[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 138 (Monday, August 20, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5707-S5713]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 6157, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 6157) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and 
     for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Shelby amendment No. 3695, in the nature of a substitute.
       McConnell (for Shelby) amendment No. 3699 (to amendment No. 
     3695), of a perfecting nature.

[[Page S5708]]

       McConnell (for Menendez/Murkowski) amendment No. 3705 (to 
     amendment No. 3695), to provide funding for the Firefighter 
     Cancer Registry Act of 2018.
       McConnell (for Fischer) amendment No. 3706 (to amendment 
     No. 3695), to appropriate an additional $10,000,000 for 
     Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide for POW/MIA 
     identification within the Defense Personnel Accounting 
     Agency, and to provide an offset.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know that Senator Shelby has spoken 
before and is going to speak again. I also know we are coming up on the 
time for some votes. Let me speak in my capacity as vice chairman of 
the Senate Appropriations Committee.
  Today, as you know, the Senate begins consideration of the Defense 
and Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies 
minibus appropriations bill. This will actually be the third 
appropriations package brought to the Senate floor this year. Once we 
complete action, the Senate will have passed 9 of the 12 committee-
reported appropriations bills for the fiscal year 2019. It is certainly 
much faster than has been done in years.
  I want to thank Chairman Shelby for his commitment to a bipartisan 
process. That and the fact we have been friends for decades have made 
this progress possible. I also want to thank Senators Blunt, Murray, 
and Durbin for their work on these bills--again, a bipartisan effort. I 
think the bipartisan progress is due to the Shelby-Leahy-McConnell-
Schumer commitment to move forward on appropriations bills that have 
bipartisan support, are at spending levels agreed to in the bipartisan 
budget deal, and reject poison pill riders and controversial 
authorizing language. The two bills in this package meet this test.

