
  Over the next few days, we will have a chance to debate that top 
priority. There are different ways to do this. There is nothing wrong 
with people having different opinions, particularly if they can get a 
majority of the Senate to agree with that opinion. I think this is a 
bill that is going to stand the test of that debate. We will find a few 
ways to improve it as we move forward.
  This is a bill in which we demonstrate our gratitude to those who 
serve. We demonstrate our commitment to the defense of freedom and 
democracy, both in the debate and in the bill. If we don't fund the 
decisions we have made in the Defense Authorization Act, we really 
haven't made those decisions; we will have talked about what we might 
like to do rather than what we are determined to do. This Defense 
appropriations bill decides what we are determined to do, willing to do 
and to establish as a priority.
  I look forward to the entire Senate being able to debate that bill 
and hopefully send that bill to a conference with the House and to the 
President's desk.
  With that, 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. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Honoring Journalists

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, a free, independent press is vital to our 
democracy, and it is vital to communities from Kansas to Ohio and 
across this country.
  Reporters are not enemies of the people. They do vital work not just 
in Washington but around the country. I want to continue my, more or 
less, weekly honoring of local reporters who are doing their jobs, who 
understand that a free press is crucial to a free country and a free 
people.
  This past week, I have been all over Ohio, from talking about 
investing in national security jobs in Dayton to meeting with local 
leaders tackling the opioid epidemic in Findlay, to promoting auto jobs 
in Lima, Toledo, and Cleveland. At every one of these stops, I talk 
with Ohio reporters who are out there doing their jobs, covering the 
important stories in their communities. Local journalists do that kind 
of reporting in every community in Ohio, in Kansas, and across this 
country.
  Earlier this month, the Circleville Herald--a town 25, 30 miles south 
of Columbus, straight down U.S. 23--ran a story on the upcoming 
Veterans' Benefits Day in Pickaway County on August 25, reported by 
local reporter Heather Barr. The reporter talked with the executive 
director of the Pickaway County Veterans' Services Office, who said 
that veterans don't realize there is someone in their county to help 
them.

[[Page S5610]]

That is why they set up this event, to show veterans all the services 
available through the local county Veterans' Services Office and the 
Chillicothe Veterans' Administration Medical Center. I would add, Ohio 
is one of the lucky States in the country. Not nearly every State does 
this. Every single county has a Veterans' Service Office whose only 
function is to serve veterans.
  Through its work, the Circleville Herald and local reporters like Ms. 
Barr are informing their community about ways veterans can get 
assistance with the benefits they have earned--everything from help 
applying for benefits to transportation to the Chillicothe VA or the 
Dayton VA or wherever, to VA appointments in local community-based 
outpatient clinics. That is the kind of work Ms. Barr does. That is the 
kind of work local communities' journalists do all over this country. 
This kind of reporting is what journalists do every day in my State. So 
when I hear the President of the United States call journalists enemies 
of the people, I think of Heather Barr; I think of reporters in 
Cleveland and Akron and smaller cities like Mansfield and smaller towns 
yet like Van Wert and Wapakoneta. They serve their readers. They serve 
their viewers. They serve their communities. They deserve our respect, 
not the venom of the President of the United States.


                             Auto Industry

  Mr. President, over the past week, I have traveled my State visiting 
communities that rely on the American auto industry--Ford in Lima, Jeep 
in Toledo, the Ford engine plant in Cleveland. This Monday, I will go 
to Youngstown, which relies on GM, and Lordstown. I can personally 
attest to how great these cars are.
  A number of members of my family, including my wife and me, for years 
drove a Chevy Cruz made by union workers in Lordstown, near Youngstown, 
OH. A couple years ago, my wife and I each bought Jeep Cherokees made 
by union labor in Toledo. I can speak to how great these cars are 
because in October of 2016, a young man ran a stop sign--I was in the 
passenger seat--hit the Jeep right where I sat and knocked this Jeep 
30, 40 feet off the road. Neither I nor the gentleman driving, Will 
Young, were injured because of American-made steel, the American-made 
Jeep itself made in Toledo, and because of the U.S. Government, with 
airbags and seatbelts and all the kinds of rules they have set for auto 
safety.
  We know American cars, made by American workers with American steel, 
are the best in the world. Too often, though, American workers and 
American suppliers aren't competing on a level playing field. Last 
fall, in the tax giveaway to corporations, Republicans in Congress 
created--believe it or not, they didn't close loopholes that encouraged 
companies to move overseas; they created a big, new incentive to send 
jobs overseas. They allow companies to pay 10.5 percent in taxes on 
their overseas profits while in the United States they pay a 23-percent 
corporate tax rate.
  What it says to a company in Mansfield, OH, or Ravenna, OH, or 
Zanesville, OH, that shuts down and thinks about moving overseas: You 
have a 21-percent corporate rate if you are in Youngstown, but if you 
move to Reynosa, Mexico, you have a 10.5-percent rate. So what the 
Republican leadership said when they passed this tax bill was--it was 
like handing out a 50-percent-off coupon to companies that send jobs 
overseas. Why would we do that? We see the consequences of bad trade 
policy, bad tax policy at plants across Ohio and in communities in my 
State.
  Earlier this summer--pretty unbelievable--on the very same day 
General Motors laid off the entire second shift, more than 1,000 
workers--the same day General Motors laid off more than 1,000 workers 
in Lordstown, OH, a 50-year-old plant there, and it is a historic 
plant, we got word the same day that GM plans to build its new Chevy 
Blazer in Mexico. The company is laying off their Ohio plant. They 
could have retooled. They got billions of dollars in tax cuts under the 
Republican tax bill. They could have used some of that money to retool 
in Lordstown with a trained workforce. Instead, they are bypassing 
American workers. They are setting up the plant in Mexico. They are 
sending more jobs to Mexico. Announcements like GM's are proof we need 
to do more to keep auto jobs in the United States. Stop rewarding 
companies that send jobs overseas.
  A moment ago, I said it is like giving them a 50-percent-off coupon 
on their tax bills. That is why, this month, I introduced legislation 
to help us level the playing field with foreign competition by making 
it more affordable to American-made cars and trucks and revoking--
revoking--that special GOP tax cut for auto companies that send jobs 
overseas.
  The American Cars, American Jobs Act, two simple parts. First, 
customers who buy cars made in the United States get $3,500 off. If you 
by a new car made by American workers with principally American 
components, you get $3,500 off. The discount would apply to some 100 
cars, trucks, and SUVs, including all passenger vehicles assembled in 
Ohio.
  Second, companies that cut the number of American jobs they had on 
the day the GOP tax bill passed and add those jobs overseas lose a tax 
break they get on some of those overseas profits. It says that when an 
auto company chooses to send jobs overseas, they lose that 50-percent-
off coupon. They pay the full 21 percent.
  So, again, GM in Lordstown pays a 21-percent corporate tax rate, but 
thanks to the President and the Republican Congress, if they move to 
Mexico, they pay a 10.5-percent corporate tax rate. How morally 
bankrupt is that and how stupid is that economic policy? So 21 percent 
if they are in the United States, 10.5 percent--half off--if they go to 
Mexico.
  I heard from Ohioans this past week about what our legislation would 
mean to their plant. Mike Copeland, president of UAW Local 1219 in 
Lima, said:

       We need a level playing field to compete with foreign 
     manufacturers. . . . The U.S. auto industry has made a 
     magnificent recovery on the backs of hard working people 
     across the country.

  I would count in that list of hard-working people certainly the 
autoworkers at the assembly plant, certainly the workers--union and 
nonunion--in the supply chain for that plant but also American 
taxpayers who helped to bail out the auto industry. We all got our 
money back as taxpayers from the auto industry, but, nonetheless, they 
helped in a big way.
  He goes on to say:

       We are in the fight of our lives for every job, every day; 
     the American Cars, American Jobs Act will help us fight for 
     those jobs.

  Jeep worker Mario Duran, in Toledo, said:

       It's important to my family, it's important to the whole 
     community here that we keep selling our American-made 
     product. If we don't have people buying our cars, we lose 
     jobs.

  It is not just workers. I heard from mayors and chambers of commerce 
that back this bill. The mayor of Lima, Mayor Berger, came to the union 
hall in Lima, joining the president of the chamber of commerce, and 
spoke up for this bill. Jed Metzger, the president of the Lima Chamber 
of Commerce, told me our bill ``would make our American companies more 
competitive with foreign auto workers and make it more costly for 
companies to choose to offshore their production overseas.'' So we are 
incentivizing people to produce here, and we are penalizing them if 
they shut down production and move overseas.
  The Toledo Blade editorial board agrees. They called our bill ``a 
solid proposal to support the U.S. auto industry.'' It rewards 
consumers who support American manufacturing in this country and who 
believe it is patriotic and good public policy.
  The world was reminded 8 years ago to never bet against the American 
auto industry and the workers who are the engine behind it. We invested 
in saving this industry. Yet we continue to have a trade and tax policy 
that undermines it. In fact, it is worse. It is worse than it was 2 
years ago because of this break. Again, if you are in Youngstown, you 
pay a 21-percent tax rate; if you move to Mexico, you pay a 10.5-tax 
rate.
  That 50-percent-off tax coupon given to companies that go overseas 
just makes no sense. Let's come together in this legislation to change 
that. Let's level the playing field for American cars and for American 
workers.
  I yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the

[[Page S5611]]

Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination 
     of A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr., of South Carolina, to be 
     United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit.
         Mitch McConnell, Cindy Hyde-Smith, David Perdue, Mike 
           Crapo, Mike Rounds, John Boozman, Ron Johnson, John 
           Barrasso, Steve Daines, John Cornyn, Johnny Isakson, 
           John Thune, James E. Risch, Richard Burr, Lindsey 
           Graham, Thom Tillis, Roy Blunt.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr., of South Carolina, to be 
United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit, shall be brought to 
a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  (Mr. Lankford assumed the Chair.)
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from North Carolina 
(Mr. Burr), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the 
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Florida (Mr. 
Rubio) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. SCHUMER. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) 
and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) are necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 61, nays 28, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 182 Ex.]

                                YEAS--61

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Capito
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--28

     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Klobuchar
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Peters
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warren
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Alexander
     Burr
     Durbin
     Flake
     Inhofe
     Lee
     McCain
     Murray
     Rubio
     Tillis
     Toomey
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Barrasso). On this vote, the yeas are 61 
and the nays are 28.
  The motion is agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________