  The minibus before us represents 65 percent of all discretionary 
spending, but it also demonstrates the importance of the bipartisan 
budget agreement reached earlier this year. In this package, we see the 
priorities outlined in that agreement made into real policy to improve 
the lives of Americans.
  It is no secret that the Budget Control Act of 2011 and the resulting 
sequestration cuts damaged our military readiness, resulting in 
canceled deployments and deferred maintenance.
  It was in July of last year, I remind my fellow Senators, that 
Secretary Mattis testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee, 
and he said that ``for all the heartache caused by the loss of our 
troops during these wars, no enemy in the field has done more to harm 
the readiness of our military than sequestration.''
  But damage to our military readiness was not the only consequence of 
the Budget Control Act. Sequestration has led to schools that fail to 
prepare students for a challenging world, a steep decline in Federal 
investment for job training and employment services, healthcare crises 
left unaddressed, and childcare services eroded.
  In fact, when thinking of the defense budget, it was reported in 2017 
that 7 out of 10 people--7 out of 10--ages 17 to 24 in America would 
not qualify for military service because of reasons related to their 
physical health or education. That means that 24 million out of 34 
million young adults are ineligible due to obesity and other health 
problems or criminal backgrounds or lack of education.
  Now, if you want to talk about national security, that strikes at it. 
This statistic should make it alarmingly clear that investments in our 
domestic priorities, such as healthcare and education, are also 
national security investments, and the military agrees with that. That 
is why we fought so hard for a budget deal to reverse the cuts on both 
defense and nondefense programs.
  But now we have reached a bipartisan budget deal, and because of it, 
the defense appropriations bill before us gives the men and women of 
our Armed Services the resources they need to carry out the missions 
effectively and safely. That is a goal that both Republicans and 
Democrats have shared throughout this process.
  The LHHS bill makes important new investments in healthcare and 
education. It increases funding for the National Institutes of Health 
by $5 billion over fiscal year 2017 so they can aggressively pursue 
cures for diseases like cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer's. It backs our 
commitment to increase access to higher education by increasing college 
affordability spending by $2.3 billion over fiscal year 2017. By 
increasing access to childcare by $3.2 billion over fiscal year 2017, 
it supports working families and communities in every part of our 
country.
  In doing this, we have rejected the President's shortsighted budget 
proposals, which would have cut important programs in the LHHS bill by 
$12.5 billion from fiscal year 2018 funding level.
  Now, we take into consideration our immediate national security 
needs, but you can't just stop there, you have to think about the 
future of the country. The deep ties that run between defense and 
nondefense priorities make it fitting that we take up these two bills 
together, and I applaud the chairman for doing that. By combining these 
bills into one package, we increase the certainty that they will be 
enacted into law on time and will avoid the devastating effect of long-
term continuing resolutions.
  I urge our House counterparts, when they come back to Washington, to 
commit, as we have, to producing a conference report that contains both 
bills so that we can move swiftly toward final passage.
  Finally, I wish to highlight the new funding in this bill that helps 
our country address the scourge of opioids.
  Every Member in this Chamber has seen the toll this epidemic has 
taken on their States. In 2017, 72,000 people--a 10-percent increase 
over 2016--lost their lives to drug overdoses in the opioid epidemic. 
In that 1 year, more lives were lost than in the entirety of the 
Vietnam War. Just think of that: 72,000 people in the opioid scourge.
  Now, I know Marcelle and I hear frequently from Vermonters recovering 
from opioid abuse, but we also hear in the grocery stores, at our 
church, or on the streets of Vermont from families talking about a 
member who did not recover and talking about their funeral.
  Marcelle is a nurse, and I am a former prosecutor.
  Some of these tales have brought us to tears because these are men 
and women with the same hopes and dreams shared by all Americans. That 
is why I say that mothers and fathers see us and say: We want to talk 
to you. They have tears streaming from their eyes. We know what we are 
going to hear--that they have lost children to this epidemic.
  This has touched the lives of every American: Black, White, rich, 
poor, urban, and rural. It is an American problem. It affects all of 
us. This package represents a second installment in investing in 
serious solutions.
  We invest $3 billion in new resources over fiscal year 2017 to 
address this crisis. This is on top of roughly $500 million in 
additional funding contained in other appropriations bills and similar 
funding levels in the fiscal year 2018 omnibus. But it is because of 
the bipartisan budget deal that these new investments will surpass $6 
billion over 2 years.
  Of course there is more we can do to help those Americans who are 
trying to pull themselves out of addiction and turn their lives around 
or to keep their children alive, but this is a good start. I think it 
is a start the American people can be proud of. It is not a Democratic 
plan, and it is not a Republican plan. It is an American plan, and that 
should unite us all.
  Mr. President, I see my dear friend from Alabama, the distinguished 
chairman, on the floor, and I yield to him.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, this afternoon, as most of us realize now, 
the Senate has begun debate on amendments to the fiscal year 2019 
Defense-Labor-HHS appropriations bill. These are the two largest bills 
to come out of the Appropriations Committee as a whole. Both of them 
together make up a great part of all of the appropriations process and 
the numbers.
  At the end of last week here, I offered a more detailed outline of 
the critical funding of this bill for America's military. So I will not 
repeat myself on that. Today, I simply wish to remind my colleagues of 
what is at stake with this legislation and our path to success, 
hopefully, this week.
  First and foremost, our national security is at stake. Earlier this 
year, the President signed into law the largest increase in military 
spending in 15

[[Page S5709]]

years. This legislation accelerates that increase and provides our men 
and women in uniform with the largest pay raise they have seen in 
nearly a decade. So the No. 1 thing at stake here is rebuilding our 
military and taking care of our troops.
  This bill also provides for a wide range of critical domestic 
priorities, including education, medical research, and funding to 
combat the opioid epidemic. All are very important to America.
  Recent history suggests that we face a tall task in passing these 
bills on the Senate floor. The Senate has not passed a Labor-HHS 
appropriations bill in more than 10 years. It has been even longer 
since the President was able to sign a Defense appropriations bill into 
law before the end of the fiscal year, which ends September 30.
  Why? Because in the past, poison pills have blown up the process or 
foreclosed it altogether. I appreciate that one Senator's poison pill 
is often another Senator's priority, but I strongly urge my colleagues 
today to focus on accomplishing the big picture priorities that I have 
underscored here. We know where the fault lines run, and I hope we can 
avoid them.
  There are reasons to believe that this year will be a different year 
and that we will produce a different outcome. First among them, there 
is a unified desire to avoid another omnibus spending bill. Second, we 
come to the floor this week on the heels of a string of recent 
successes in passing appropriation bills. Third, each of the bills in 
this package passed the Appropriations Committee by a vote of 30-1.
  These factors paved the way for the full Senate to consider this 
package, and I want to take a minute to thank the leaders on both 
sides, Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer, for agreeing to bring 
this bill to the floor.
  I also want to thank the vice chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, Senator Leahy, for sticking to the agreement he and I made 
to move these bills in a bipartisan manner.
  Mr. Vice Chairman, you are here on the floor. We would not be in this 
position without your efforts. I want you to know how much I appreciate 
that. I want you to know how much I believe that most of the Senate 
appreciates that.
  I say to my colleagues, we collectively call for regular order in the 
appropriations process, and now we have it. I am optimistic that we 
will continue to show the American people that we are here to work, and 
that means debating and disposing of amendments, passing appropriation 
bills, and accomplishing the job they sent us here to do.
  I hope my optimism is not misplaced. The stakes are simply too high. 
We have a lot to do this week, but we can do it.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                        Early Voting in Florida

  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, folks are voting today in Florida. As a 
matter of fact, they have been voting for some weeks since Florida 
started voting by mail, which started a couple of weeks ago. They are 
voting in early voting--a period of time of up to 2 weeks prior to the 
August 28 primary. They are voting early in these elections. They are 
exercising their most fundamental right, which is to vote.
  Of course, there is so much at stake for Florida and our country in 
this year's elections. Last month, a Federal judge in Florida 
overturned a 2014 ban on early voting, and it was a ban on college 
campuses. Back in 2014, the legislature passed and the Governor signed 
into law a series of restrictions to make it harder to vote instead of 
easier. One of them, which was then implemented by the Division of 
Elections--secretary of state--was that there could not be a voting 
place on a college campus. Well, we have State universities, just as 
other States do, that have huge numbers of students. Of course, if you 
want to make it easier for students to vote, instead of their having to 
go out in the community, it is quite logical to have a place for them 
to vote on the campus.
  Well, there was an attempt in the past to ban the voting. The 
particular case I weighed in on a few years ago was one in which they 
were banning voting from the student union building at the University 
of Florida in Gainesville--a campus, by the way, that enrolls some tens 
of thousands of students. In a scathing opinion, a Federal judge 
overturned that ruling, saying that the ban by Florida law was 
unconstitutional and that it seemed to put in place a prohibition on a 
geographical location for voting as a means by which to hinder younger 
voters--specifically, students--from casting their ballots.
  Because of the Federal judge's ruling, there will now be an early 
voting location on the campus of the University of Florida for the 
upcoming general election this coming November. According to press 
reports, it doesn't look as though that is going to be the case in all 
places around Florida's colleges and universities. We just read a 
newspaper report that said that the supervisor of elections in Duval 
County--that is Jacksonville--says he might not be able to set up an 
early voting location on the campus of the University of Florida in 
time for the general election due to logistical and financial concerns. 
I hope that the Federal judge's ruling in this case makes very clear 
his displeasure about not making it convenient for students to vote by 
refusing to set up a precinct on the university campus location. I am 
hopeful that the logistical and other issues can be resolved as quickly 
as possible and that Florida's universities can host early voting 
during the general election.
  Early voting is key to ensuring access to the ballot for all voters. 
We have found that with early voting and voting by mail, increasingly 
larger percentages of the voting electorate are utilizing that 
opportunity to vote instead of waiting until the last day, election 
day, November 6. Unfortunately, we have seen some efforts in Florida 
over the last decade to curb access to early voting, particularly among 
young, low-income, and minority voters. We ought to make it easier to 
vote, not harder.
  I hope that in the multiplicity of universities and colleges all 
around Florida, that the supervisors of elections will pay attention to 
the Federal judge's ruling and act accordingly.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, it is August, and the Senate is in 
session getting the people's work done. As the majority leader said 
last week, the reason we can't afford to take this time off is because 
we have so much to do.
  Of course, one of the things we could do is agree to an expedited 
confirmation of noncontroversial nominations--something our Democratic 
friends have not been willing to do to this point. Indeed, they engaged 
in unprecedented obstruction of some of President Trump's nominees, 
even those who are not controversial. For example, we just confirmed 
two Federal appellate court judges in a strong bipartisan manner last 
week. These, of course, were both highly distinguished lawyers, and I 
am sure they will do a great job on the Fourth Circuit. When we see 
nominations get overwhelmingly bipartisan votes, we wonder why we had 
to delay these nominations not only for the judiciary but also other 
important nominations, such as at the State Department and in other 
areas. Frankly, because of the delay, the vacancies impair the ability 
of government to be responsive to the needs of the American people. It 
is a shame we have seen that kind of mindless obstruction to President 
Trump's nominees who, again, are not even controversial.

  While we focus sometimes on how divided we are--and I know the 
American people sometimes feel like we are unwilling to find common 
ground--it is not true that we don't occasionally come together and do 
important things. This week marks the continued collaboration between 
Republicans and Democrats that started last week when we agreed to 
address two important

[[Page S5710]]

funding bills. One is for the Department of Defense, which is my 
personal priority, and I know the Presiding Officer would agree with 
that. The other involves Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education, which I will mention in just a moment.
  Working together to do both of these appropriations bills is 
something the New York Times described as a bipartisan breakthrough 
because, in the past, we lurched from continuing resolution to Omnibus 
appropriations bills, much to the frustration of not only our 
constituents but many of us in the Senate.
  We have seen continuing resolutions underfund our national security, 
for example. We have seen gargantuan Omnibus appropriations bills that 
basically four Members of Congress negotiate and then present to the 
rest of us as a fait accompli, which is obviously a terrible way to 
spend the people's money, but I believe we are doing something good 
here this week.
  These appropriations bills are the two largest of all the 
appropriations bills. After we pass them this week, we will have passed 
9 of the 12 appropriations bills, which fund 87 percent of 
discretionary spending. Doing this with more than a month before the 
end of the fiscal year is something we haven't done in a long time. We 
are ahead of the House, which usually moves at a fast clip--although, 
we are here working, and the House is taking a little time off, I might 
add.
  I offer my appreciation to Chairman Shelby, chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, and Ranking Member Vice Chairman Leahy, whom 
I was just talking to. He was telling me about how pretty the weather 
is in Vermont and how much he would like to be there instead of here, 
perhaps, after we finish this bill. I told him if he helped us work on 
some of this backlog of nominations, maybe that was something we could 
discuss.
  I would like to congratulate both Chairman Shelby and Vice Chairman 
Leahy for their good work, on a bipartisan basis, facilitating a smooth 
process so far. As I said, there have been seven of them, and the 
chairman managed to mark up each prior to the Fourth of July State work 
period. They have done a good job of managing the bills on the floor 
and avoiding a quagmire--which, if encountered, would only kill the 
process.
  I would like to highlight a few of the aspects of each appropriations 
bill we will be working on this week. In the Defense bill, we will be 
including a provision requiring the Department of Defense to issue two 
reports to Congress on the implementation of a bill called Fix NICS. To 
refresh everybody's memory, this was a piece of legislation we passed 
with broad bipartisan support that went to the President. I introduced 
it in light of the shooting last fall in Sutherland Springs, TX, that 
killed 26 people and wounded about 20 more. The gunman in that case had 
been in the Air Force and was discharged, but his criminal convictions 
while he served in the Air Force were not uploaded into the relevant 
FBI databases. That is how he got his hands on a gun that he was 
already legally prohibited from purchasing or possessing and committed 
this mayhem and inflicted this misery.
  That is why this report from the Department of Defense is so 
important. Hopefully, they have remedied this failure to upload 
derogatory and disqualifying information for people who cannot legally 
purchase or possess firearms. We want to make sure--in light of this 
legislative change--that the right changes are being implemented and 
that lives will be saved as a consequence.
  The Defense bill will also greatly benefit the Nation by providing 
additional funding for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and the V-22 
Osprey aircraft, which are both made in Texas. This is important not 
only to make sure our warfighters have the most advanced airframes and 
aircraft available but also to make sure the jobs that go along with it 
are secured as well.
  The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the latest and greatest warplane in 
the American arsenal, and we have put, literally, all of our eggs in 
that basket. As the saying goes, when you put all your eggs in one 
basket, you better take care of that basket. We need to make sure these 
Joint Strike Fighters are being produced in a responsible sort of way 
and that both of these aircraft are being provided so our warfighters 
can have the very best equipment they need in order to do the job we 
asked them to do.
  This bill also provides $30 billion for local school districts that 
provide education to military children. Sometimes this is called impact 
aid because our military bases aren't taxed by local school districts 
when they are then called upon to provide education to the children of 
Active-Duty military or military dependents. It is important the 
Federal Government make sure they have the financial resources they 
need in order to make that happen. Indeed, $30 million in impact aid 
will be provided for local school districts.
  Finally, this includes a 2.6-percent increase in military pay and 
increases Active-Duty troop levels by more than 7,000. Both of those 
are really important. Obviously, in an all-volunteer military, it is 
important that we compensate our servicemembers appropriately. This 
isn't about the money for them, but we have to make sure they can 
provide for their families while they serve our Nation and help keep us 
safe.
  In terms of troop levels, it is important the troop levels match the 
commitments we have made around the world to help stabilize unstable 
regions and to provide safety not only for ourselves but for our 
friends and allies around the world. Unfortunately, because of 
extensive and lengthy commitments we made with a small force, our 
Active-Duty servicemembers are likely to be deployed over and over 
again, with a lot of stress not only on their families but on the force 
effectiveness in general. Both of these are very important--a 2.6-
percent increase in pay for Active-Duty military and increasing troop 
levels by about 7,000.
  In the second bill we will be passing, in addition to the Defense 
appropriations bill, this will fund the Department of Labor, Health and 
Human Services, and provide more funds for biomedical facilities to 
expand, remodel, and renovate their existing research capabilities that 
will benefit a multitude of institutions. Those include the Texas 
Biomedical Research Institute in San Antonio. We know that in the 
healthcare field, nurses are always in short supply. This bill will 
also benefit nursing programs, like the one at Texas Tech University, 
which will assist veterans in making the transition from military life 
to civilian life. Finally, in the education sphere, it will provide 
more than $475 million for charter school programs.


                     Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh

  Madam President, at the same time, we are continuing our work on the 
nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who will succeed Justice Anthony 
Kennedy as Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. His hearing is 
set for the first week of September--September 4. I hope we will move 
quickly thereafter to vote on his confirmation.
  I have perhaps benefited from my familiarity and my acquaintance with 
Judge Kavanaugh, dating back to 2000. Many of our colleagues are just 
now meeting him for the first time and becoming acquainted with his 
outstanding record as a lawyer for the White House and as a judge.
  Late last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee received another 
production of documents on Judge Kavanaugh. This batch amounted to 
about 64,000 pages. Just so everybody can keep count of all the 
documents that are being produced as part of his confirmation hearing, 
the committee now has more than 248,000 pages of executive branch 
material related to the nominee. The reason I mention that number is 
because it really dwarfs the previous record for Judge Gorsuch, which 
was roughly 180,000 documents.
  The committee was also handed a list of documents that were withheld 
on grounds that they are personal records as opposed to government 
records under the Presidential Records Act. Chairman Grassley has 
appropriately--and I think wisely--asked the National Archives to 
review those withheld documents and confirm this determination by 
making their own determination as to whether they are responsive or 
should be withheld. I think this speaks volumes to the transparency of 
the process since day one.
  I am particularly grateful to Chairman Grassley for his leadership, 
as

[[Page S5711]]

well as for the efficiency and thoroughness the committee has so far 
displayed in reviewing the documents. We worked hard to accommodate our 
Democratic colleagues' requests all along the way. Let's not forget 
that for nearly 2 weeks before issuing the committee's request to the 
George W. Bush Presidential Library, Chairman Grassley attempted to 
seek a good-faith agreement from the ranking member to jointly request 
documents relating to Judge Kavanaugh's legal work at the White House. 
These efforts at good-will collaboration, unfortunately, were to no 
avail. The chairman received, instead, unprecedented counterproposals 
designed to unnecessarily draw out the process.
  Although the chairman is right to prioritize review of some of the 
documents coming from President George W. Bush's administration, we all 
know the best evidence of how Judge Kavanaugh will perform as a member 
of the Supreme Court is how he has already performed as a judge during 
the last 12 years on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. He has written 
more than 300 opinions during that time. Of course, his work as a judge 
is the best lens for how he will evaluate real cases in the future. Our 
friends on the other side used to agree with that.
  Back during Justice Sotomayor's hearings, they made this identical 
comment that her judicial record was far more important than any 
comments or speeches she may have made outside of that context. Maybe 
belatedly for them, we now agree with them that this is the best 
evidence. It is just common sense.
  In Judge Kavanaugh's case, reviewing his judicial record, I think 
what the record reveals is, he is diligent and thoughtful in his 
reasoning. His rulings are clear, impartial, and just.
  In the recent questionnaire he returned to the Judiciary Committee--
which is a standard part of the vetting process. Nominees are sent a 
questionnaire, and they respond and attach copies of speeches, law 
review articles, and other things they have spoken on or written. Judge 
Kavanaugh listed what he saw as his most significant cases. I want to 
mention a couple of those. I think they are illustrative of the work he 
has done not only on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals but the kind of 
work he will do as a member of the Supreme Court and his standing in 
the Federal Judiciary.
  First is a case called Free Enterprise Fund. Judge Kavanaugh found 
himself in dissent. In other words, he didn't join the majority 
decision, finding that the structure of an independent agency in the 
executive branch violated the Constitution. Interestingly, when the 
case was appealed thereafter to the Supreme Court, a majority of the 
Justices on the Court cited Judge Kavanaugh's dissent in reversing the 
panel's decision on the District of Columbia Circuit Court. When the 
Supreme Court agrees with a lower court judge and cites that author's 
opinion, that is a pretty good sign that he or she deserves to be taken 
seriously. In Judge Kavanaugh's case, it didn't just happen once.
  Consider a second case, Bluman, which involved a Federal ban on 
election contributions made by foreign nationals. Judge Kavanaugh 
authored the majority opinion, which rejected the plaintiff's 
challenge. When the Supreme Court took the case thereafter, it 
unanimously agreed with Judge Kavanaugh. All nine members of the Court 
sided with Judge Kavanaugh's position.
  In a third case, Wesby, Judge Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion on 
a question of qualified immunity afforded to law enforcement officers. 
Even though Judge Kavanaugh's views did not win the day in the DC 
Circuit, the Supreme Court took the case and reversed the panel 
decision and embraced Judge Kavanaugh's position in the end. Once 
again, it bears repeating that the decision was unanimous--9 to 0. 
Judge Kavanaugh's view was vindicated.

  These are just a few of the 307 opinions he authored while he was on 
the DC Circuit, and, of course, there are many more. In the coming 
weeks, I know the lawyers on the Judiciary Committee, as well as my 
colleagues, will have a chance to thoroughly delve into each of them 
and then ask the nominee probing questions about them when he testifies 
before the committee during the first week of September.
  For now, we will continue with the great paper chase, which includes 
the largest production of documents ever in the Senate's consideration 
of a Supreme Court nominee. Unfortunately, as I have said before, many 
of our Democratic colleagues aren't likely to ever be satisfied with 
the boxes upon boxes of written materials. It will never be enough. In 
some cases, it is because they have already decided to vote no against 
the nominee even before having met the nominee or having reviewed any 
documents whatsoever.
  Emblematic of this phenomenon is one of our colleagues on the Senate 
Judiciary Committee who has threatened to sue to obtain even more 
records. The problem for that Senator is, on the night Judge Kavanaugh 
was nominated by President Trump, he said he had done enough due 
diligence to have reached a conclusion on whether the nominee should be 
confirmed and had said he would not vote for the nominee. Yet this is 
the same Senator who is now saying we ought to file a suit to get more 
documents. I think the American people are smart enough to figure out 
what is going on. It is gamesmanship, plain and simple.
  So my question is, If our colleagues have done enough due diligence 
to make a decision to not support the nomination, why do they need more 
paper? To what avail? Why should we extend this process that will cost 
the taxpayers more money and create a lot of confusion when they have 
already made their decision?
  Despite these games, the truth is, Judge Kavanaugh is eminently 
qualified and well respected by all who know him, and I look forward to 
confirming him as Justice Kavanaugh early this fall, following the 
Judiciary Committee's hearings during the first week of September.
  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. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3705

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise today to call on my colleagues 
to vote in favor of the Menendez-Murkowski amendment No. 3705, which I 
understand we will be shortly voting on on the floor, to provide 
implementation funding for the Firefighter Cancer Registry Act. Many of 
our colleagues supported the authorizing bill when it was before the 
Senate earlier this year, and it was subsequently passed and signed 
into law by President Trump.
  There are many words that come to mind when we think of 
firefighters--``courage,'' ``heroism,'' and ``compassion''--but 
tragically there is another word all too often associated with 
firefighters, and that word is ``cancer.''
  According to the International Association of Firefighters, cancer is 
now the leading cause of death among firefighters. We know that 
firefighters confront more than smoke and flames while on the job; they 
also encounter dangerous fumes and toxins and known carcinogens that 
pose serious health risks.
  The Firefighter Cancer Registry Act we created is the first ever 
national cancer registry for firefighters, and the law directs the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study the relationship 
between career-long exposure to dangerous fumes and toxins and cancer. 
Our Nation's first responders put their lives on the line every day, 
whether it was charging into a burning building on September 11 or 
fighting wildfires out West today. Every day, our firefighters strive 
to protect us. This is the least we can do as a nation to protect them.
  I hope all of us can unite in support of this amendment, which will 
enable the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to carry out its 
mission in the Firefighter Cancer Registry Act.
  I thank my colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, for her stalwart 
commitment to this effort, both on the legislation that became law and 
in the process of trying to get this appropriation.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). The Senator from Nebraska.

[[Page S5712]]

  



                         DPAA Funding Amendment

  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bipartisan 
amendment with my colleague, the junior Senator from Wisconsin. Our 
measure would provide much needed funding for the Defense POW/MIA 
Accounting Agency, or the DPAA, so they can continue the important work 
of identifying and accounting for our missing servicemembers from 
conflicts around the globe.
  Tragically, more than 83,000 Americans remain missing from World War 
II, the Korean war, the Cold War, and the Vietnam war. Many more remain 
unaccounted for as a result of more recent conflicts. The Defense POW/
MIA Accounting Agency is an agency within the Department of Defense 
whose mission is to recover personnel listed as prisoners of war or 
missing in action. Their core task is to provide the fullest possible 
accounting for these personnel to their families and to this Nation. 
The value of the work being done by DPAA cannot be overstated. No 
matter when an American servicemember goes missing, our commitment to 
fully investigating what happened and bringing closure to their family 
should never waver.
  I am honored to represent one of DPAA's forensic laboratories, 
located at Offutt Air Force Base. There, they are currently working to 
identify the sailors lost in the sinking of the USS Oklahoma during 
World War II and conducting forensic identification of the Tuskegee 
Airmen who remain listed as missing in action.
  As a result of North Korea's recent agreement with the United States, 
DPAA's work has taken on added significance. In July, North Korea 
turned over 55 boxes containing the possible remains of DOD personnel 
lost during the Korean war, who must now be processed and identified. 
On several occasions, North Korean officials have indicated they 
possess as many as 200 sets of remains they have recovered over the 
years. To this day, there are still 5,300 U.S. military personnel who 
remain listed as missing in action and are presumed deceased during the 
Korean war, their remains still located in North Korea.
  For the families of those lost, this is a long-awaited opportunity to 
gain closure and to give their loved ones the respectful, dignified 
remembrance they deserve. For that to happen, we must ensure that DPAA 
has the resources it needs to conduct the forensic analysis of these 
new remains and continue working to locate and account for American 
servicemembers. That is why I am offering this amendment, which will 
provide $10 million in fully offset funding to allow DPAA to cover this 
additional workload. By supporting this amendment, we can ensure that 
this influx of new work can be handled without delay and that the 
talented men and women of DPAA have the support necessary to continue 
this important task.
  For the families of those lost in service, it is never too late to 
offer closure, and for our heroes in uniform, it is never too late to 
remember and to honor their sacrifice.
  I thank the junior Senator from Wisconsin, the junior Senator from 
Massachusetts, and all of our cosponsors who have aided in this effort. 
I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment and 
lending our voice to the memory of our missing and fallen 
servicemembers.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 5:30 
votes take place immediately.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 3705

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3705.
  Mrs. FISCHER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), 
the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from 
Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), 
the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), 
the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Idaho (Mr.  
Risch), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. 
Hoeven) would have voted ``yea''.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), 
the Senator from North Dakota (Ms. Heitkamp), the Senator from Oregon 
(Mr. Merkley), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the 
Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 85, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 186 Leg.]

                                YEAS--85

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bennet
     Cruz
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Lee
     McCain
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murray
     Risch
     Schatz
     Toomey
  Amendment (No. 3705) was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 3706

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3706.
  Mr. BLUNT. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), 
the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from 
Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), 
the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), 
the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. 
Risch), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. 
Hoeven) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. Durbin. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), 
the Senator from North Dakota (Ms. Heitkamp), the Senator from Oregon 
(Mr. Merkley), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the 
Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necesssarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 85, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 187 Leg.]

                                YEAS--85

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders

[[Page S5713]]


     Sasse
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bennet
     Cruz
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Lee
     McCain
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murray
     Risch
     Schatz
     Toomey
  The amendment (No. 3706) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                      Amendment Nos. 3773 and 3703

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following amendments be called up en bloc and reported by number: 
Nelson No. 3773, Kennedy No. 3703. I further ask consent that at 12:10 
p.m. on Tuesday, August 21, the Senate vote in relation to the 
amendments in the order listed and that there be no second-degree 
amendments in order to the amendments prior to the votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendments en bloc by number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for others, 
     proposes amendments numbered 3773 and 3703.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3773

(Purpose: To require a Comptroller General of the United States report 
on the implementation of the Military Health System Genesis electronic 
                             health record)

       At the appropriate place in title VIII of division A, 
     insert the following:
       Sec. ___. (a) Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on a 
     study, conducted by the Comptroller General for purposes of 
     the report, on the implementation of the Military Health 
     System (MHS) Genesis electronic health record at the four 
     currently active sites.
       (b) The report shall include the following:
       (1) A description and assessment of the manner in which the 
     Military Health System Genesis electronic health record is 
     addressing the concerns raised by the partial Initial 
     Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) report on the 
     implementation of the record.
       (2) A description and assessment of the performance of 
     Military Health System Genesis in meeting the demands of the 
     four currently active sites.
       (3) A description and assessment of underlying issues in 
     connection with the implementation of Military Health System 
     Genesis.
       (4) A description and assessment of any anticipated delays 
     in the implementation of Military Health System Genesis, 
     including the effect of such delays on the execution of 
     funds.
       (5) Any other matters in connection with the implementation 
     of Military Health System Genesis that the Comptroller 
     General considers appropriate.


                           amendment no. 3703

   (Purpose: To increase funding for the National Suicide Prevention 
                               Lifeline)

       At the appropriate place in title II of division B, insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  (a) There are appropriated under the heading 
     ``Mental Health'' under the heading ``Substance Abuse and 
     Mental Health Services'', in addition to any other amounts 
     made available under such heading and in order to provide 
     additional funding for the National Suicide Prevention 
     Lifeline, $2,802,000.
        (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     total amount appropriated under the heading ``Substance Abuse 
     Treatment'' under the heading ``Substance Abuse and Mental 
     Health Services'' is hereby reduced by $2,802,000.

                          ____________________